NASA Ready for Hubble Shuttle rescue mission ........then what???

Neil Gerace wrote:
On Jun 18, 9:16 am, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

More or less. Last I checked, the Hubble crew does all the EVAs; the
rescue crew simply leaves the extra EMUs in the airlock.

I'm not following. Is this in case the crew of the maimed orbiter
can't get to the rescue one?

The rescue crew leaves the extra EMUs in their own airlock, not the
airlock of the maimed orbiter.

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:42:55 GMT, "Alan Erskine"
wrote:


I agree technically, but not emotionally - Hubble's irreplaceable in 'our'
minds. If, however, someone decided to build a new version with better
optics and digital sensors.... WOW!

They've been replacing instruments ("digital sensors") on every
servicing flight. The original Wide Field / Planetary Camera was
replaced in 1993 with WFPC 2. WFPC2 will be replaced by Wide Field
Camera on 125. In 1997, NICMOS replaced the High Resolution
Spectrograph and the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph replaced the
Faint Object Spectrograph. Advanced Camera for Surveys replaced the
Faint Object Camera in 2002.

And yes, it could be launched on an ELV and serviced via Orion/Dragon.
Think of it this way - the shuttle was limited to 14.5-15 tonnes into LEO -

Um, Compton Gamma Ray Observatory was 17 tonnes (18.75 tons) and that
was in the days before Super Lightweight Tank. And GRO was at 280
miles altitude.

Delta IV Heavy can put 23.5 tonnes into LEO and Falcon 9 Heavy 29.6 tonnes -

Falcon 9 Heavy doesn't exist. Neither does Falcon 9. Even Falcon 1 has
yet to actually put a payload in orbit. And to what altitude are these
numbers? 120 miles, probably.

almost twice the mass of Hubble; so the image systems would be at least
twice (4x?) as good.

No, you've got the math backwards.

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:

Falcon 9 Heavy doesn't exist. Neither does Falcon 9.


They are slowly adding engines to the first Falcon 9:
http://www.spacex.com/updates.php

Pat

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:52:41 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:

They are slowly adding engines to the first Falcon 9:
http://www.spacex.com/updates.php

....And the first time the thing docks with ISS, no doubt someone will
crack the pun "Enter the Dragon" :-)

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

Brian Thorn wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:42:55 GMT, "Alan Erskine"
wrote:

And yes, it could be launched on an ELV and serviced via Orion/Dragon.
Think of it this way - the shuttle was limited to 14.5-15 tonnes into LEO -

Um, Compton Gamma Ray Observatory was 17 tonnes (18.75 tons) and that
was in the days before Super Lightweight Tank. And GRO was at 280
miles altitude.

I think Chandra was even heavier as a shuttle payload, due to the IUS.

The idea that the shuttle is limited to 15t to LEO is bunk.

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:58:14 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

Think of it this way - the shuttle was limited to 14.5-15 tonnes into LEO -

Um, Compton Gamma Ray Observatory was 17 tonnes (18.75 tons) and that
was in the days before Super Lightweight Tank. And GRO was at 280
miles altitude.

I think Chandra was even heavier as a shuttle payload, due to the IUS.

Yeah, all the IUS flights were 20 tonnes or more, and Chandra was
around 23 tonnes (on overweight Columbia, yet!). But Alan said LEO, so
I only cited a LEO payload that was heavier than his "limit".

The idea that the shuttle is limited to 15t to LEO is bunk.

Agreed.

Brian

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

I think Chandra was even heavier as a shuttle payload, due to the IUS.

The idea that the shuttle is limited to 15t to LEO is bunk.

Of course the payload capacity is related to what orbital inclination
and altitude is desired, which is why Columbia wasn't used for flights
to the ISS due to its higher weight than the other orbiters.

Pat

Brian Thorn wrote:
The idea that the shuttle is limited to 15t to LEO is bunk.


Agreed.


Has anyone ever done a graph of max Shuttle payloads to different
orbital inclinations and altitudes?
I imagine it also varies a bit from particular orbiter to orbiter.

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...


Jorge R. Frank wrote:

I think Chandra was even heavier as a shuttle payload, due to the IUS.

The idea that the shuttle is limited to 15t to LEO is bunk.

Of course the payload capacity is related to what orbital inclination and
altitude is desired, which is why Columbia wasn't used for flights to the
ISS due to its higher weight than the other orbiters.

It's not the payload to orbit; it's the return mass that's critical - that
is limited. Columbia was limited to 14.5 tonnes, but the later orbiters
were lighter - this has two effects: either increased return payload, or
less payload due to structural strength.

Payload to LEO varied from orbiter to orbiter - 21.3 tonnes was the lightest
payload (from memory), with about 24 tonnes being the heaviest.

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 08:02:36 GMT, "Alan Erskine"
wrote:

It's not the payload to orbit; it's the return mass that's critical - that
is limited. Columbia was limited to 14.5 tonnes, but the later orbiters
were lighter - this has two effects: either increased return payload, or
less payload due to structural strength.

14.5 tonnes, however, is a lot more than any of the MPLM return
weights to date. Columbia came home with Spacelab and the EDO pallet
(together pushing 14 tonnes) in the payload bay eight or nine times.
This wasn't an issue, the problem was always Columbia's payload
capacity to ISS orbit. Columbia could have probably handled STS-116
and STS-118, though. It was pencilled in for one of them. It could
also have done missions in the STS-131 and STS-133 class (Express
pallets), which is probably what NASA would have done to keep Columbia
busy in a world without the 107 accident.

Payload to LEO varied from orbiter to orbiter - 21.3 tonnes was the lightest
payload (from memory),

Lightest "max payload" of an Orbiter? No...

with about 24 tonnes being the heaviest.

It's a curiosity that the heaviest payload also flew on the least
powerful Orbiter. STS-93 (Chandra/IUS) flew on Columbia, which weighed
7,000 lbs. more than Discovery-Atlantis-Endeavour.

Brian