No safe haven at Hubble....

So why don't they launch a small crew safe haven and attach it to the back
of hubble. Then we can visit and upgrade hubble for the next ten years at
least. They could load it with extra gyro's so that the thing wouldn't need
visiting as much too.



Nathan Rogers

Blurrt wrote:
So why don't they launch a small crew safe haven and attach it to the back
of hubble. Then we can visit and upgrade hubble for the next ten years at
least. They could load it with extra gyro's so that the thing wouldn't need
visiting as much too.

Because there is no way to get down from said safe-haven.
Not to mention that it'd screw up hubbles pointing.

"Blurrt" wrote in
u:

So why don't they launch a small crew safe haven and attach it to the
back of hubble. Then we can visit and upgrade hubble for the next ten
years at least. They could load it with extra gyro's so that the thing
wouldn't need visiting as much too.

For the price of such a safe haven, you could build another Hubble. Maybe
two.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

For the price of such a safe haven, you could build another Hubble. Maybe
two.

Thats probably true. But such a design produced in quantity could be very
useful.

Done properly they could be left onsite on the moon and in orbit too ready for
use in a emergency
HAVE A GREAT DAY!

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
"Blurrt" wrote in
u:

So why don't they launch a small crew safe haven and attach it to the
back of hubble. Then we can visit and upgrade hubble for the next ten
years at least. They could load it with extra gyro's so that the thing
wouldn't need visiting as much too.

For the price of such a safe haven, you could build another Hubble. Maybe
two.

Ah, but those new hubble's would also need safe havens if they are to be
serviced. And the russians are quite able to build whole station modules for
$100million. All that is needed is somewhere to wait for a replacement
shuttle to arrive. It should have six months worth of food.

Nathan

"Blurrt" wrote in
:


"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
"Blurrt" wrote in
u:

So why don't they launch a small crew safe haven and attach it to
the back of hubble. Then we can visit and upgrade hubble for the
next ten years at least. They could load it with extra gyro's so
that the thing wouldn't need visiting as much too.

For the price of such a safe haven, you could build another Hubble.
Maybe two.

Ah, but those new hubble's would also need safe havens if they are to
be serviced.

Why service them, if you can replace them for less than the cost of a safe
haven and a shuttle mission?

Note that HST is the *only* remaining telescope of NASA's Great
Observatories designed for human servicing - CGRO is gone, and Chandra and
SIRTF were deliberately placed in orbits too high for servicing. JWST will
be placed in such an orbit as well.

And the russians are quite able to build whole station
modules for $100million.

It's currently illegal for the US to buy them.

All that is needed is somewhere to wait for a
replacement shuttle to arrive. It should have six months worth of
food.

The Russians have *never* manned a space station for six months without
resupply.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

"Blurrt" wrote in
u:
So why don't they launch a small crew safe haven and attach it to
the back of hubble. Then we can visit and upgrade hubble for the
next ten years at least. They could load it with extra gyro's so
that the thing wouldn't need visiting as much too.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
For the price of such a safe haven, you could build another Hubble.
Maybe two.

"Blurrt" wrote in
:
Ah, but those new hubble's would also need safe havens if they are to
be serviced.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ...
Why service them, if you can replace them for less
than the cost of a safe haven and a shuttle mission?

Correct.

The reason of keeping Hubble or any other space telescope online is
more of a sentimental reason.

The problem of upgrading old telescopes is that... it will be
restricted to the already established restriction of the old telescope
itself. It would be much better to build and launch new space
telescopes.

If the need is to have a space telescope that can be routinely
serviced, it's much better instead to place telescopes on space
stations.

Note that HST is the *only* remaining telescope of NASA's Great
Observatories designed for human servicing - CGRO is gone, and Chandra and
SIRTF were deliberately placed in orbits too high for servicing. JWST will
be placed in such an orbit as well.

Correct. The space telescopes would be at a disadvantage if they are
placed in low orbit. JWST for example is intentionally put in the L3
point so that it will have both the moon and the Earth to shade it
from the sun.

And the russians are quite able to build whole station
modules for $100million.

It's currently illegal for the US to buy them.

Correct. The problem is that the U.S.A. seems to want Russian stuff,
maybe the ones who made it illegal aren't the U.S.A. themself?
Obviously, there's a third party that wanted these two countries at a
disadvantage.

All that is needed is somewhere to wait for a
replacement shuttle to arrive. It should have
six months worth of food.

The Russians have *never* manned a space station for six months without
resupply.

That's the problem with Mir and the ISS, they need constant resuppply.

A Martian mission should be designed without any resupply at all.


As for safe haven module.

Well... The need of safe haven modules probably would be in the rise
if more numbers of manned missions also rise.

Jorge:

Can you cite a reference where we can see the study where costing of
an HST safe haven was performed?



"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ...
"Blurrt" wrote in
u:

So why don't they launch a small crew safe haven and attach it to the
back of hubble. Then we can visit and upgrade hubble for the next ten
years at least. They could load it with extra gyro's so that the thing
wouldn't need visiting as much too.

For the price of such a safe haven, you could build another Hubble. Maybe
two.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
"Blurrt" wrote in
:


"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
"Blurrt" wrote in
u:

So why don't they launch a small crew safe haven and attach it to
the back of hubble. Then we can visit and upgrade hubble for the
next ten years at least. They could load it with extra gyro's so
that the thing wouldn't need visiting as much too.

For the price of such a safe haven, you could build another Hubble.
Maybe two.

Ah, but those new hubble's would also need safe havens if they are to
be serviced.

Why service them, if you can replace them for less than the cost of a safe
haven and a shuttle mission?


But there will be no funding for an endless stream of hubble's. If the
choice is a simple, cheap safe haven or nothing then I would go for the safe
haven. And if the russians can build cheap modules then surely the US can
too. Modify a station logistics module or use a spacehab module or try out
one of Bigelow Aerospace's upcoming inflatable modules. There are a lot of
cheap alternatives. You are only building a room with enough power and
supplies to wait out a rescue shuttle launch.

I suppose there is the alternative of providing a Super-long duration
orbiter pallet in the cargo hold of all non-station missions. This would
extend the on orbit life (using deployable solar panels and ion thrusters)
of the shuttle. Enough food and air would also have to be provided to wait
out a rescue.

Nathan

(Explorer8939) wrote in
om:

Can you cite a reference where we can see the study where costing of
an HST safe haven was performed?

No. The cost estimate is my own, based on past proposals of similar
capability (e.g. ISF, ISS hab module).


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.