Hubble to be abandoned

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
Dave Michelson wrote in
news:vxtOb.154295$JQ1.7310@pd7tw1no:


OM wrote:

...Here's a question: are the current Soyuz versions EVA-capable?

And can they even get up to Hubble's altitude?

IIRC, Hubble nominally orbits at 550+ km. Soyuz's ceiling is only 425
km, which sets the maximum useful altitude for ISS.


Inclination is a bigger barrier, but point well-taken.



If they launch Soyuz from Kourou, it'll be only about 18 degrees
of inclination change and they also get the equitorial kick.

Charles Buckley wrote in
:

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
Dave Michelson wrote in
news:vxtOb.154295$JQ1.7310@pd7tw1no:


OM wrote:

...Here's a question: are the current Soyuz versions EVA-capable?

And can they even get up to Hubble's altitude?

IIRC, Hubble nominally orbits at 550+ km. Soyuz's ceiling is only 425
km, which sets the maximum useful altitude for ISS.


Inclination is a bigger barrier, but point well-taken.



If they launch Soyuz from Kourou, it'll be only about 18 degrees
of inclination change and they also get the equitorial kick.

There are no plans currently for the Soyuz pad at Kourou to support manned
launches.


--
JRF

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

Charles Buckley wrote in
:

Brian Thorn wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 09:45:48 -0700, Charles Buckley
wrote:


Don't think so. But, this would be a known mod to the system.
They do have an airlock and if they use this in combination with
an ATV as a work platform, they might be able to manage something.


I don't see this as feasible. Shuttle can support up to six spacewalks
per mission (not including contingency EVAs) and has historically
needed at least five to service Hubble. Soyuz will never have anything
close to that capability.

And where would nthey carry replacement instruments, gyros, batteries,
and other things Hubble needs?

That is why I mentioned ATV. It is a pressurized cargo carrier
that would provide all of the missing components you mentioned.

HST has no accommodations (docking mechanism, ATV retroreflectors, GPS) for
an ATV docking.


--
JRF

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

On 18 Jan 2004 19:02:59 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

There are no plans currently for the Soyuz pad at Kourou to support manned
launches.

....Which brings up the next question: Just what exactly separates an
unmanned site from a manned-capable one? On-site toilets instead of
port-a-lets?

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 11:28:33 -0700, Charles Buckley
wrote:


I don't see this as feasible. Shuttle can support up to six spacewalks
per mission (not including contingency EVAs) and has historically
needed at least five to service Hubble. Soyuz will never have anything
close to that capability.

And where would nthey carry replacement instruments, gyros, batteries,
and other things Hubble needs?

That is why I mentioned ATV. It is a pressurized cargo carrier
that would provide all of the missing components you mentioned.

I doubt very much that you'd be able to squeeze WF/PC-3 or the Gyros
through the hatch of an ATV (which is the smaller Soyuz/Mir style
hatch, not the big US CBM hatch) and I'm certain the phone-booth sized
axial bay instruments won't fit through one. You'd need an
unpressurized carrier, and that's diverting quite a bit from a stock
ATV, nevermind and off-the-shelf Soyuz.

And how would you dock this thing to Hubble?

Brian

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 13:06:28 -0600, OM
om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org
wrote:


...Which brings up the next question: Just what exactly separates an
unmanned site from a manned-capable one? On-site toilets instead of
port-a-lets?

We'll find out when CEV gets rolling.

Brian

OM om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org
wrote in :

On 18 Jan 2004 19:02:59 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

There are no plans currently for the Soyuz pad at Kourou to support
manned launches.

...Which brings up the next question: Just what exactly separates an
unmanned site from a manned-capable one? On-site toilets instead of
port-a-lets?

As background, a lot of the confusion stems from the fact that the Soyuz
rocket and the Soyuz spacecraft share a name. The Kourou facility is for
the rocket. It has no handling facilities for the Soyuz spacecraft, most
importantly hypergolic loading. And as far as I know, there are no
provisions for crew ingress/egress on the pad.


--
JRF

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

Brian Thorn wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 11:28:33 -0700, Charles Buckley
wrote:



I don't see this as feasible. Shuttle can support up to six spacewalks
per mission (not including contingency EVAs) and has historically
needed at least five to service Hubble. Soyuz will never have anything
close to that capability.

And where would nthey carry replacement instruments, gyros, batteries,
and other things Hubble needs?


That is why I mentioned ATV. It is a pressurized cargo carrier
that would provide all of the missing components you mentioned.


I doubt very much that you'd be able to squeeze WF/PC-3 or the Gyros
through the hatch of an ATV (which is the smaller Soyuz/Mir style
hatch, not the big US CBM hatch) and I'm certain the phone-booth sized
axial bay instruments won't fit through one. You'd need an
unpressurized carrier, and that's diverting quite a bit from a stock
ATV, nevermind and off-the-shelf Soyuz.

And how would you dock this thing to Hubble?


That's the messy part. The only way I am seeing to start with
would be external assembly on the ATV to mount a robotic arm and
docking ring. Have the Soyuz in place in advance with GPS and
have it as the primary vehicle for the Soyuz/ATV meeting. Then,
not really dock the ATV so much as do a capture on Hubble with
the arm. I think the longeron trunnions are still on the Hubble
to provide additional mount points.

If worse comes to worse, you do the one flight to resupply the
core manuevering equipment and volatiles, then come back later.
At what point will it lose it ability to maintain orbit or
basic stability? My understanding is that the 2-gyro issue
everyone is speaking about is for the precision guidance of the
system, not the control of the overall system. If you can
keep the Hubble from tumbling and have sone degree of control, then
the possibility is open for return trips.

I'd look in the first flight to add the pieces to make later
flights possible. If it needs a GPS reciever, is there any
reason why one could not be brought up? While the initial docking
looks to be very tricky, the possibility of adding in a docking ring
based off the mount points used for the original launch is there.
Consequent flights would have a much easier time of it.

But, Jorge has pointed out the manned Soyuz issue in Kourou.
Such is life.

All I know is that shuttle is not going to go to Hubble. I don't
particularly *care* one way or another, but this looks to be an
interesting puzzle.

.....There is NO promise that CEV or
anything we need to get back to the Moon or to Mars will be ready in the near
term.

Given that it was publicly proposed on Wednesday, probably not. We
will see how it goes when development begins.
BRBR

And therein lies the pathetic part: we're not even in DEVELOPMENT of CEV. And
apparently the shuttle will be done in 2010. I'm worried we're headed into a
similar situation we had at the end of Apollo: retiring existing hardware when
the next thing in line could be years off.

Granted, the shuttle needs to go. But we should have been better prepared for
this eventuality.

But back to topic: the loss of Hubble. It still bothers me that, again,
existing PROVEN hardware being scrapped for something else that isn't even a
blip on the radar. Screams "mistake" to me. But hey, I just live in the asylum,
I don't run it.

Oh and trust me, Bush will be using a similar excuse when Congress kills his
Space plan. The inventor of the bomb doesn't drop it.

*sighs* It just frustrates me to no end that it's come to this.

"Matt Periolat" wrote in message

And therein lies the pathetic part: we're not even in DEVELOPMENT of CEV.
And
apparently the shuttle will be done in 2010. I'm worried we're headed into
a
similar situation we had at the end of Apollo: retiring existing hardware
when
the next thing in line could be years off.

Granted, the shuttle needs to go. But we should have been better prepared
for
this eventuality.

Yes, but there is this (at least):

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...s/con01164.xml

Jon