[FWD] Congress tells NASA not to give up on manned Hubble service mission

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/07/13/hubble.fix/

....Looks like *possibly* Congress has at least two pairs of balls
between them for a change.

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

I have been away from the group for a while.
What is the science involved for the following questions

Could Hubble be captured and have its orbit changed to be in a better orbit
so a service mission could get to ISS in an emergency?

Assume the following:
Hubble stays in current orbit.
Service mission is flown to Hubble with max flight duration supplies and
equipment.
If a shuttle had to get from Hubble to station for emergency can that be
done.

I am asking the science here, money and politics later.

"OM" om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote
in message ...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/07/13/hubble.fix/

...Looks like *possibly* Congress has at least two pairs of balls
between them for a change.

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

"Joe Hecht" wrote in
ink.net:

Could Hubble be captured and have its orbit changed to be in a better
orbit so a service mission could get to ISS in an emergency?

Not practical with conventional propulsion. And the vicinity of ISS is not
a particularly good place for HST to be, due to contamination issues and a
too-low altitude.

It could perhaps be possible with ion propulsion, and one company is
proposing a vehicle to do that. See other thread for URL. In any case the
big challenge will be autonomous (or even teleoperated) rendezvous and
capture of a non-cooperative target. Again, see other thread for
discussion.

Assume the following:
Hubble stays in current orbit.
Service mission is flown to Hubble with max flight duration supplies
and equipment.
If a shuttle had to get from Hubble to station for emergency can that
be done.

No, absolutely not, not just "no" but "Hell No". You could pack a shuttle
to the brim with propellant and still only have a fraction of what would be
required to reach ISS from HST's current orbit.

--
JRF

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

No, absolutely not, not just "no" but "Hell No". You could pack a shuttle
to the brim with propellant and still only have a fraction of what would
be
required to reach ISS from HST's current orbit.

--
JRF

Can you tell us the orbital inclinations of the ISS and HST?


Thanks,
JD

No, absolutely not, not just "no" but "Hell No". You could pack a
shuttle
to the brim with propellant and still only have a fraction of what would
be
required to reach ISS from HST's current orbit.

--
JRF

Can you tell us the orbital inclinations of the ISS and HST?


Thanks,
JD


ISS is at about 56 degrees, HST is at about 28.5

JC
IN

"OM" om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote
in message ...
...Looks like *possibly* Congress has at least two pairs of balls
between them for a change.

Hillary willing to share?

In article ,
Brian Thorn wrote:
which gives inclinations of 28.4674 for HST, 51.6302 for ISS. YMMV, since
these files are updated regularly.

Um... inclinations don't change, do they?

To a first approximation, they don't. Looked at quite closely, they do.

I don't think there is generally any secular change in them -- that is,
a steady drift in one direction -- but various things cause them to
oscillate a bit, and the oscillations can be slow enough and complicated
enough that the pattern of change doesn't obviously repeat on the time
scales of interest.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

"JOE HECHT" wrote in
nk.net:

If the shuttle is
1. Configured for long duration flight
2. Does early randevous, secure and burn with HST

If the low delta v you talk is applied and given several days could
the orbital changes be made?

No. This is an "impulsive" plane change; you either have enough delta-V to
do it, or you don't. If you don't, no amount of waiting will help. And the
shuttle doesn't, not by an order of magnitude or more. Remember, the "low"
delta-V I mentioned was over 3 km/s; the shuttle's OMS capability is 0.3
km/s - half of which is expended to get to HST's altitude, and the other
half of which must be saved to get back home.

Are there things on the shuttle that could be taken off to reduce
other weight to make burn more effective?

No.

How much delta v do small thursters have?

Roughly speaking, each RCS pod has about 10% of the capability of both OMS
tanks put together, or about 0.09 km/s total. Of course, you can't spend
all of that on plane change; you need to hold back about half of each aft
pod for entry flight control, and a bit more in all three pods for prox ops
and sep.

Can they slowly push the
shuttle down or left and right?

Yes, but not nearly enough to perform such a massive plange change.


--
JRF

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

So you are saying a .3km/s over many days will not get you that far.
Am I understanding this right?
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
"JOE HECHT" wrote in
nk.net:

If the shuttle is
1. Configured for long duration flight
2. Does early randevous, secure and burn with HST

If the low delta v you talk is applied and given several days could
the orbital changes be made?

No. This is an "impulsive" plane change; you either have enough delta-V to
do it, or you don't. If you don't, no amount of waiting will help. And the
shuttle doesn't, not by an order of magnitude or more. Remember, the "low"
delta-V I mentioned was over 3 km/s; the shuttle's OMS capability is 0.3
km/s - half of which is expended to get to HST's altitude, and the other
half of which must be saved to get back home.

Are there things on the shuttle that could be taken off to reduce
other weight to make burn more effective?

No.

How much delta v do small thursters have?

Roughly speaking, each RCS pod has about 10% of the capability of both OMS
tanks put together, or about 0.09 km/s total. Of course, you can't spend
all of that on plane change; you need to hold back about half of each aft
pod for entry flight control, and a bit more in all three pods for prox
ops
and sep.

Can they slowly push the
shuttle down or left and right?

Yes, but not nearly enough to perform such a massive plange change.


--
JRF

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

"JOE HECHT" wrote in
ink.net:

So you are saying a .3km/s over many days will not get you that far.
Am I understanding this right?

0.3 km/s won't get you there no matter how many days you spread it over.


--
JRF

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