|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
News: Hubble plans and policy
On 27 Jul 2003 11:16:59 GMT, rk
wrote: It's the NY Times. It seems that self-contradictions in the paper's articles are becoming increasingly common. ....That's what they get for plagiarizing from multiple sources, instead of picking one crackpot and sticking with whatever drivel they're vomiting all over the topic in question. 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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
News: Hubble plans and policy
Mary Shafer wrote in
: On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 05:11:47 -0600, Charles Buckley wrote: Recovery? That would mean loading a big heavy Hubble into the payload bay of a shuttle and returning it to Earth, correct? I suspect that Hubble would be pushing the return capability of the Shuttle. Er, Hubble was launched in the Orbiter and the Orbiter never carries anything it can't land with safely. Otherwise the abort modes would be impossible. That was my answer, too... I've since learned that only the "nominal" landing weight/CG limits are certified for multiple landings; the "abort" limits are certified for one time only. That doesn't mean the airframe is a write-off after an abort landing, but it does mean NASA would want to go over it a little more thoroughly than normal. Hubble definitely falls under the nominal landing weight limit; it's only 24,500 lb, well under half the shuttle's lift capacity. I'm not sure about the CG limit, but as you say, it has to be within the abort limit or they wouldn't have launched it in the first place. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
News: Hubble plans and policy
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
News: Hubble plans and policy
On or about 27 Jul 2003 22:04:58 GMT, Jorge R. Frank
made the sensational claim that: A plane change from HST to ISS requires a minimum delta-V of around 3,000 m/s. Pfthp! That's only half of what a plane change at the Atlanta airport needs. -- This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
News: Hubble plans and policy
Mary Shafer wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 05:11:47 -0600, Charles Buckley wrote: Recovery? That would mean loading a big heavy Hubble into the payload bay of a shuttle and returning it to Earth, correct? I suspect that Hubble would be pushing the return capability of the Shuttle. Er, Hubble was launched in the Orbiter and the Orbiter never carries anything it can't land with safely. Otherwise the abort modes would be impossible. Mary I really should quit responding with short notes. The other vehicles all have had modifications which have different constraints now than when the Hubble was originally launched. The return would have Hubble with it's CG located in a rather different location than what it had when it was launched in the first place. They either need to remodify the Shuttle's to match the original config, or they need to look long and hard at what affect moving the CG will have. My understanding, which could be wrong, is that the weight limit is also conditional about where the weight is applied. I am thinking that the center of the bay has a lot less structural intergrity than the fore or aft sections. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
News: Hubble plans and policy
On 27 Jul 2003 23:59:31 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote: Mary Shafer wrote in : On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 05:11:47 -0600, Charles Buckley wrote: Recovery? That would mean loading a big heavy Hubble into the payload bay of a shuttle and returning it to Earth, correct? I suspect that Hubble would be pushing the return capability of the Shuttle. Er, Hubble was launched in the Orbiter and the Orbiter never carries anything it can't land with safely. Otherwise the abort modes would be impossible. That was my answer, too... I've since learned that only the "nominal" landing weight/CG limits are certified for multiple landings; the "abort" limits are certified for one time only. That doesn't mean the airframe is a write-off after an abort landing, but it does mean NASA would want to go over it a little more thoroughly than normal. Hubble definitely falls under the nominal landing weight limit; it's only 24,500 lb, well under half the shuttle's lift capacity. I'm not sure about the CG limit, but as you say, it has to be within the abort limit or they wouldn't have launched it in the first place. If they choose not to recover the Hubble, they should take pictures of currently restricted objects. Hubble should do a survey of Mercury (currently a restricted object because it is never very far from the glare of the Sun). -- Rusty Barton - Antelope, California |"Every so often, I like to Visit my Titan I ICBM website at: | stick my head out the window, http://www.geocities.com/titan_1_missile | look up, and smile for the | satellite picture."-Steven Wright |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
News: Hubble plans and policy
In article ,
Jorge R. Frank wrote: (and then after the retrieval, you get to rework that orbiter again to put things back the way they were). NASA can avoid the post-flight mod by doing the retrieval mission on an orbiter slated to be retired after the flight anyway (which was the original plan for Columbia after the HST retrieval mission, in 2009 or so). However, it was easy to talk about retiring Columbia, since it was the oldest orbiter and also (by a considerable margin) the least capable. There's no such obvious victim any more, and with the fleet down to three, I doubt that anyone is going to seriously contemplate any retirements until the whole shuttle program is on the brink of retirement. -- MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! | |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
News: Hubble plans and policy
Charles Buckley wrote in
: The other vehicles all have had modifications which have different constraints now than when the Hubble was originally launched. The return would have Hubble with it's CG located in a rather different location than what it had when it was launched in the first place. They either need to remodify the Shuttle's to match the original config, or they need to look long and hard at what affect moving the CG will have. Oh, they will, they will. The flight design process for every shuttle flight includes calculation of sequential mass properties (mass, CG, and moments/products of inertia) for every major event in the flight, from launch to landing, accounting for the unique config of each orbiter and the depletion of propellants and other consumables, for both the nominal mission and all intact abort modes. My understanding, which could be wrong, is that the weight limit is also conditional about where the weight is applied. I am thinking that the center of the bay has a lot less structural intergrity than the fore or aft sections. Yes, that would be the CG limit. The orbiter is rather fussy about the CG location during entry/landing. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
News: Hubble plans and policy
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 05:11:47 -0600, Charles Buckley
wrote: Recovery? That would mean loading a big heavy Hubble into the payload bay of a shuttle and returning it to Earth, correct? I suspect that Hubble would be pushing the return capability of the Shuttle. Nope, it's around 24,000 lbs., about the same as Spacelab, and significantly less than Spacelabs that flew with the EDO pallet. Brian |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
News: Hubble plans and policy
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hubble Economics | Bill Clark | Space Shuttle | 34 | January 28th 04 03:22 PM |
Hubble Economics - modern math? | Bill Clark | Space Science Misc | 19 | January 23rd 04 04:38 AM |
Hubble Economics - modern math? | Bill Clark | Policy | 10 | January 20th 04 08:53 PM |
Bush Space Policy Announcement Next Week? | Brian Thorn | Policy | 19 | January 13th 04 06:04 PM |
Moon key to space future? | James White | Policy | 90 | January 6th 04 05:29 PM |