A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

News: Hubble plans and policy



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 28th 03, 12:12 AM
OM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 28th 03, 12:59 AM
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #24  
Old July 28th 03, 01:04 AM
LooseChanj
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 28th 03, 01:38 AM
Charles Buckley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 28th 03, 01:42 AM
Rusty Barton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 28th 03, 01:55 AM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 28th 03, 01:59 AM
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 28th 03, 03:23 AM
Brian Thorn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.