|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
OM wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 17:37:41 -0700, Charles Buckley wrote: What would it really cost to use Soyuz to boost Hubble in the 2008 timeframe? Can they service the gyro's with Soyuz, or will it require an additional launch from another source? ...Here's a question: are the current Soyuz versions EVA-capable? OM 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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Henry Spencer wrote:
In article , Scott Lowther wrote: It doesn't matter *how* the servicing is done or from where using what launcher, just so's it's done economically. I mean, jeez. A Shuttle HST mission costs $500M. Remember that the shuttle cost is almost all fixed annual overhead. The cost of *adding* one more flight to existing shuttle operations is nowhere near $500M; last I heard, it was estimated at $50-100M, depending on how much custom preparation is needed. The Hubble-specific side of preparations, which isn't trivial, is the same regardless. (If it can be streamlined with another vehicle, it can be streamlined with the shuttle.) Except that lots of little bits of existing support equipment and operations procedures are shuttle-specific, and modifying or rebuilding them is an extra cost of using something else. Pushing this off the shuttle and saying "use something else" is either major false economy, or an attempt to kill the mission without actually quite saying so. It actually doesn't cost that much to use the shuttle for it; I doubt greatly that you can do it much more cheaply on something else, all other things being equal. The way I read it is that O'Keefe sees the safety argument as a great excuse to head the astronomers off at the pass, firmly eliminating any possibility that he will later be lobbied for extended Hubble operations, more servicing flights, more improvements and extensions, etc. He might have been inclined to go ahead with the one planned servicing flight... but if he permits one visit, that ruins his silver-bullet argument that reliably kills all later pleas for more money. So even that one flight has got to go; the grief he'll take over canceling it will pay off in avoiding later hassles. I am looking at using other platforms from the perspective of: Shuttle isn't doing this. Is there anything else? NASA is going to follow all the parts of the CAIB that they agree with. After all the flack they have taken to date over following procedures and best practice, cancelling Hubble is a good easy way for them to show they are following as many of the recommendations from the CAIB as possible. By spending nothing and freeing up the incremental costs of another flight, they meet all the recommendations about having an independant inspection and repair capbility for all flights not going to ISS. Since this is the only one slated, all they have to do is not fly it and comply with CAIB without spending anything. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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? Brian |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Brian Thorn 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. One HST mission involved planning for seven (!) spacewalks, and will presumably have had consumables for eight (the door-close contingency) That's pushing close to the on-orbit lifetime of a Soyuz in and of itself, not counting anything else... -- -Andrew Gray |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Darren J Longhorn wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 02:32:35 -0600, Pat Flannery wrote: Scott Lowther wrote: Oh for... see, this is what I was afraid of. Granted, something like HST cannot last forever, but it seems we're sacrificing something.... So, fly repair missions with something other than Shuttle. Okay.. what do you know that the Air Force has that _we_ don't know about? Wouldn't YOU like to know... No, no, think Navy: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/spauiser.htm About that... I've got the layout drawings, and started cobbling together a 1/18 scale model. Anybody interested? -- Scott Lowther, Engineer Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 17:35:43 GMT, Scott Lowther
wrote: Darren J Longhorn wrote: No, no, think Navy: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/spauiser.htm About that... I've got the layout drawings, and started cobbling together a 1/18 scale model. Anybody interested? Absolutely. I'm still working on my flying model. My current plan is approximately 1/7.5 scale, though I've been considering boosting the scale to 1/6 so I can include a pilot. Want to share anymore of the material you have? Incidentally, I recently got a drawing from Hamilton Sundstrand that's similar to the low-res one you were good enough send me a while back. You probably already have it, but if not you're welcome to a copy. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA Is Not Giving Up On Hubble! (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 2 | May 2nd 04 01:46 PM |
Congressional Resolutions on Hubble Space Telescope | EFLASPO | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | April 1st 04 03:26 PM |
Don't Desert Hubble | Scott M. Kozel | Space Shuttle | 54 | March 5th 04 04:38 PM |
Don't Desert Hubble | Scott M. Kozel | Policy | 46 | February 17th 04 05:33 PM |
Hubble images being colorized to enhance their appeal for public - LA Times | Rusty B | Policy | 4 | September 15th 03 10:38 AM |