Hubble to be abandoned

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in
:

There's also the small matter of how the shuttle crew will ingress the
Soyuz, since the current Soyuz variations do not appear to have EVA
capability.

I take this part back; the three remaining shuttles are equipped with the
Orbiter Docking System, and the four Soyuz craft could be equipped with
APAS for compatibility.


--
JRF

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

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

I take this part back; the three remaining shuttles are equipped with the
Orbiter Docking System, and the four Soyuz craft could be equipped with
APAS for compatibility.


Would those be within their weight limits? And there is still the
problem of altitude and orbital inclination. How about sticking three or
four Soyuz RVs in the cargo bay, and if the gets damaged, EVA to the
Soyuz RVs, fire the OMS pods by remote control for reentry deceleration
with the cargo bay doors open and then separate the RVs? But at some
point this becomes more trouble than it's worth.
I'm still waiting to see who gets to see the giant shiny glass frisbee
go by when the HST reenters.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote in
:

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

I take this part back; the three remaining shuttles are equipped with
the Orbiter Docking System, and the four Soyuz craft could be equipped
with APAS for compatibility.


Would those be within their weight limits?

I'm not sure what you're referring to; "those" could be either ODS or APAS;
"their" could be either shuttle or Soyuz. If the former, STS-103 carried an
ODS as the shuttle airlock for HST SM-03A. If the latter, Soyuz TM-16
carried an APAS mechanism at Mir in 1993.

And there is still the
problem of altitude and orbital inclination.

Agreed there.

How about sticking three
or four Soyuz RVs in the cargo bay, and if the gets damaged, EVA to
the Soyuz RVs, fire the OMS pods by remote control for reentry
deceleration with the cargo bay doors open and then separate the RVs?
But at some point this becomes more trouble than it's worth.

Yeah, the schemes are beginning to sound pretty Rube Goldberg-ish.

I'm still waiting to see who gets to see the giant shiny glass frisbee
go by when the HST reenters.

Hopefully it won't come to that, unless you're on a chartered cruise in the
South Pacific.
--
JRF

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

Jorge R. Frank wrote:



I take this part back; the three remaining shuttles are equipped with
the Orbiter Docking System, and the four Soyuz craft could be equipped
with APAS for compatibility.



Would those be within their weight limits?

I was thinking APAS/Soyuz.


I'm not sure what you're referring to; "those" could be either ODS or APAS;
"their" could be either shuttle or Soyuz. If the former, STS-103 carried an
ODS as the shuttle airlock for HST SM-03A. If the latter, Soyuz TM-16
carried an APAS mechanism at Mir in 1993.

That solves that then. Is there any air pressure compatibility problem
between Shuttle/Soyuz?

How about sticking three
or four Soyuz RVs in the cargo bay, and if the gets damaged, EVA to
the Soyuz RVs, fire the OMS pods by remote control for reentry
deceleration with the cargo bay doors open and then separate the RVs?
But at some point this becomes more trouble than it's worth.



Yeah, the schemes are beginning to sound pretty Rube Goldberg-ish.


Four Soyuz TM modules would weigh around 12,000 kg, which cuts
significantly into the Shuttle's payload size- but it does give it a
escape system usable on-orbit. You can do it with three if you can
figure out a way to get the crew to the RVs without bulky EVA suits
Cut the Shuttle crew to a max of six, and you can get by with two with
the above proviso... and at that point, it seems almost reasonable to
give the Shuttle this ability.
I think it would be worth the risk of flying a "one off" HST upgrade
mission with the Shuttle as is; but am concerned that this would set a
unfortunate precedent in regards to Shuttle flights, as the "we got away
with it once...therefore we can do this all the time" type of mentality
that both the Challenger and Columbia loss investigations found was a
problem at NASA might reassert itself.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote in
:

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

I take this part back; the three remaining shuttles are equipped
with the Orbiter Docking System, and the four Soyuz craft could be
equipped with APAS for compatibility.

Would those be within their weight limits?

I was thinking APAS/Soyuz.

I'm not sure what you're referring to; "those" could be either ODS or
APAS; "their" could be either shuttle or Soyuz. If the former, STS-103
carried an ODS as the shuttle airlock for HST SM-03A. If the latter,
Soyuz TM-16 carried an APAS mechanism at Mir in 1993.

That solves that then. Is there any air pressure compatibility
problem between Shuttle/Soyuz?

No problem; both are 14.7 psia. Both have been docked to Mir/ISS simo with
hatches open.


--
JRF

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

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in
:


There's also the small matter of how the shuttle crew will ingress the
Soyuz, since the current Soyuz variations do not appear to have EVA
capability.


I take this part back; the three remaining shuttles are equipped with the
Orbiter Docking System, and the four Soyuz craft could be equipped with
APAS for compatibility.





As an aside away from the Hubble question entirely...

I am not that familiar with the ATV and it's docking
capability, but I am curious to know what sort of system
could be made between ATV and Soyuz.

Basically, I am curious as to whether the combination of these
could be used as the core of a man tended short duration space
station.

Charles Buckley wrote in
:

I am not that familiar with the ATV and it's docking
capability, but I am curious to know what sort of system
could be made between ATV and Soyuz.

Basically, I am curious as to whether the combination of these
could be used as the core of a man tended short duration space
station.

Basically, swap out the active docking probe on ATV for a passive drogue,
and swap the active Kurs system for a passive one. Then a Soyuz could dock
to the front. The ATV would lose the capability to actively rendezvous/dock
with ISS, however.

(Actually, I think only the first - or first few - ATVs are slated to carry
Kurs at all; it's being used as a backup/validation for ESA's homegrown
rendezvous/docking sensors.)


--
JRF

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

In article , Charles Buckley wrote:

I am not that familiar with the ATV and it's docking
capability, but I am curious to know what sort of system
could be made between ATV and Soyuz.

Basically, I am curious as to whether the combination of these
could be used as the core of a man tended short duration space
station.

An ESA Salyut, as it were? It's an interesting thought; not sure how
well Soyuz can "hibernate", or ATV function, without using station
resources, though, and there might be power-supply issues. The hull
would work well, though, and no doubt putting an ECLSS together for a
couple of weeks wouldn't be a mission-killer...

ATV has much less living space, though; 14m^3 habitable volume - about
half again as much as a Soyuz. More than enough consumables, mind you
:-)

So, hmm. Soyuz-TMA, fourteen-day planned life; this would give you ten
days, reliably, in your mini-station; leaves a safety margin either
side. Interesting concept...

--
-Andrew Gray

On 19 Jan 2004 00:45:12 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

Charles Buckley wrote in
:

Tom Abbott wrote:

How about planning a shuttle mission to Hubble, with a
Soyuz or two standing by for rescue if the shuttle is
damaged during launch?

Got the answer to that when I mentioned a Soyuz mission to
Hubble. The only facilities where manned soyuz vehicles can
be launched from can't reach Hubble's inclination. The only
facility being built in the next few years does not handle
manned soyuz..

Someone on s.s.shuttle told me there were plans for manned Soyuz flights
from Kourou, but I've seen no independent verification of this.

The bigger problem with Tom's plan is that it would take 4 Soyuzes to
rescue a 7-member shuttle crew (and with all the EVAs that will be required
for the next HST servicing mission, it *will* take 7). There's also the
small matter of how the shuttle crew will ingress the Soyuz, since the
current Soyuz variations do not appear to have EVA capability.



I was wondering if the Hubble repair could get by with
just a minimal crew. I guess you answered that.

I read in the New York Times today that there is a plan
circulating which would time a Hubble repair mission to take
place just before a planned shuttle launch to the space
station, and if something went wrong with the shuttle going
to Hubble, then the one waiting to be launched would be sent
up as a rescue craft instead of going to the space station
(assuming it is not damaged, too).

I would also suggest that NASA take a chance and go ahead
and launch a Hubble mission, even if there is no backup.
The odds are very good that they will not have any problems
and the crew could be made up of volunteers. No guts, no
glory.


TA

Tom Abbott wrote in
:

I was wondering if the Hubble repair could get by with
just a minimal crew. I guess you answered that.

You could cut the crew down as low as 5, but that also means only one EVA
team and a practical maximum of three EVAs. That would be of questionable
utility; it would be enough EVAs to replace broken equipment but not enough
to install the new instruments planned for SM-04. If you're going to commit
to an HST servicing mission, you might as well go all out.

I read in the New York Times today that there is a plan
circulating which would time a Hubble repair mission to take
place just before a planned shuttle launch to the space
station, and if something went wrong with the shuttle going
to Hubble, then the one waiting to be launched would be sent
up as a rescue craft instead of going to the space station
(assuming it is not damaged, too).

That was considered as one possible option before O'Keefe cancelled SM-04.

I would also suggest that NASA take a chance and go ahead
and launch a Hubble mission, even if there is no backup.
The odds are very good that they will not have any problems
and the crew could be made up of volunteers. No guts, no
glory.

I agree; the degree of risk is overstated. I'd fly such a mission.

--
JRF

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