A New Twist on Hubble Repair Mission

Swampcat · Dec 8, 2004

How a ‘safe haven’ could help save Hubble An "out-of-the-box" plan to put a new space habitat in orbit could be a leading contender for saving the Hubble Space Telescope, private-sector analysts say in a proposal being prepared for NASA. The habitat could be used as an emergency safe haven during the Hubble servicing mission, and then could serve as a base for wider commercial and exploratory space travel. MSNBC article... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

najab · Dec 8, 2004

I like it. I like it a lot. Especially if they can get FGB-2, that would cut a year or two off the plan.

najab · Dec 8, 2004

I think the point of the 'safe haven' in this case isn't to provide physical space, but to have a pre-positioned stash of food, water and - most importantly - power. The Shuttle is totally useless without power and even with a EDO kit (which they don't have any more) it can only last about 20-30 days at most.

teije · Dec 8, 2004

Suppose they would use this option and a problem does occur on a repair mission so the shuttle has to dock with the safe haven. How much time would be needed to launch a rescue mission using another shuttle? And so, how many supplies would have to be onboard the safe haven?

najab · Dec 8, 2004

Current planning for ISS missions requires that the 'rescue' Shuttle has to be able to launch in 45 days or less.

nacnud · Dec 8, 2004

If a FCB is used and is equipped with a probe and drogue docking port and the kurs automated docking system the rescue could be performed by a number of Soyuz launches perhaps from South America. Plus the FCB could be re-supplied by progress ships if needed although the time constraints would be tight. Even an ATV could be used if a rescue was delayed for a long time.

silylene old · Dec 8, 2004

Could power from the Hubble be used for the Shuttle in the event of an emergency? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function. </div> </div>

mrmorris · Dec 8, 2004

"...rescue could be performed by a number of Soyuz ... re-supplied by progress ..." Which is assuming the Soyuz/Progress have the delta-v to get to 700km and back. I don't think so, but haven't done any checking.

nacnud · Dec 8, 2004

Humm, I don't know but the Soyuz rescue ship could be launched without a crew and only minimum equipment, plus if the launch is from South America there is a lot of extra delta v from the earth rotation available. Dunno how much help this would be to get to 26-degree inclination orbits though. However unless it was already near launch at the time of any incident I think the time needed to prepare the launch would be the main problem.

eldensmith · Dec 8, 2004

How to "get" the FGB-2. Offer commercial sponsorship opportunities. Let a European subsidiary of Coca-Cola "save" Hubble by paying Russia whatever it takes to buy FBG-2 and a Proton launch to place the module near Hubble. No US tax-money therefore no Iran political issues.

najab · Dec 8, 2004

I don't think Hubble's solar panels put out enough to power the Shuttle, and it's almost certain that its batteries don't.

dan_casale · Dec 8, 2004

Could this hab also have an engine with enough propellent to make the plane change to ISS? After all it would be much lighter than a shuttle.

najab · Dec 8, 2004

It doesn't matter that it's less massive, mass isn't the dominant term in the equation - velocity is. Making a plane change of 23 degrees would still take about 80% of the amount of propellant required to get into orbit in the first place.

eldensmith · Dec 8, 2004

It doesn't matter that it's less massive, mass isn't the dominant term in the equation - velocity is. Making a plane change of 23 degrees would still take about 80% of the amount of propellant required to get into orbit in the first place. All that means is TWO Proton launches. One to orbit ISS-Zarya a/k/a FGB-2 at 51 degrees and the other to lift a propulsion module and fuel. Add $75 million to the mission. Add "several" Progress or an Ariane from Kouru to lift fuel to send FGB-2 back to ISS for installation when finished. Send up the Soyuz crew to 51 degrees and let them ride to Hubble and back on board the FGB docked to Soyuz (or 2 Soyuz). Need one of those Canadian arm thingees. . . Genuine international mission to build a sense of cooperation and mutual investment. Not necessary if we use orbiter or Congress ponies up the money for a genuine Hubble-2.

dan_casale · Dec 8, 2004

>It doesn't matter that it's less massive, mass isn't the dominant term in the equation - velocity is. < Very true, but something that is less massive takes less energy to change its velocity. Thus if you could move the propellent from the shuttle to the hab, the hab might be able to complete the manuver to the ISS where the shuttle could not. Also if the hab provided 30 days of lifesupport, a more powerful version of an ION engine might make the hab even less massive and therefor more likely to be able to complete the manuver. But that's a lot of IFs....

SpaceKiwi · Dec 8, 2004

Great idea, and great discussion guys! It's the kind of positive thinking that is bound to be dismissed by NASA management though. You have that confounded Iran Act getting in the way of purchasing the Russian module too, or does the fact that it is surplus ISS hardware give the US a loop-hole to exploit? As another option, what about one of the ATV's, or are they too basic for the kind of mission we are looking at? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

silylene old · Dec 8, 2004

I was thinking of powering through the Hubble's solar panels. I do agree the power would be quite inadequate - but maybe it's enough to maintain the minimal necessary for life support if most of the electronics are disabled. I don't know if there was a way to connect the power buses between the two craft. Perhaps the Hubble's remaining 2 gyros could be used to maintain orientation of the coupled craft, at least until the gyros fail. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function. </div> </div>

Leovinus · Dec 9, 2004

How about we launch the safe haven in the cargo bay of the shuttle itself? Drop it off a few miles from Hubble, then go service Hubble. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

najab · Dec 9, 2004

The Shuttle can just *barely* make up to HST's orbit with a nearly empty payload bay. With something the mass of FGB-2, the Shuttle would never be able to make it much higher than about 200 miles.

Leovinus · Dec 9, 2004

Oh well. I thought I had a solution there... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

halman · Dec 9, 2004

Leovinus, In my opinion, the 'solution' is to recognize that the shuttle is not going to need a 'safe haven' if the vehicle is not assualted with foam debris during launch. Columbia proved what management did not want to deal with: The insulating foam on the External Tank had to be changed. Only one other shuttle ever showed dangerous damage as a result of foam strikes. If the foam is changed to a safer material, the shuttle will be fine. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board recommendations are structured to virtually eliminate the possibility of losing a crew due to damage to the Thermal Protection System. Consistantly, such damage has been shown to be a result of foam strikes. To insist that such elaborate safety precautions be taken after the foam has been changed is counterproductive. If the formula for the foam could not be changed for some reason, then I would support the lengths that CAIB recommend. Certainly, the ability to detect and repair any TPS damage on orbit is a plus, but to reguire that the shuttle be able to reach the ISS on every flight is ridiculous. If the money were available to replace Hubble within 10 years, I would say let it go. But it looks like Hubble will be the last of its kind for a while, so we ought to keep it going as long as possible. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

Leovinus · Dec 9, 2004

I say that we do this: 1) Make a handful of flights to ISS. Have cameras installed on ET to view foam during liftoff. Analyze tiles during spacewalks at ISS before returning. Take helmet-cams so experts on ground can get a real good look before reentry. 2) Assuming all goes well, take a chance and fix Hubble. Make sure the entire crew signs waivers saying they accept the risk to their own lives. Heck, anytime you strap yourselve to all that explosive material, you're risking your life anyway. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mrmorris · Dec 9, 2004

If the money were available to replace Hubble within 10 years, I would say let it go. But it looks like Hubble will be the last of its kind for a while" Herschel really ought to be relabeled. It's apparently the Space Observatory That Everybody Forgets (SOTEF). It's on track for launch in 2007 and has a primary mirror larger than Hubble. It's not in JWST's class -- but still a biggie.

SpaceKiwi · Jan 21, 2005

Apparently the latest "twist" on the Hubble Repair Mission is of the knife in Hubble's "back". http://www.space.com/news/hubble_budget_050121.html All I can say is that this BETTER be an opening budget negotiating position by the White House! Oh, and isn't it great having the "space-friendly" prez back in the Oval Office for another term? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

Leovinus · Jan 21, 2005

Don't blame me; I didn't vote for him. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

A New Twist on Hubble Repair Mission

Swampcat

Guest

najab

Guest

najab

Guest

teije

Guest

najab

Guest

nacnud

Guest

silylene old

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

nacnud

Guest

eldensmith

Guest

najab

Guest

dan_casale

Guest

najab

Guest

eldensmith

Guest

dan_casale

Guest

SpaceKiwi

Guest

silylene old

Guest

Leovinus

Guest

najab

Guest

Leovinus

Guest

halman

Guest

Leovinus

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

SpaceKiwi

Guest

Leovinus

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page