Can Dreamchaser save the Hubble?

[Boris_Badenov]

Will the Dreamchaser spacecraft be ready in time to save the Hubble? If it is ready in time, is it technologically capable of making the repairs? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[qso1]

One of the advantages of shuttle in Hubble repair missions is its ability to carry a pallet to which Hubble is temporarily stationed to allow easy access to it.<br /><br />Dreamchaser is too small to carry a pallet based on the illustrations presently available. There appears to be very little room for any sort of pallet or mounting device for Hubble to be attached for repairs. There is little or no room for repair payloads, especially large replacement cameras.<br /><br />http://www.spacedev.com/newsite/templates/subpage2_article.php?pid=542 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Bummer, how about the Dragon, or the T-Space ship? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[j05h]

Jim Oberg had an article a while ago about launching an FGB-derived 'safe haven' to aid in Hubble servicing. It would allow either Shuttle or Soyuz to attempt servicing missions, provide safe haven and allow much longer stays. <br /><br />This is one of the areas where STS is unique: it makes a great servicing platform. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[qso1]

http://www.transformspace.com/<br /><br />Their vehicle appears not to any better suited for HRMs than the Dreamchaser without extensive mods. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Where can I get info on future Shuttle missions? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

Hubble doesn't need saving. Build ten more for the same price as repairing it.

 

[qso1]

That'll be tough considering Hubble originally came in at around $2 billion dollars. Not counting the shuttle mission that put it in orbit and subsequent repair missions, each at well over $500 million counting shuttle flights.<br /><br />I'd be all for repairing Hubble and getting as much out of it as possible. If it turns out a repair mission is not in the cards. Hubble has revolutionized astronomy and has more than done its job. One of the outstanding successes of the shuttle program.<br /><br />Ground based telescopes are currently approaching Hubble capability so its not as though we will loose Hubbles capability.<br /><br />Astronomy magazine ran an add one time that showed a picture of Hubble, and a picture of a popular backyard scope. The caption read "If you have this (Hubble), you don't need this (Backyard)." That caption said it all. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

I don't see why a new hubble should come in at that price. Especially since you're using modern electronics, most of the R&D required to build large telescopes has been done, and you're manufacturing them in bulk. <br /><br />How about we save a whole lot of money and just build a brand new, identical hubble, using parts we have lying in storage and a correctly milled mirror? That's the other option.

 

[erioladastra]

"Ground based telescopes are currently approaching Hubble capability so its not as though we will loose Hubbles capability. "<br /><br />But you will lose two key things: one UV observations and continuous observations of targets. Can only do that from space and those can be key for much of astronomy, especially stellar.

 

[erioladastra]

"I don't see why a new hubble should come in at that price. Especially since you're using modern electronics, most of the R&D required to build large telescopes has been done, and you're manufacturing them in bulk. "<br /><br />Unfortuantely, it is not that simple. You would have to space rate all that hardware and that is where the price goes way up. Plus what works on the ground may not work in space. ISS uses 386 computers because the lead time to make the flight ready is so long and just because something works well in 1-g doesn't mean they will work on 0. Now, if you plan on not servicing it it would be cheaper I believe.<br /><br /><br />"How about we save a whole lot of money and just build a brand new, identical hubble, using parts we have lying in storage and a correctly milled mirror? That's the other option. "<br /><br />Well then you are pretty much restricted to Shuttle so cost goes way up (besides the fact you won't be able to service it after the shuttle retires). Then the astronomical community will insist that they modify the instruments and quickly the price starts creeping up. Finally, the HST systems are older technology and you are starting to get into the regime like an old car that the costs increase significantly to keep it running (operations, ground support, data processing...)<br /><br />

 

[qso1]

erioladstra:<br />and continuous observations of targets.<br /><br />Me:<br />Even Hubble cannot continuously observe targets in space. Keep in mind as it orbits the earth, there will be part of the orbit where Earth is in the way. Hubble observes a target for roughly 40 minutes each pass.<br /><br />A future space telescope could do that if placed well away from Earth.<br /><br />Any telescope with the proper UV optics can observe in that range from space but as you correctly noted, not from Earth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Nyarlathotep:<br />most of the R&D required to build large telescopes has been done, and you're manufacturing them in bulk.<br /><br />Me:<br />The really large Earth and space based telescopes are not manufactured in bulk. Each new telescope has different requirements and engineering problems that require custom built solutions because each new scope must outdo the previous. This goes for both ground and space based telescopes of significant size and there are no mass produced space telescopes. There are mass produced telescopes for hobbyists and serious amateurs. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[erioladastra]

"Even Hubble cannot continuously observe targets in space. Keep in mind as it orbits the earth, there will be part of the orbit where Earth is in the way. Hubble observes a target for roughly 40 minutes each pass. "<br /><br />Not correct - you are thinking 2-D. Targets at the pole would be in continuous view.

 

[qso1]

Uh, no...I'm thinking 3D. Hubble cannot look over the poles due to orbital inclination. Its inclination does not take it high enough to see over the poles. Altitude is the other problem. Hubble orbits at around 300 miles above Earth. Way too close to see around Earth when targets are on the other side. Hubble can be oriented to look at stars such as the north star which would be in nearly continuous view because it is situated well above the north pole but targets like that are far fewer than targets more closely aligned to the plane of Earths equator.<br /><br />I could actually plot this out in 3D graphics but I'm not in front of my home computer at this time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

I managed to put together a crude representation of what I'm talking about. The Earth to the right with the yellow line drawn through it. The yellow line is the approximate path Hubble follows with relation to Earths equator.<br /><br />The path is inclined 28 degrees in actuality.<br /><br />The altitude as represented by the ends of the path are in approximate scale to Earth. At each end, the end is 300 or so miles above the surface directly beneath it.<br /><br />I positioned two Hubbles, the light collecting end represented by the lighter colored square. The one pointing to the right in the image is pointing to a star field directly opposite of it. The Earth is in the way.<br /><br />The other scope points towards a star field representing the field the north star would be in. The scope could continuously stay locked on that field but not any fields in which Earth is between the scope and the star field.<br /><br />I hope this will help clear it up a bit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[erioladastra]

"Uh, no...I'm thinking 3D. Hubble cannot look over the poles due to orbital inclination. Its inclination does not take it high enough to see over the poles. Altitude is the other problem. Hubble orbits at around 300 miles above Earth. Way too close to see around Earth when targets are on the other side. Hubble can be oriented to look at stars such as the north star which would be in nearly continuous view because it is situated well above the north pole but targets like that are far fewer than targets more closely aligned to the plane of Earths equator. <br /><br />I could actually plot this out in 3D graphics but I'm not in front of my home computer at this time. "<br /><br />Still not correct. If HST is pointed parallel to the pole as it orbits that part of the sky will always be in view. The part of the sky visible does change so it is not like you get it all year but you can go for days straight. I have used HST to observe stars for several days straight (the only interuption being the SAA). There are a large number of objects you can view this way, but clearly not the whole sky.

 

[erioladastra]

"I hope this will help clear it up a bit. "<br /><br />Picture not posted yet but I can tell you that this is not correct. It is a fact that HST can observe some target continously at the poles. From the STSCI web site:<br /><br />The continuous viewing zones (CVZs) are regions of the sky where HST can observe without interruptions caused by target occultation by the Earth. These zones are approximately 24 degrees in size centered on the orbital poles, which are 28.5 degrees from the celestial poles. Thus, targets located in declination bands near ±61.5 degrees may be in the CVZ at some time during the 56-day HST orbital precession cycle. The CVZ interval duration depends upon the telescope orbit, target position, and constraints imposed by Sun and Earth limb avoidance. South Atlantic Anomaly crossings limit the uninterrupted visibility of any target to no more than 5-6 orbits (see Section 2.3.2 in the HST Primer). <br /><br />

 

[qso1]

When the illustration is approved, assuming it will be, you'll see what I mean and I do show in my illustration the Hubble pointing towards a group of stars directly above the N pole that would be visible for much of Hubbles orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Just a reminder of what I said before my post with the illustration:<br /><br />"Hubble can be oriented to look at stars such as the north star which would be in nearly continuous view because it is situated well above the north pole but targets like that are far fewer than targets more closely aligned to the plane of Earths equator"<br /><br />And in the illustration I have a small Hubble symbol pointed towards celestial north. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[erioladastra]

There are far more targets in continuous view then you could ever have time to observe. Moot point.

 

[qso1]

Since your utilizing Hubble then obviously I don't know WTF I'm talking about. I once knew about this stuff or thought I did. I even wrote books about spaceflight which fortunately I never got published cause I'm too stupid to actually know anything.<br /><br />I can't possibly hope to ever be good enough at anything so you are quite correct. Its a moot point. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

I think you guys are a little off topic. Shuttle-Guy has answered my question already. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[qso1]

Sorry bout that, I was the first to respond to your question and was on topic, but since S_G answered it, this can be my last word on it. One other thing, I didn't see S_Gs answer as to whether dreamchaser can repair Hubble and I know he can answer that better than me.<br /><br />S_G, can or could Dreamchaser repair the Hubble? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

You are right, I owe you an apology, Dreamchaser could not repair the Hubble, because it could not carry enough payload. You had already stated that in your earlier response. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>