CEV for servicing missions?

[PistolPete]

It would be nice to see <b>THE</b> Hubble space telescope in the Smithsonian instead of some mock-up. However, is it worth the cost? The only way to make it economically viable is to launch it's replacement and swap the two out. I imagine that it would take a good decade to get a real replacement ready to launc. By then the Shuttle would have long been mothballed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

I was always assuming that a furture space vehicle (from after we consign the Orions to the NASM) would retrieve Hubble. Besides, how long would it take to remove the docking system? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[qso1]

bdewoody:<br />Also, I'm not sure that, weight wise, the shuttle could land with the Hubble Telescope on board. It already flies with the handling characteristics of a brick.<br /><br />Me:<br />The shuttle was designed to bring payloads back if needed. It routinely brought back Spacelab modules which are of similar mass as Hubble. A Spacelab module was 23 feet long vs Hubbles 43 feet. A Spacelab module was typically 30,000 lbs give or take IIRC. Hubble was just under 25,000 pounds. The shuttle would have to have been designed to bring either back in a worst case scenario, RTLS. In an RTLS situation, a shuttle has to be capable of returning to KSC payload aboard. The best case scenarion is that the payload weight will affect the landing rollout distance. The worst case for a landing is that the shuttle has the potential to be damaged upon landing. One of Spacelabs and other large payloads design considerations was placement in the payload bay. These payloads are placed as far aft as possible because of the shuttles landing CG. Placing a Spacelab at the forward end invites the potential for actually breaking the shuttle in half just like one of the X-15s did. <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]

PistolPete:<br />It would be nice to see THE Hubble space telescope in the Smithsonian instead of some mock-up...<br /><br />Me:<br />I agree on these points PistolPete made. I would also add that because of the lead time for a new telescope, more capability would be possible for a new one operating 15 years from now than a Hubble operating 15 years from now. A Hubble thats capabilities will likely be exceeded within the next 15 years by ground instruments under development today.<br /><br />Most cost effective thing is operate Hubble for as long as possible, do an SRM to extend the service life to the extent possible. But when the time comes, the Hubble will have to meet the same fate as spacecraft before it. The money that would have to be allocated to bring it back to a museum could be better spent on a replacement space telescope IMO. <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>

 

[willpittenger]

I mostly agree. However, a mothball orbit would be a lot cheaper than immediate recovery. Too bad the booster would cost more. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[qso1]

The problem with mothballing is that by the time its put back in service, ground and perhaps space based optical telescopes will have overtaken it capability wise. <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>

 

[docm]

Museum issues aside; the fact is you can launch several improved instruments, each deditated to a particular observational wavelength, for what a Hubble service mission costs (which IMO is higher than the 'official' cost). Because they are specialized instruments they'll also do a better job than an adapted system like Hubble.<br /><br />Not to mention the abject stupidity of risking another Shuttle crew for what are essentially emotional reasons. We should be trying to limit Shuttle missions to the minimum necessary, not finding politically correct reasons to fly more of them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

docm:<br />Museum issues aside; the fact is you can launch several improved instruments,<br /><br />Me:<br />That and considering the advances in ground based instruments which are even now getting nearly as good as Hubble. Hubble has revolutionized astronomy IMO and has done more than I think we could have ever asked of it. But as we move forward in technological innovation, even the Hubble will be approaching obsolescence within another decade or so. <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>

 

[spacester]

I get very frustrated when discussing this topic. You guys don't seem to get it. Not in terms of agreeing with me about the course of action, but you guys don't seem to grasp the basic concepts here.<br /><br />Have I not explained the mothballing mission concept well enough? If so, please check the post I linked to.<br /><br />Is the concept of mothballing too hard to grasp?<br /><br />Am I the only one who sees value in the HST after it ceases to produce science?<br /><br />Am I the only one who can foresee a future with *more* capability than we have now?<br /><br />Am I the only one who thinks we have an obligation to future generations to preserve the artifact which Hubble becomes? <br /><br />I used the word 'artifact' in an attempt to get through to the cold scientific mind that cannot seem to grasp that the production of science is not the only value which HST possesses. I personally think it is a very rude word to use to describe the most marvelous and significant scientific instrument of all time.<br /><br />If we want to have a robust future in space, does it not stand to reason that at some point in time prior to that, we need to start actually taking action which looks to the future, without having all the answers in hand today?<br /><br />The disconnect on this subject baffles me. You people are smart but the things you cannot seem to wrap your minds around do not seem to me to be all that hard to grasp. To respond to my post that putting the HST in the Smithsonian is too difficult (given today's vehicles) completely misses the point. To talk about putting together a shuttle mission to retrieve it is ludicrous in today's reality. To talk about replacing the science capability of HST with a new instrument completely misses the point. Of course we want to replace the capability, but that has NOTHING to do with this proposal.<br /><br />Perhaps I should use the phrase 'storage orbit' rather than 'mothball orbit'. At some point the HST's instrument cooling fails, and the in <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

Actually I think we all grasp your concept here. But who is willing to put up the money for bringing it out of storage to make it a museum piece. NASA operates on a very strict budget. Do you recall that just to do VSE NASA is supposed to largely pull existing funding from other programs?<br /><br />spacester:<br />Am I the only one who can foresee a future with *more* capability than we have now?<br /><br />Me:<br />If you read my posts you'll see I have obviously foreseen a future with more capability. I mentioned ground and space telescope advances as the reason its not practical to store Hubble for future use. Its even less practical to bring it back and by practicallity. I think all of us would like to see Hubble placed in the Smithsonian. But we are realists, not cold hearted scientists. H**L, I'm not even a scientist by profession.<br /><br />But try to sell your argument to the public in general who a large number of which dosn't give a rats bottom what were doing in space, much less about bringing back a spacecraft to put it in a museum. If a choice is made to bring back Hubble, or put a very close replica in a museum, what do you think the taxpaying public and the purse string controlling politicians are going to choose?<br /><br />spacester:<br />A decision to de-orbit without studying this alternative will betray a shameful lack of willingness to look to the future, and IMO NASA is supposed to be all about looking to the future.<br /><br />Me:<br />NASA was looking into the future when it looked at replacing the shuttle with craft that had the potential to make getting to LEO less expensive. A craft that could lead to craft that could bring Hubble down even more economically. What happened? Cost barrier stopped the work. A cost barrier that was not strong enough to stop the shuttle from becoming operational but the shuttles economic promise vanished. A replacement runs into the technical problems associated with any cutting edged program and its canceled. The cost bar <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>

 

[barrykirk]

What about as part of the last hubble servicing mission we give it that abilitiy so that when it's mission is complete, it can boost into an orbit that is stable for centuries?<br /><br />How much effort would it cost to do that?<br /><br />The idea being that within that time frame, launch and landing capabilities will be so cheap that we would have the capability of landing it and putting it in the smithsonian.

 

[qso1]

This is probably the only palatable way to do it. At least with a servicing mission you risk the crew and shuttle on something of immediate return value wise and the cost is greatly reduced by eliminating the cost of a separate shuttle mission to just boost Hubble to a storage orbit. In effect, killing two birds with one stone on this proposal. You could probably get it approved a lot easier by Congress as well.<br /><br />I wouldn't think it would be that costly to modify a booster if they already have one in mind, to send Hubble in an orbit high enough to remain for at least a century.<br /><br />If were going to try to save Hubble to return it to a museum. This looks to me to be the best way to go. <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>

 

[spacester]

No, qso1, you clearly do not grasp the concept! I'm sorry, but you just don't get it and I am at a complete loss why a smart person like you cannot understand such a simple idea: <font color="orange">Keep our options open, and treat a possible space-faring future society as an important stakeholder. </font>Is it the second part of that which is new to your thinking?<br /><br />BarryKirk gets it. Except for the fact that my understanding is that the de-orbit module is several years down the road but the final manned servicing mission is about to be announced for sometime next year.<br /><br />qso1: <font color="yellow">. . . not practical to store Hubble for future use. . . . I think all of us would like to see Hubble placed in the Smithsonian . . . . . . bringing back a spacecraft to put it in a museum . . . </font><br /><br />No no no no no!<br /><br />You don't get it! That is not the proposal! If you are going to legitimately reject my proposal you need to at least show that you grasp it! Do you understand the "end-of-life issues" with HST? Do you understand that I am NOT proposing that it be placed in the Smithsonian? Do you understand the difference between an Instrument and an Artifact?<br /><br />I cannot think of any further explanation that does not repeat myself. I assume you are willing to click on the links? As you say you have no impact on policy, but it is a public forum and I trust that others reading this can wrap their minds around what is a very simple concept:<br /><br /><font color="orange">A small marginal investment to upgrade from a de-orbit craft to a storage orbit craft is all that is required to preserve the value of the HST artifact for future generations to do something useful with. </font>Footnote: "Useful" includes things other than science activities.<br /><br />It is not our place to use our current economics to determine the future value of such a unique piece of hardware. It is our responsibility to a) prevent <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

Well maybe I was wrong . . . I was responding to your previous post. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

You appear to have misunderstood. When I talked about mothballing Hubble, it was with display at NASM in mind -- not refurbishing it for relaunch. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[j05h]

Storing Hubble in a higher orbit makes sense, if it can be done for reasonable money. Dennis Wingo's new company, I think it's Constellation, offered to put Hubble in a rescue/storage orbit as suggested, and provide a backup pointing mechanism so it could potentially outlive itself. <br /><br />If you find a venue for actually proposing some kind of storage orbit to people that can influence the process, I'll sign a petition and write a letter. Not sure what else I can offer, but keeping options open on Hubble makes sense.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[qso1]

spacester:<br />If you are going to legitimately reject my proposal you need to at least show that you grasp it!<br /><br />Me:<br />Now before you get wrapped around the axle here...my intent is not to reject your proposal...I meant mainly to point out the possible reasons it could be rejected by the public and politicians. I'n not in a position to reject or approve anything.<br /><br />spacester:<br />Keep our options open, and treat a possible space-faring future society as an important stakeholder. Is it the second part of that which is new to your thinking?<br /><br />Me:<br />Not new to my thinking but what is apparently not coming to mind for you is that a lot of people out there do not think like many of us here. They couldn't care less whats done with Hubble. Case you havn't noticed, space exploration isn't exactly as popular as it once was.<br /><br />spacester:<br />A small marginal investment to upgrade from a de-orbit craft to a storage orbit craft is all that is required to preserve the value of the HST artifact for future generations to do something useful with. Footnote: "Useful" includes things other than science activities.<br /><br />Me:<br />This could still include bringing it down but if thats not what you had in mind, fair enough.<br /><br />spacester:<br />Folks, this is not some cause of mine or anything. If I'm the only one that sees things the way I do, I have learned to be comfortable with that (mostly because I know if I go elsewhere I find people with more imagination than the crowd here.) So if some of you think this is a good idea, I would suggest you speak up, because these days it is more important to me to not get frustrated over stuff like this, so I will withdraw from the discussion if it seems pointless.<br /><br />Me:<br />The discussion is by no means pointless, even if some folks here might think it is. I just wanted to point out pitfalls, thats all. My mistake if I misunderstood you or came across as rejecting your ideas. I'd certainly like to an <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>

 

[barrykirk]

Well, initially NASA planned on just de-orbiting hubble without the last service mission.<br /><br />But if I recall, a huge number of people, me included wrote their congressman asking that the last service mission go ahead... and that is why it was re-instated.<br /><br />There are a lot of people who love hubble... It's not just the people on this board, but a lot of the public including the scientists who are oppossed to manned space flight as a waste of their budget.<br /><br />Hubble is popular. I have a framed picture hanging in my bedroom containing postage stamps with hubble images on them. My wife bought it from the post office.<br /><br />Hubble captures the imagination of the general public.<br /><br />If word gets out that hubble is to be sacrificed to burn up, people might become motivated to spend the effort to save it or at least postpone it's "death" until such time as it can be saved at lowered cost.

 

[brianroberts]

The NASA Administrator axed the deorbit module-<br />http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2006/10/why_there_wont.html#more<br /><br />steve82 is correct. They will be leaving a LIDS system behind to allow for docking with the CEV and/or a deorbit module at a later date.

 

[willpittenger]

While the servicing mission is on, the deorbit motor is cancelled. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

He probably wants the Smithsonian to have it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[qso1]

BarryKirk:<br />But if I recall, a huge number of people, me included wrote their congressman asking that the last service mission go ahead... and that is why it was re-instated.<br /><br />Me:<br />Thats what I recall as well which makes Hubble an exceptional case where space exploration is concerned. I had commented to spacester on what is usually the norm a couple postings back or maybe the last post I did here. Usually the public is oblivious to what goes on in human spaceflight but Hubble has been one of those highly successful missions that captured the publics imagination which resulted in a noticeable public outcry to save it.<br /><br />And of course, NASA Administrator Griffin announced that there will be a servicing mission to Hubble which is IMO, a good thing. <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>

 

[spacester]

Well I for one am prepared to explain exactly why Mr. Griffin has decided the de-orbit module is "idiotic".<br /><br />Oh wait, I already did. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> Please see previous discussion on this thread. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <br /><br />I'm not going to repeat my words now that the battle seems to have been won.<br /><br />Vindication is sweet!<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

Well, I said a lot more than that.<br /><br />Now I know you're a busy guy and all . . . but you've had well over a year to absorb the basic concept . . . is it so much to ask that you read a little more carefully?<br /><br />The basic concepts:<br /><br />Don't decide to throw it away until you have to. <br /><br />Have some faith in the future.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

Sure, but did you just make up that scenario on the fly? Are you supposing that a de-orbit module will be deployed and then abandoned?<br /><br />Picture a future Administrator faced with the option of :<br /><br />(A) "Pushing a button" to de-orbit the HST in order to fulfill his safety obligation,<br /><br />OR<br /><br />(B) Coming up with the human and financial resources to walk away from the previous plan, design a SECOND propulsion unit, launch it and thus mothball the HST.<br /><br />Which is more likely?<br /><br />Are you seriously advocating that TWO custom designed propulsion units is the non-idiotic solution?<br /><br />Compare that with the alternative to come up with ZERO custom propulsion units in the near term. The repair mission remains essentially the same in scope as previous missions, with the addition of the grappling fixture.<br /><br />There is no doubt in my mind that once a de-orbit module is attached, the HST's fate is sealed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>