CEV for servicing missions?

[spacester]

Good thing I gave you at least one question you could answer, huh? (Not that your answer makes sense . . . you seem to be saying that the idiotic solution was obvious . . . ) <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vulture2]

Whether satelite servicing is practical is highly sensitive to the cost of human spaceflight. To give the Shuttle its due, if mission operations costs were lower, as was originally predicted, satelite servicing would indeed be practical. The shuttle is expensive to operate because it was the very first attempt we made to build a reusable spacecraft, and we made a lot of mistakes. Unfortunately we have learned a different lesson; that reusable spacecraft are impossible. "The impossible takes a little longer", we once said. Now we say "give up on reusable spacecraft. Go back to throwaways." <br /><br />Unfortunately the CEV will not be less expensive than the Shuttle. Without a practical reusable launch vehicle human spaceflight will not be economically feasible for any mission except political shows.

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">I give up trying to explain this to you. </font><br /><br />ROTFLMAO.<br /><br />Likewise. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

> Unfortunately the CEV will not be less expensive than the Shuttle. Without a practical reusable launch vehicle human spaceflight will not be economically feasible for any mission except political shows.<br /><br />CEV and associated Shuttle-derived launchers will be very expensive to operate. There may be commercial alternatives available beforehand. Judging by what is in the commercial spaceflight pipeline, this is almost surely going to be true: COTS will beat CEV to orbit, commercial Soyuz will probably beat CEV to the Moon. SpaceX' Dragon capsule will be built with or without the COTS money.<br /><br />I have to disagree with your reusability argument. If the launch vehicle can be made cheap enough to produce a profitable product, it won't matter if it's reusable. My example is an aircraft-dropped rocket that launches a very simple 3-seat capsule for $15 million. The capsules are only good for a couple of weeks in orbit, crews change out quickly with the current unit. Who cares if the capsule is junk after reentry? You, as the system operator or onorbit hotelier, have just made a big pile of money with the flight. If it's a spaceplane with a giant "Laser" onboard and fusion rockets, I'll be just as happy. Whatever works. <br /><br />The biggest issue with any kind of human servicing of GEO satelites, IMHO, is the infrastructure costs of standardizing & modularizing the current satelite fleet. The birds already up there were simply not designed to be worked on in orbit. Hubble is an exception (but not really built for servicing) and has STS's incredible capabilities for SM flights. The chicken here is that it requires a preexisting human presence to reassure satellite manufacturers to develop modular/upgradable units. The "egg" so to speak isn't the CEV, but a shirtsleeve environment onorbit big enough to accept a GEO sat. The best current solution is the one Constellation Services proposed a few years ago. Instead of having humans do satellite upgrades, a rob <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"... the shuttle is a great platform for servicing missions. How would something like that be done after the shuttle is retired once we are in the CEV era? ...Does anyone want to speculate here?" <br /><br />http://www.orbitalrecovery.com<br /><br />http://www.russianspaceweb.com/parom.html<br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

"...but I'd like to see us develop some sort of craft that would attach to the ISS for storage, but allow our astronauts to "travel around" a bit. They could do servicing missions on satelights/etc, as needed, then dock back with the station."<br /><br />http://www.russianspaceweb.com/parom.html

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>reusable spacecraft are impossible<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Actually, the shuttle was, in a way, a dramitic success. In fact, it showed that reusable spacecraft are possible. What it could not do was show how <font color="yellow">pratical</font>reusable spacecraft are with <font color="yellow">today's</font>technology. 20-30 years from now, we might have a such a pratical reusable spacecraft deployed.<br /><br />In the 1890's, automobiles were not considered pratical. However, I would not consider the modern automotive indrustry, despite its own problems, a failure. <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]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It is way too expensive to do a recovery and there is no vehicle planned to be able to do so<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />If we are limited to today's technology, I agree. However, if the technology available to us when Hubble is in danger again after a reboost is taken into account, that might not be the case. A craft might be headed past there anyway and pick it up on the way back to Earth.<br /><br />Quote from future astronaut (possible one of your descendants): "We completed the mission and brought back this nice bonus!" <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]

Most satelites are not in orbits that you could reach readily. In many cases you need a plane change. I think it was noted by someone that ISS can't help with moon missions because you would need as much thrust to complete the plane change as to launch that mass from the surface of the Earth. A structure in the correct plane ... maybe. <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]

Thanks Guns! It's Orbital Recovery that I was thinking of, not Constellation Services. I thought they were the same enterprise, woops.<br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[barrykirk]

Recovering Hubble during the next fifty years might be a bad idea. But after that, who knows. It might become cheap. <br /><br />Hey, and this is just an off the wall comment with no thought. What about MOOSE for hubble?

 

[spacester]

HOOSE, that's funny.<br /><br />I prefer something more up-to-date, like HTML<br /><br />Hubble Transfer: Mothball Likely<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /><br />The movement is growing. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Could a CEV mission add the motor at a later date? I don't see the urgency. <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>

 

[barrykirk]

HOOSE.... Good one.

 

[willpittenger]

I still lean to attaching a mothball motor -- or none. A deorbit motor would be in the way if you later wanted to save Hubble. Furthermore, a futuristic orbiter could not safely retrieve Hubble while a fueled motor is attached.<br /><br />No motor means you can choose later. <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>

 

[josh_simonson]

>Tell that to the people living on Earth between latitudes +/- 28 degrees. And alert the lawyers. <br /><br />Who cares? For the price it would cost NASA to build and install the thing they could pay off anyone who got hurt in the extremely unlikely scenario that happened. 0.001% chance at a $1-10M settlement, or 100% chance of $20-50M up front for the deorbit motor and installation? Doesn't take a rocket scientist...<br /><br />&%$#@!footing and hand wringing over such crappy ROI concepts is a huge flaw with NASA and I'm glad to see them showing a backbone for once.

 

[mcs_seattle]

Speaking only for myself, it would be an honor for the Hubble to bonk me on the head.<br /><br />;-)

 

[llivinglarge]

Remember how MIR's re-entry was a media frenzy? People laid out targets in the middle of the friggin' ocean for cash prizes.

 

[docm]

And for Hubble there will be an armada out there salvaging pieces for the souvenir market. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[lampblack]

<font color="yellow">And for Hubble there will be an armada out there salvaging pieces for the souvenir market. </font><br /><br />That raises an interesting question: how would one go about showing that a particular clump of molten copper in fact came from Hubble?<br /><br />Seems that little that's recognizable would survive reentry. Unless you could say, "Yep, this is the molten slag that bonked poor Joe on the head. God rest his soul." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

Many are fairly obvious, check out this chunk of skylab: http://steve.quyenhart.com/images/scamp/skylab_air.jpg<br /><br />I don't think the term I used above is considered vulgar (it's not labeled as such at dictionary.com), censoring it may have increased the vulgarity... Ah well, the point's still made, just a bit more emphatically. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[lampblack]

<font color="yellow">Many are fairly obvious, check out this chunk of skylab: http://steve.quyenhart.com/images/scamp/skylab_air.jpg<br /><br />I don't think the term I used above is considered vulgar (it's not labeled as such at dictionary.com), censoring it may have increased the vulgarity... Ah well, the point's still made, just a bit more emphatically.</font><br /><br />Yep, that chunk of Skylab is pretty doggoned recognizable. Point taken. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />And I agree about occasional silliness of the profanity filter. For all it knew, you might have been talking about kitty cats. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>