Silly question about the ISS

[mithridates]

This should be easy to answer, I just can't find any information through other means. Why isn't there a telescope mounted or connected to the ISS? I must be missing something really obvious. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[larper]

1) It is not part of the mission of the ISS to do any astronomy.<br /><br />2) The ISS would be a terrible platform for a scope. It is not stable, it has a fairly dirty environment which would contaminate the lens, there are several fields of view that would be obscured by the station elements, the light reflecting off the arrays would make thing even worse, etc, etc, etc. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[mithridates]

Is this site in error then?<br /><br />http://www.issat.org/ <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[erioladastra]

"1) It is not part of the mission of the ISS to do any astronomy."<br /><br />Well in theory it could be if some proposed a reasonable project but...<br /><br />"It is not stable, it has a fairly dirty environment which would contaminate the lens, there are several fields of view that would be obscured by the station elements, the light reflecting off the arrays would make thing even worse, etc, etc, etc. "<br /><br />Well actually it is VERy stable. But you are correct it is a very dirty environment, but again not unsrumountable depending on the type of astronomy. There are a number of fields that are completely open and not blocked (especially once P6 gets moved).<br /><br />The bottom line is that unless you need a scope that required crew to operate, it is more cost effective to launch a seperate satellite.

 

[erioladastra]

"Is this site in error then?"<br /><br />It states it is their GOAL.

 

[mithridates]

Yes, that's what I was wondering - whether their goal itself was in error. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

IIRC, there is also a big issue with vibrations caused by all those machines running aboard the ISS to keep the pink bipedal organisms inside from freezing to death.<br /><br />The link that you gave looks to be like some glorified amateur astronomy program. If they make the telescope interactive to everyone on the ground, then it may boost PR for the ISS a little bit, but I doubt that it would get any real "hard core" science done compared to current and future government space telescope programs. <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>

 

[larper]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Well actually it is VERy stable. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>No, its not. Not when a single astronaut exercising inside can cause the solar arrays to wobble. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[mithridates]

Yes, especially since their goal was to have the telescope up by 2006 and well, it's not 2006.<br /><br />I guess I could rephrase the question a bit: would it be worth it to try to devise a telescope for the station? If vibrations are a problem it should still be easy enough to have a free-floating telescope attached a few metres away from the station. Or even just commission a university somewhere to make a telescope that they store on the way up, then just push off the station into its own orbit and charge no fee for the launch. And while we're at it, why not a pongsat-type approach where schools can make their own satellites that get pushed off the station for free and eventually make their way down towards the Earth and burn up after a few weeks? I know the answer's not "they're just not interested in silly pr" because they did make that golf shot from the station a few months back. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Pushing stuff off the ISS can be very dangerous. Remember, it can come back and hit you, and possibly destry the station.<br /><br />Anything pushed off in a safe direction will only have a relatively short orbit time unless it is very massive ort has booster rockets included.<br /><br />They did the golf shot (the Russians) in exchange for money. It was advertising. It was a very lightweight ball so it will deorbit quickly and not be a danger to the station or other LEO satellites. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

I doubt that a glorified amateur telescope, like the one in your link, would suffer too much from the vibrations. Perhaps a vibration dampening mount, similar to the stedi-cam mounts used in movies, could help a bit, but this would probably still not be good enough for larger, professional telescopes.<br /><br />If it meant that the telescope was little more than a PR stunt, then it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. PR stunts are useful for gathering attention (aka. $$) to a project.<br /><br />After all, as they say, "No bucks, no Buck Rogers". <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>

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">Pushing stuff off the ISS can be very dangerous. Remember, it can come back and hit you, and possibly destry the station. </font><br /><br />I doubt that a pongsat travelling at a few meters per second relative to the station is going to destroy it.

 

[MeteorWayne]

You are actually quite incorrect about that because on the next (or subsequent) orbits, it won't be doing a few meters per second. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[erioladastra]

'No, its not. Not when a single astronaut exercising inside can cause the solar arrays to wobble. "<br /><br />First, not all astronmy requires the same level of stability. Second, the ISS actually has a mode called microgravity where you would be able to do very fine guiding if needed. Third, some of the exercise equipment is vibrationally isolated. So not a serious issue if you really wanted to do something (though you still have other issues with the dirty envrionment etc)

 

[qso1]

mithridates:<br />Why isn't there a telescope mounted or connected to the ISS? I must be missing something really obvious. <br /><br />Me:<br />We have the Hubble telescope and cost ultimately determines how many of anything is sent into space. HST being the main optical scope, Chandra being the main Xray scope etc. With these instruments in service and having been placed in service for billions of dollars, no justification for an ISS mounted scope can really be made.<br /> <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>

 

[mithridates]

Even for a university? What I'm wondering about is why a university that might have the money to build a small standard observatory doesn't ask for permission to send a telescope up there instead. Or does the ISS not give permission to these sorts of ventures as a rule? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[mithridates]

I assume that the $10,000 is the cost per pound after factoring in everything involved in a launch, but that adding one extra item to a launch already planned would not result in an extra $10,000 per pound that the item weighs. For instance, if one astronaut gained two pounds before the launch the launch would not end up costing $20,000 more than originally planned. In the same manner, is there no extra room in a shuttle that could be used in the same way that I could carry an extra book on an airplane for free to deliver to a family member across the ocean of a friend of mine? If there's absolutely no extra room in the shuttle then my argument is moot, of course. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

$10,000 per lb. to LEO is just a rough ratio taken from the launch vehicle cost and divided by the rocket's launch capacity. The actual $ per lb. cost varies from rocket to rocket and the $10,000 figure is just an average of all of the major launch vehicles. Ironically, it actually cost more per lb. if you launch a rocket with less than full lift capacity. In other words, it would still cost NASA virtually the same amount to launch the Shuttle with just 1 lb. of cargo as it would if it launched with a full 50,000 lbs. of cargo, so an individual astronaut's weight does not affect the cost of a launch.<br /><br />If you got approval from NASA to launch a small telescope to be mounted on the ISS, then because NASA is a governmental organization and not a for-profit company, then they would probably launch it and even mount it on the outside for free. If you couldn't get approval from NASA, but got approval from Rosaviacosmos to attach it to their side of the station, then you would probably end up having to pay a cool $500 K to $1 million to launch it on the next available Progress flight. This cost, however, does not include the development cost for the telescope or any other incurred cost, like the cost of the EVA that would be required to mount it.<br /><br />However, with a grant from a university and some major corporate sponsorship, you might be able to pull it off. <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>

 

[CalliArcale]

If I were a university, I wouldn't spend the money to develop such an instrument. I'd rather develop a telescope for use aboard a balloon, an airplane, or an unmanned satellite. The ISS has some fundamental constraints that interfere with ideal telescope use. The aforementioned "dirty environment" is a real biggie. It's got some hefty hypergolic thrusters to maintain attitude, for occasional reboost, and during any docking operations (which occur very frequently, between Soyuz, Progress, and Shuttle). There would be some big contamination issues.<br /><br />Hubble has no thrusters for this reason. It also closes its aperture prior to Shuttle rendezvous to protect it from the rocket exhaust. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[brellis]

*bumping* this thread. I was reading about how putting a telescope near a lunar base is convenient for maintenance purposes, and I had the very same notion mentioned in the OP: if a Hubble-type of scope were within reach of ISS, repairs would certainly be easier.<br /><br />Pity about the dirty environment and vibration issues. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[nibb31]

Remember the original plan for the ESA Colombus module was to be a free flying lab attached to the ISS. It would dock to the ISS for maintenance and payload installation and then fly freely alongside the ISS so as to avoid the vibrations and "dirty" environment.<br /><br />This, with the cancelled centrifuge, would have been major scientific opportunities for the ISS. It is such a shame that these projects were cancelled. Currently, unless I'm missing something, there is not much in Columbus or Kibo that couldn't be done in the US Destiny lab.<br /><br />Actually, now that I think of it, would it be possible to put a CBM equipped telescope (or other orbital experiment modules) into a rendezvous orbit close enough to the ISS to be serviceable by an ISS EVA or grappled by the stations's arm for maintenance ? It could even be tetherered to use the ISS power supply.

 

[erioladastra]

Ok, some corrections<br /><br />1) You can place astronomical telescopes on ISS as will be the case with ESA's SOLAR observatory which will be installed next mission.<br />2) As previously noted there are configurations where ISS can be very stable. Although mainly intended for things like crystal growth it could be used for observing. <br />3) Depending on your targets, exposure length, brightness etc - this may not even be required. However, chemical contamination or light pollution could be a problem.<br />4) Flying alongside ISS would still be a potentially dirty environment.<br />5) Free flying would then mean you need attitude control and power generation. Then you need the infrastructure to communicate and opeate the telescope (which means more $). You now have the Hubble Space Telescope or something similar.<br />6) In principal you could do it but as already noted the cost/benefit is very limited. It could also be similar to EARTHKam where schools control it and get the data.<br /><br />

 

[nibb31]

I understand your points. However, I do feel there would be a benefit to have Hubble-like telescope attached to the ISS, but tethered. The operations, power, and comms infrastructure would be part of the ISS, going through a cable, thus saving a lot of money.<br /><br />Could it use ISS-powered electric ion engines for attitude control, with a lifetime supply of xenon ?<br /><br />A free-flyer astronomy module could be made light enough to fit on an Ariane, Delta or Soyuz launcher and rendez vous with the ISS like an ATV or H-II. Hubble is 11 tons whereas ATV is 20 tons. <br /><br />The science section could be lighter than Hubbler because it would not require the power or broadband communication hardware that would be tapped from the ISS.<br /><br />This could replace the Hubble servicing mission if it is cancelled, and might even prove to be cheaper. A smaller telescope, combined with a serviceable vibration-free science platform, is better than no telescope at all. In addition, I'm sure scientists could find many other uses for such a platform alongside the ISS.<br />

 

[erioladastra]

<br />The problem is that as soon as tou add a tether you add awhole new host of problems. Note that ISS is not flying rock steady but osscilates around a torque equilibrium attitude. You would basically be torguing the telescope all the time. Plus you would greatly reduce its range of motion.<br /><br />Life time supply of xenon just means more consumables you would have to periodically have to replenish since there really is no such thing as a lifetime supply of anything. <br /><br />But to rendezvous with ISS you now need a propulsion, attitude control and power system. So you go into a potentially dirty and torqued environment for what gain? You would be far better off to build a non serviceable telescop to go off far from ISS. Look at the International Ultraviolet Explorer, ROSAT, FUSE - they have all done a remarkable job without being tied to ISS/shuttle or needing repair<br /><br />Note - read my post again above. I am not saying you can't do this, just that it is not the best use of precious astronomy dollars. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

 

[comga]

Quite frequently the ISS needs to be boosted to regain the altitude lost to atmospheric drag. (It orbits much lower than Hubble.) This would not be compatible with a tethered satellite. <br /><br />Similarly, if a "Hubble II" were somehow co-orbital, say in the same inclination, it would have to be much higher to avoid atmospheric drag. The orbits would precess differently. Only when they aligned could astronauts fly up to it, service it, and fly back to the ISS. However, the Soyuz are not equiped for this, with no way to carry significant hardware or conduct EVAs. There are no more shuttle missions. Orion is well out there, and though it might have adequate delta-V, if fully fueled, it won't be capable of supporting significant EVAs, or have significant cargo capacity. <br /><br />In other words, there are no vehicles to carry out such servicing.