STS-125 - Hubble repair decision very soon - update

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Would any Project Constellation vehicle allow for Hubble repairs? "</font><br /><br />Even with the most optimistic of assumptions -- only if such repairs needed nothing in the way of hardware. The CEV has no cargo area. Even if you assume it's flown with only a couple of crew to allow hardware to be placed *inside* the CEV -- there's not much room *and* the h/w must be small enough to fit through the hatch. The Hubble is the size of a school bus -- I don't know how big the majority of its 'replacement parts' are -- but I expect they're also on the 'mondo' side of the scale.<br /><br />Also -- I don't know if the CEV is intended to support EVAs.<br /><br />Also -- the CEV has no arm to 'grapple' the Hubble to hold it while the astronauts work on the scope. The CEV would have to be free-floating very near the Hubble in order for them to work on it. This would be very dangerous on many levels.

 

[llivinglarge]

I find it quite absurd that NASA needs to replace a dependable workhorse with a mouse...<br /><br />Shouldn't the CaLV heavy lifters be up and running before we bank on the CEV?

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"I find it quite absurd that NASA needs to replace a dependable workhorse with a mouse..."</font><br /><br />If the shuttle were 'dependable', then the ISS would be completed right now and the service mission would already have taken place.<br /><br />The reason the Hubble repair mission essentially requires the shuttle is because the Hubble telescope was <b>designed</b> to require the shuttle (just as the ISS was designed from the beginning to give the shuttle something to do). The shuttle was touted as being capable of repairing satellites on-orbit. There weren't any satellites low enough and expensive enough to make on-orbit repairs sensible. Therefore the Hubble was designed specifically to be a really expensive satellite in an orbit low enough (barely) for the shuttle to reach for servicing. The fact that the design choices made to allow this degraded the science possible from Hubble is simply 'unfortunate'. For the price paid over the lifetime of the Hubble for the design/construction/launch/servicing -- NASA could have launched half a dozen non-servicable scopes with comparable capabilties into higher orbits that would <b>each</b> have provided much more viewing time than what Hubble allows. Had this course of action been taken, the astronomical community would have had an order of magnitude more viewing time than what Hubble has provided.<br /><br />The Shuttle can more easily be compared to a white elephant than a workhorse. White (albino) elephants were regarded as holy in ancient times in Thailand and other Asian countries. To keep a white elephant was a very expensive task, since you had to provide the elephant with special food, and provide access for people who wanted to come and worship it. If a Thai King became dissatisfied with a subordinate, he would give him a white elephant. The gift would, in most cases, ruin the recipient.<br /><br />This seems spot on to me. NASA certainly has to provide extortionate amounts for

 

[llivinglarge]

Not to get into a CEV-skeptic debate, but how does NASA expect to service the James Webb Space Telescope?

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"...how does NASA expect to service the James Webb Space Telescope? "</font><br /><br />NASA does not expect to service it at all. JWST is not going to orbit Earth. Instead it is to be launched into an Earth-trailing solar orbit so that it can be used 24x7 throughout its lifetime.

 

[llivinglarge]

(I had no idea that JWST was going to be placed at L5...)<br /><br />Okay, better question...<br /><br />How does NASA expect to service any object the scale of Hubble at a LEO or GEO?

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"How does NASA expect to service..."</font><br /><br />Even before the shuttle flew for the first time -- anyone with knowledge of the subject knew that servicing satellites in LEO wasn't going to be an intelligent action. The shuttle demonstrated this conclusively. Servicing satellites in GEO would be much more valuable -- they tend to be larger, more expensive, and designed for longer lifetimes than their LEO cousins. However, one of the reasons for that is because it's so flipping expensive to *get* the satellite into GEO that they are designed with massive redundancy. However -- getting a manned vehicle into GEO isn't any easier or less expensive than getting an unmanned satellite there. Ergo -- by the time you get someone there -- it's nearly as expensive as putting up a new satellite (this ignores the considerable costs of training the repair crew, creating the replacement parts, designing the satellite to *be* serviced in the first place, etc.). Catch 22.<br /><br />Ergo -- NASA isn't expecting to do it -- nor should they.

 

[MeteorWayne]

They don't expect to service anything in LEO.<br />Hubble was designed to be serviced.<br />Nothing currently being launched is being designed in such a way. <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>

 

[docm]

Thank God for that. IMO the sooner we get out of this LEO srvicing business the better.<br /><br />Maybe once we have navy-style spaceships that need periodic maintenance it'll make sense to build a "space dock", but not now. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[scottb50]

I think thats precisely what we need to be doing. Smaller cheaper satellites put in orbits as needed and retrieved and redeployed, repaired or modified for other uses. Once we have an infrastructure in LEO it will be much easier to expand outward, as long as we keep overbuilding hardware to last for a long time the applications become too expensive. If instead of GEO satellites we have Stations that can be visited for maintenance, or better yet manned, costs will stay beyond reason. Thow in a couple of tourist traps and the expanded flight rate will reduce costs for everyone. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

But in most cases it's more economical to deorbit an old LEO and launch a replacement updated with new, more powerful tech. IF you want to build an infrastructure do it in GEO and at the LaGrange points, but our manned systems aren't ready for that yet. Once we have Orion + a long range drive + a "payload module" with an arm perhaps, but not yet. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kane007]

3.5 hours to go - 10.00am EST<br /><br />NASA NEWS<br /><br />Broadcast will be on NASA TV<br /><br />

 

[MeteorWayne]

And the word is-----<br /><br />We go and service Hubble<br />NET date May 2008<br />Vehicle Discovery-103<br /><br />Crew will have a news conference at 2:30 EST this afternoon. <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>

 

[navyspacefan]

Outstanding news!!!! Add the news that it will be a Navy flight crew and the orbiter will be my favorite, DISCOVERY, it is a great day indeed. Godspeed, fair winds and following seas to CAPT Altman and his crew!

 

[llivinglarge]

In terms of visible light observations, what will replace Hubble?

 

[kurtwagner]

According to spaceflightnow.com "Finally, NASA plans to process a second shuttle in parallel and to have it ready for launch on a rescue mission from a different pad within a week or so if Discovery suffers any sort of non-repairable damage."<br /><br />Could someone describe the rendezvous/rescue flightplan of an LON for this mission? I'm curious about how two shuttles would rendezvous and perform a crew transfer. Thanks.

 

[scottb50]

According to spaceflightnow.com "Finally, NASA plans to process a second shuttle in parallel and to have it ready for launch on a rescue mission from a different pad within a week or so if Discovery suffers any sort of non-repairable damage."<br /><br />I would think it would be possible to prep the standby Shuttle for an ISS mission and reconfigure it if it is needed for a rescue. As far as impacting the CEV I'm sure it will have the inevitable delays that always seem to happen so I would think that would be a minimal concern anyway.<br /><br />What troubles me more is the deadline for Shuttle retirement seems to be set in stone with no leeway being considered, I can't imagine if delays occur they would leave the ISS incomplete to meet a schedule with no valid reason. I mean the Shuttles don't turn to pumkins in 2010 or anything that wouldn't let them continue. A significant delay in the CEV would be a prime consideration for extending the deadline. It would be a shame to have a fully, or near fully, functioning ISS and only be able to keep a minimal crew aboard. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jschaef5]

I don't understand how it can be justified to spend .9 billion dollars on repairing the hubble. the research that we will gain from it compared to what .9 billion dollars else where can get us...<br /><br />And also aren't there other satellite slated to go up in the near future that will somewhat replace some of the features of hubble? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[scottb50]

Nothing planned has the visible light capability of Hubble and one of the new devises being installed is supposed to increase it's capability 30-70%. Even with adaptive optics ground based telescopes cannot keep an extended gaze on an object like a Space based telescope can.<br /><br />With the new optic capability and another 8-10 years of life the Hubble will prove to be one of the cheapest and most productive projects in Space. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Nothing planned has the visible light capability of Hubble..."</font><br /><br />In terms of the loss of capability -- it's better to argue Hubble's UV capability. Hubble can image in a broad spectrum -- IR, visible, and UV light. Its IR capability is largely met by Spitzer, and will be exceeded by Herschel and eventually by JWST. Ground-based scopes with adaptive optics can meet <b>most</b> of Hubble's visible capability, and can exceed it in some ways. However, UV light doesn't make it through the Earth's atmosphere and there are *no* firm plans for a replacement UV space telescope. The only 'plans' I'm aware of are for a World Space Observatory which so far as I can tell isn't off the wish-list and has no source of funding and is currently dead in the water.

 

[llivinglarge]

With regard to a crew transfer... Can't the crews just do a orbiter to orbiter EVA?

 

[futurexboy]

Thank God! Its about time we heard some good news, what is going to happen is that the Hubble will begin bringing back image's from even father back in time, say 30 billion light years or so and all your mouths will drop open and you won't believe what you see! This is the best decision besides putting up a bigger and better telescope that there could be. The only risk I've ever seen is between take off and landing anyway, so I don't really see the risk argument that was posted before, we risk the same thing when we fly to the ISS, no one has ever been grounded in open space, except maybe Apollo 13. This is money well spent, the science we gain from this will help us all, it could in fact save us one day...say the Hubble detects an asteroid heading our way before anything else does giving us just enough time to prevent major destruction...just one example...Anyone who isn't for this is just plain stupid, yea' your in the stupid wagon riding along saying dumb things and everyone looks at ya' like a stupid stupid. This is the best news I've heard in a long time and gives me some hope for our little planet...the Hubble is why we have the X-Prize, the Hubble is responsible for keeping the space program afloat with interest in space, and the best thing is all the amazing science we have learned from our dear friend the Hubble. I'm happy all over and you should be too!!

 

[jschaef5]

"the Hubble is why we have the X-Prize"<br /><br /><br />how so? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[erioladastra]

"Ground-based scopes with adaptive optics can meet most of Hubble's visible capability,"<br /><br />True - but also space based telescopes like HST can observe some targets continuously for hours, days,... which can be critical for objects that vary.

 

[kane007]

Latest Shuttle manifest<br /><br />* 2006/12/07 - STS-116: Spacer truss, retract 1st interim solar array, rewiring<br />* 2007/03/16 - STS-117: Retract 2nd interim solar array, attach new starboard solar array<br />* 2007/06/28 - STS-118: External equipment storage platform, 2nd solar array spacer, facility for shuttle to draw power from the station, refurbished CMG?<br />* 2007/09/07 - STS-120: Node 2, Hardware processing<br />* 2007/10/17 - STS-122: ESA Columbus research module<br />* 2007/12/08 - STS-123: JAXA pressurised experiment module<br />* 2008/02/29 - STS-124: JAXA Kibo research module<br /><br /><b>* 2008/04/17 - STS-125: Hubble Space Telescope servicing mission – 2006/10/31 approved in public</b><br /><br />* 2008/06/19 - STS-119: Outboard starboard truss segment and arrays<br />* 2008/08/21 - STS-126: Station resupply; last flight of Atlantis<br />* 2008/09/10 - STS-127: Kibo exposed experiment facility; logistics<br />* 2009/01/15 - STS-128: Crew accommodations; six-person crew capability<br />* 2009/04/09 - STS-129: Logistics flight; last flight of Discovery<br />* 2009/07/09 - STS-130: Logistics flight<br />* 2009/10/01 - STS-131: Contingency flight<br />* 2010/01/14 - STS-132: Node 3, cupola; last flight of Endeavour<br />* 2010/07/09 - STS-133: Contingency flight<br /><br />