STS-125 - Hubble repair decision very soon - update

[montmein69]

I can't find any information related to a deorbiting module to be fitted during the servicing mission.<br />Whatever the international_patriotic enthousiasm for <<Saving the Hubble />>... the HST will die .... like any satellite do.<br />And finally ( 5 ? 10 ? years) after thousands -or more- amazing shots ..... such a big waste must leave the LEO.<br />Hopefully .... Planck, JWST .... are coming .... and the science show goes on.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[subzero788]

"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."<br /><br />A couple of months ago nasaspaceflight.com punlished a detailed outline of a hubble LON mission. It's certainly an interesting read! (kudos to Chris and his team of talented writers). The favoured option is for the HSM orbiter to grappel the rescue orbiter with its RMS, while the rescue orbiter's RMS would be used to transfer crew, LES's, and additional EMU's between shuttles. A total of 3 EVA's would be required.

 

[subzero788]

I don't think it will include the motor, just an additional structure to make the future attachment of a de-orbit motor simplier. Haven't heard any details about this yet though.

 

[subzero788]

I rechecked the space.com article and found this:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">“Ed Weiler, director of NASA’s Goddard center, said the next Hubble servicing mission will also include the installation of fixtures designed to connect with a future de-orbit module that would guide the space telescope’s controlled disposal plunge through the Earth’s atmosphere in the next decade or so. We really don’t, probably, have to go up there until the 2020 or 2025 timeframe,” Weiler said, adding that by then NASA’s Orion Crew Exploration Vehicles (CEV) are expected to ferry astronauts back to the Moon. “If the CEV can go to the Moon, it can probably take up a solid rocket motor to Hubble.”</font><br /><br />However, NASA's own outline of EVA activities for the mission doesn't mention the addition of these "fixtures". This could be because it is not one of the primary goals of the EVA's or perhaps simply because it hasn't been finalised yet. Whatever happens it's going to be a challenging mission, with 5 EVA's in 5 days like STS-109 (which I believe is a record).

 

[llivinglarge]

What's the point of trying to save a damaged HST orbiter with the AORP if the very use of an LON vehicle spells the end of the Space Shuttle Program? Is NASA that desperate to make money off of salvaging shuttle parts?

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"...space based telescopes like HST can observe some targets continuously for hours..."</font><br /><br />YYYeeesss.... this would be why I said 'most' rather than 'all'. The point I was trying to make is that post Hubble, we have *no* comparable UV capability whereas post Hubble we still have *most* of its visible light capability.

 

[mrmorris]

Regarding the servicing mission -- I keep looking at all the articles seeing if there is any mention of the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) power glitch and whether the mission will be resolving this. The WFC3 being installed appears to be a 'part' of the ACS system -- but I can't determine if this is supposed to resolve the issue which has shut ACS down twice. I know the resolution on one of the occasions was to switch from the primary to the backup power supply path. The article I read at the time indicated that this didn't decrade the performance of the ACS, but it did mean that if the backup failed, the ACS was a goner.<br /><br />Has anyone seen anything on this -- whether the mission will address it, and what a complete failure of the ACS would mean for Hubble?

 

[racer7]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>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! <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>That would definitely be huge news considering the current estimated age of the universe is about 13.7 billion years.

 

[askold]

It's about time we got a NASA director with cojones.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Ground-based scopes are totally at the mercy of local weather. That would ruin, more often than not, any chance..."<br /><br />"...if we were limited to one ground scope, no matter how good it is.</font><br /><br />This would be called a pair of strawman arguments.<br /><br />First of all -- observatories of a class that rival Hubble are <b>specifically</b> located in regions that take into account local weather conditions to minimize downtime for that reason. Suggesting that 'more often than not' weather conditions would ruin the chance to view any particular event is ridiculous.<br /><br />Second -- who made the limitation of a single ground-based observatory? Did I miss a memo? On Mauna Kea alone, we have the Keck I and II, Gemini, and Subaru scopes with adaptive optics. In Chile we have the VLTI. Heck even Palomar has been refitted with adaptive optics. These are just the ones I pulled up in a few minutes -- I likely missed another half-dozen. I half recall a large visible light observatory being built in Australia, and another in the US (currently being slowed because of some conflict about Indian lands).<br /><br />Understand -- I'm not making arguments indicating Hubble isn't useful. It's just that the reasons you presented for it's value over ground-based scopes simply aren't valid as stated.

 

[steve82]

Looks like the LIDS docking adapter is the way they are going. This is the one that Orion will also use but nobody is coming out yet and saying Orion will dock with Hubble, only that the adapter would allow a robotic mission to rendezvous a deorbit stage. But I sure wouldn't rule it out:<br /><br />http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4881<br /><br />"Sources also note that Discovery will carry a passive LIDS (Low Impact Docking System) to be attached to Hubble's aft bulkhead. The requirement is to provide a capability to enable a future spacecraft to perform an autonomous rendezvous and docking with Hubble. This can be used for a future deorbit mission, or even another servicing mission via Orion."<br /><br />

 

[futurexboy]

The Hubble Telescope increased the Worlds interest in space and space exploration...2 + 2 = 4, The Hubble was launched, all the great pictures of space started coming in, people, the general public was in awe, interest in Space grew and grew, and from that the average guy realized what a wonderful time to cash in on all this interest...in time we had our first X-Prize, now it year 2, and the interest has grew and expanded, there was a public outcry to save the Hubble, that shows that the general public has a greater interest in space, now the X-Prizes have grown, I just imagine year 3 will be mind blowing....The Hubble is the reason for the beginning of the greater majority of people interested in Space, and the majority of people that want to be there in Space...its very logical.

 

[montmein69]

To talk about "the death of Hubble" (I mean a deorbiting module) would be a "bad song" in the patriotic fealing around "Save The Hubble".... <br />Just like someone said an important point is to be convinced that : <<We have cojones />><br /><br />I strongly feal that at least 60 % of the arguments for such a decision is to give the perspective of "It's difficult ... we are able to do it .... We'll do it"<br /><br />But of course, it's a good thing, for the HST to survive for science purpose at least 5 or 7 years... <br />Good for scientists and public all around the world. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[colchadisatlend]

I am thrilled about the Hubble SM getting the go ahead....<br /><br />.....but what the hell is up with Atlantis getting the shaft again regarding Hubble Service missions????!!!!! I want to see Atlantis do a Hubble Service Mission damn it!!!! <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" />

 

[subzero788]

Take a look at this, I'm sure you'll be pleasantly suprised <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[colchadisatlend]

HELL YEAH!!!!!!!!! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Finally, after getting screwed over time and time again, Atlantis is finally going to get to do a Hubble Servicing mission.....I am so stoked to hear this news indeed. <br /><br />Great sendoff mission to a great vehicle. We should petition NASA not to retire Atlantis after the Hubble flight...bring Atlantis back for more! "One more flight! One more flight! One more flight!" <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br /><br />Just curious, but what was the exact reason they moved this flight from Discovery to Atlantis?<br /><br />Also, this particular Hubble Service Mission was originally intended for Columbia before she was lost, correct?

 

[colchadisatlend]

Hey folks:<br /><br />Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Atlantis originally intended to be the orbiter to carry Hubble into space prior to the Challenger accident? If I recall, this mission was suppose to be commanded by John Young and was scheduled for the middle of 1986. <br /><br />If this is correct, it would indeed be very fitting that Atantis gets to do the final Hubble mission since she was the orbiter who originally was supposed to take Hubble into space.