Hubble mistake - Action needed

BWhite · 2004-12-08 11:32:58

Nice idea, but...
who holds the bag when a savior tries, and destroys the thing?

I am working from the premise its dead already. . .

For the record, my first choice remains sending the orbiter on its final flight to rescue & upgrade Hubble. Then, they never fly again.

But that's just me. ???

BWhite · 2004-12-08 11:45:38

Engage in private fundraising and corporate sponsorship to buy an alternate http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6671864/]safe haven - - travel to this safe haven via Soyuz and let the astronauts visit Hubble and live in the mini-station while they do the upgrades.

How much might Coca-Cola pay to sponsor "saving Hubble"??

SpaceNut · 2004-12-08 11:50:08

Yup think out side of the box for the how to do it and for the how to get the financing for it...

BWhite · 2004-12-08 11:57:47

A Proton launched FGB-2 (purchased for an agreed price) is placed in close proximity to Hubble. Crew transfer via Soyuz. Space walk as often as needed.

Let a wealthy European offer to fund it in exchange for marketing rights. And follow-on ownership of a space hotel with a great close up view of Hubble.

Hmmm. . .

Sounds like a story in the making.

= = =

Going to need an orbital plane change engine if its Proton, otherwise we need another booster.

Golly gee, use two Protons! Attach 2 Soyuz with 4 crew to FGB-2 at 51 degrees before the plane change occurs. Burn your way to 28 degrees (ouch, ouch, ouch)

Two Protons - - $150 million
1 FGB - - $250 million
2 Soyuz - - $75 million (land 'em in Arizona!)

$500 million to rescue Hubble

Edited By BWhite on 1102529629

clark · 2004-12-08 12:18:07

Send the orbiter? Yeah, well, you're willing to risk the Shuttle, and some lives, because it is a win-win for you. If it succeeds, with a deal that it does just this and nothing else, SHuttle retired. If it fails, and people die, Shuttle retired.

Of course sitting here now, we can look back and understand the whole begining of the Hubble debacle. It kind of forced Congress to come up with the money to fix it, right? What was NASA thinking!

So now they have the money, and they are looking to fix it, but they know it's pretty long odds. Stories aside, outside the box, but in, just make a deal with the astonomy community that they get a bright new shiny Hubble-2. But to hedge bets, just set up the servicing contract for Hubble so that any one who tries to fix it gets paid for success, not attempt.

They fail, oh well. They succeed, thumb your nose at the astronomy community as they get a couple extra years out of an old bird (as opposed to a new sat with updated electronics and built without the Shuttle servicing in mind).

Honestly, Hubble isn't worth all of this.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-08 12:25:46

Nice try Bill, but he FGB alone can't do it. You must have some other vehicle or capability to actually rendevous with the HST and capture it, you can't "spacewalk" even several hundred meters to the telescope to fix it and you'd need some way to carry the phone-booth sized replacement parts along.

I don't think even the Russians could mount such a mission for less then a billion dollars or so, and no private entity is going to put that kind of money together with such a low chance of sucess or return.

Nobody has any chance of fixing HST but NASA, and their chances aren't good... plus even if you did fix it, big deal, its just going to die again in another two or three years.

A space hotel... how exactly do you intend to get there and supply it? Have the customers pony up $10-20M+ a ticket? I can see um' lining up allright...

BWhite · 2004-12-08 14:17:05

Put the money for Hubble-2 on the table (not "stop whining and maybe we can think about it, someday") and I will happily drop the subject and move on. :;):

And in that case, I prefer Jeff Bell's attitude. Spending $500 million for a robotic de-orbit module is stupid.

Just let it fall. Even Skylab managed not to hurt anyone.

clark · 2004-12-08 14:18:58

A moderating troll, imagine that.

BWhite · 2004-12-08 14:24:37

A moderating troll, imagine that.

Nice dodge, clark.

Talking up "Hubble-2" is like what I tell my daughter when she asks for a pony. Ain't gonna happen no matter what gets said. But if Sean O'Keefe genuinely puts Hubble 2 money on the table, I will gleefully join the chorus and sing "Let Hubble Go"

De-orbit money? Frankly, I don't care too much about that either way because it ain't going to hit anything anyway but if spending the de-orbit money means we cannot afford Hubble-2?

Okay, back to whining.

Edited By BWhite on 1102537522

clark · 2004-12-08 14:28:16

Okay Bill, I'll take you seriously then. :laugh:

Afterall, you're the one that wants to throw away Astronaut lives. So why should I be surprised that you see no problem letting a multi-ton piece of metal come crashing to earth, uncontrolled.

I bet that's the kind of responsibility you teach your daughter right after you tell her she ain't getting a pony.

Oh, wait, I forgot, because America's old space station didn't hurt anyone- just litter the floor of Australia, hey, proof positive that we don't need to worry about a stray sat falling from Earth (which will survive reentry).

You're a liberal Bill, but somehow you just don't get it.

BWhite · 2004-12-08 14:38:03

Hubble-2 money is the real issue.

Frankly, I agree we need to de-orbit Hubble safely. But to say the need to de-orbit Hubble is "WHY" we cannot afford Hubble 2 is unacceptable, at least without massive whining.

clark · 2004-12-08 14:39:02

Hubble or trips to the Moon? Is this really a debate?

BWhite · 2004-12-08 14:44:13

Hubble or trips to the Moon? Is this really a debate?

Both. Otherwise I whine and troll.

clark · 2004-12-08 14:46:33

I gave you nuclear power and Mars, you thankless wife of a fisherman!

You don't care about Hubble any more than I do. Makes for a nice exscuse to vent, I'm sure. :laugh:

BWhite · 2004-12-08 14:52:25

I gave you nuclear power and Mars, you thankless wife of a fisherman!
You don't care about Hubble any more than I do. Makes for a nice exscuse to vent, I'm sure. :laugh:

I also bought my son a new red Porsche, about 4 inches long with great detailing. About $12.99.

If the VSE chooses a gold plated CEV we ain't going anywhere no matter what Sean O'Keefe says.

Nuclear ion propulsion (JIMO) is worthless for human travel. Nuclear thermal is the bare minimum and I really like "gas core" even though its not necessary.

clark · 2004-12-08 14:57:11

You make me want to scream sometimes.

If the VSE chooses a gold plated CEV we ain't going anywhere no matter what Sean O'Keefe says.

What are you so afraid of? NASA is not doing things like it used to. It's breaking free from much of the things the space advocacy group has begged for for years.

Like you told Cobra, I'll tell you, you're getting everything you wanted.

Shuttle, it's being retired. ISS, retired. Man in space, the rationale of NASA. NASA from a launch provider to a launch consumer. Awards for results. Executive level direction on goals. Long term goals that build off the previous goals in a sensible manner.

Nuclear ion propulsion (JIMO) is worthless for human travel. Nuclear thermal is the bare minimum and I really like "gas core" even though its not necessary.

You sound like a brat on Santa's knee.

SpaceNut · 2004-12-08 15:39:04

If another means were available to go would it be better to bring up a partial Hubble II and transfer the guts to it from the old one.

clark · 2004-12-08 15:42:01

No. You're better off either replacing it, or fixing it- transfering stuff would require humans, and it took a SHuttle to get Hubble up there the first time.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-08 17:04:13

There is a question if we need any space telescope at all you know. A network of fancy spysat-optics ground based telescopes can match or exceed what Hubble can do in the optical range.

I agree that the price of a deorbit mission killing Hubble-II would be a protest-in-Houston grade screw up.

Nuclear/Electric engines might be handy for a sustained Lunar presence though, if you can get away with not having to launch any more TLI stages and just a tank of ion engine fuel every few years, that might save some serious cash.

That said, NTR drive would be really really nice... it isn't really nessearry for the Moon, but it makes a Mars trip much more practical. GCNR engines, as cool as they may be, are definatly next-generation.

One thing I wonder, and I'm thinkin of starting a thread concerning, is small turbine/gas cooled reactors versus big thermocouple/dynamic reactors. Which is better? Why is NASA going the turbine route?

BWhite · 2004-12-08 17:35:01

There is a question if we need any space telescope at all you know. A network of fancy spysat-optics ground based telescopes can match or exceed what Hubble can do in the optical range.
I agree that the price of a deorbit mission killing Hubble-II would be a protest-in-Houston grade screw up.

This question is a legitimate question for serious discussion and negotiated resolution.

But to bandy about loose talk of Hubble-II - - with no promise for funding it - - is a smokescreen to avoid discussion.

Like I said above. Put Hubble-II money on the table and I will not complain one bit as Hubble I is incinerated, safely. Or fund ground based scopes that perform as well or better.

The Moon or Hubble? False choice. After orbiter is retired between $5 and $6 billion per year will be made available for VSE.

That is the promise anyways.

Even $2 billion for Hubble-II delays the moon landing by 4 months. Big deal. $4 billion? 8 month delay.

Nuclear/Electric engines might be handy for a sustained Lunar presence though, if you can get away with not having to launch any more TLI stages and just a tank of ion engine fuel every few years, that might save some serious cash.
That said, NTR drive would be really really nice... it isn't really nessearry for the Moon, but it makes a Mars trip much more practical. GCNR engines, as cool as they may be, are definatly next-generation.

I agree with all of this. I am tired of people (clark, O'Keefe) trotting out JIMO as if it would help human spaceflight.

Ion propulsion is for cargo. I love ion drive. But its for cargo.

NERVA is 1960s technology. A genuine nuclear thermal system could be flying by 2012 or 2014 with no problem if we made the commitment.

That's why I say the jury remains out on whether the VSE is real or just smoke and mirrors. No praise given for a budget "hammered" through with inside politics. Let's seem some rockets fly.

Then there will be plenty of time for praise. The mission ain't accomplished until its accomplished. Too much premature celebration going on these days.

clark · 2004-12-08 17:49:55

You're making me scream again.

I agree with all of this. I am tired of people (clark, O'Keefe) trotting out JIMO as if it would help human spaceflight.

Read the fine print Bill. JIMO is under the Office of Exploration. That's why I don't pay much attention to engineers or scientists whining about this or that related to JIMO. It dosen't matter. JIMO is a simple test bed to develop the nuclear propulsion for space exploration. It's also a rubicon of sorts becuase we can point to it later and tell the chicken littles that the sky will not fall if we use larger versions for manned versions.

We have ZERO experience with nuclear propulsion in space. Nada. Zilch. Zippo. We have to start somewhere, and by god, putting JIMO in Exploration ought to tell you that it isn't about the science of JIMO- it's the rockets!

The Moon or Hubble? False choice. After orbiter is retired between $5 and $6 billion per year will be made available for VSE.

Sure, and where is that money going to be absorbed?! VSE already has the money it needs for the next five years- just throwin 5 billion more isn't going to produce anything any faster (it's already an agressive time table).

You also end up putting all your eggs in one basket and completely deny the reality that Congress (and national security) place certain requirements on NASA that just can't be abridged willy-nilly.

Even $2 billion for Hubble-II delays the moon landing by 4 months. Big deal. $4 billion? 8 month delay.

What? You're talking up front capital- you would stop VSE cold for a year.

No praise given for a budget "hammered" through with inside politics. Let's seem some rockets fly.

Dude, did you think NASA would have the budget it has, the directive it has, and everything else prior to 2004? The ink isn't even dry yet and you want it now.

You are soooo American.

SpaceNut · 2004-12-09 06:22:01

Part of the problem that the exploration office must deal with is not doing R&D developement of probes, rockets and such but of the concepts to measure, test for and to select the places that we wish to go. This should be done with steady state selectible products. When the R&D work has been done then include such devices into on going missions.

Austin Stanley · 2004-12-09 15:01:37

I always like the orginal plan which was (I thought) to send the shuttle up to retrive the thing and put it up in the Smithsonian museum. Sure it doesn't make economic sence, but it would be nice to have such a historic peice of space history preserved for all to see.

SpaceNut · 2004-12-09 18:30:30

Yup that was one of the orginal intents once it had out lived it's usefullness. It was I think some time ago that it was ruled to hazardous to return in that manner though.

Earlier I had put forth the concept of cannibalizing it while in orbit to supplement a Hubble II replacement by the shuttle crew or by any other means. If shuttle where used then the lighter remaining pieces could be brought back down.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-09 23:10:03

"Earlier I had put forth the concept of canabolizing it while in orbit..."

Astronauts have enough trouble getting the doors on Hubble to shut tightly, much less dismantle the thing on orbit. This is impossible.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#276 2004-12-08 11:32:58

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#277 2004-12-08 11:45:38

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#278 2004-12-08 11:50:08

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#279 2004-12-08 11:57:47

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#280 2004-12-08 12:18:07

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#281 2004-12-08 12:25:46

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#282 2004-12-08 14:17:05

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#283 2004-12-08 14:18:58

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#284 2004-12-08 14:24:37

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#285 2004-12-08 14:28:16

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#286 2004-12-08 14:38:03

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#287 2004-12-08 14:39:02

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#288 2004-12-08 14:44:13

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#289 2004-12-08 14:46:33

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#290 2004-12-08 14:52:25

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#291 2004-12-08 14:57:11

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#292 2004-12-08 15:39:04

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#293 2004-12-08 15:42:01

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#294 2004-12-08 17:04:13

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#295 2004-12-08 17:35:01

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#296 2004-12-08 17:49:55

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#297 2004-12-09 06:22:01

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#298 2004-12-09 15:01:37

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#299 2004-12-09 18:30:30

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#300 2004-12-09 23:10:03

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

Board footer