Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

Bill White · 2004-02-01 22:16:17

Russia has a second [http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/spa … zarya.html]Zarya control node which they built as a back up. Add a TransHab module to Zarya and an EVA airlock and launch on shuttle C to rendevouz with Hubble.

I believe Shuttle C could easily lift Zarya and the Hubble repair kits. Rendevouz with Soyuz for crew and perhaps use Soyuz engines to assist in the burns needed to reach Hubble.

After the mission is over, NASA and the Russians sell the Zarya / TransHab combo and it becomes that space hotel I brought up in another thread.

Ad Astra · 2004-02-01 23:03:39

My concern is that the Soyuz engines wouldn't be sufficient to both boost the Zarya and to de-orbit when the mission is done. Plus, you've got to improvise some kind of grapple point on the Hubble. The grapple issue is my biggest concern with any kind of servicing mission in the post-Shuttle era.

Palomar · 2004-06-15 13:18:22

http://www.space.com/news/hubble_mdrobo … l]Canadian firm to the rescue (?)

--Cindy

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-15 16:13:56

If there is a mission, it will beyond doubt be a robotic one. Shuttle-C wouldn't be ready by the time Hubble loses attitude control and is thus at high risk of tumbling and being un-capturable/un-fixable even if we started right now.

I think that a modified Soyuz alone could pull it off, if it were put on top of a Zenit-IIISL instead of the old R-7 or if it were launched from French Guiana, but that isn't going to happen with the RSA broke and the US unable to send funds over the Iran nuclear mess.

TheMadCap · 2004-06-16 21:36:17

GCN,

Do you think NASA will allow this to happen? It seems they have pretty much written the Hubble off...

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-16 22:47:56

I think there is a 40% chance Nasa will mount a robot mission on EELV rockets to do the job, or somthing like it. A rendevous vehicle that grapples on and handles attitude control, orbital maneuvering, and power generation instead of Hubble's hardware, and replace optics/rewire with manipulators (which i'm not too sure about).

But, the pricetag may hit $1Bn pretty quickly... how much is it worth to save Hubble versus building a new one?

JimM · 2004-06-17 02:03:55

It would be nice to think Shuttle could save someing even though it can't same itself from a mission to the wreckers yard, or to a museum as an exhibt entitled, "How to Ruin a Space Program" --as soon as possible please, in my opinion.

I woudn't bet my shirt on either, though.

Plus, you've got to improvise some kind of grapple point on the Hubble.

Why? How does the Shuttle grapple it without there being a grapple point on Hubble?

Now, a grapple on a non-Shuttle vehicle sent to grapple it, that I can see the need for. But that can't be the hardest job in the world, surely?

Rxke · 2004-06-17 04:24:53

It has a grapple point, or rather, pole, IIRC.

Canadarm had a special extra bit with three wires, that snagged it...

Couldn't the USA officially pay ESA for the job, and ESA hiring RSA, launching from Kourou?

(middleman-stuff...)

is it worth the money? It can be argued it is cheaper to build a HubbleII, but that's just not going to happen, so...
And Hubble has become iconic, very PR sensitive... Wich makes it harder to downright scrap.
And befor anyone forgets: it is *still* an invaluable piece of scientific equipment.

Martian Republic · 2004-06-19 09:17:37

I believe Shuttle C could easily lift Zarya and the Hubble repair kits. Rendevouz with Soyuz for crew and perhaps use Soyuz engines to assist in the burns needed to reach Hubble.
After the mission is over, NASA and the Russians sell the Zarya / TransHab combo and it becomes that space hotel I brought up in another thread.

Hubble telescope needs to be put in the bigger picture of what we want to do in space or other wise we will just twist in the wind, first this way and then that way. If we are really going into space and to deal with problem like the Hubble maintains issue, we are going to have to have a second space station in space any way. Preferably space station that rotating for some artificial gravity so we can have people stay for a longer period of time, besides any upgrades to the current International Space Station that need to be done and finish our part of that space station. We could go with your "C" shuttle idea and combine both projects together. There a minimum amount of infrastructure that you have to have in place or other wise you just dancing in space and not getting anywhere as far as the Hubble telescope or any other major project you want to do in space. I realize that it cost more, but there only so much you can do about any problem we might run into in space if you don’t have the equipment at hand.

But, the problem is, with the current budget problems of the United States, we can’t do this and we are left with either doing this or doing that project and leaving something else undone that needs to be done.

So any suggestions?

Larry,

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2004-07-18 17:20:13

some good points, but I wonder if these ideas could work ?

GraemeSkinner · 2004-07-18 23:55:38

I'd heard the robotic mission had already been given the green light - just can't remember where I heard/read it :;):
Can't remember if it was a joint NASA/ESA, or NASA/RSA, or all three combined mission. If I can dig out the link I post it here.

Graeme

Palomar · 2004-07-19 07:10:25

*The last I read (Friday?), indications are strong Sean O'Keefe isn't backing down on his position -and- the most powerful proponent for fixing Hubble is "stepping down." I can't remember which space news source on the 'net I read that at.

The article wasn't attempting to "predict" anything, simply relating the facts. I get the feeling Hubble is going "bye-bye."

--Cindy

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-19 08:00:13

But really... is it cheaper to "save" Hubble (jerry-rigging it for a little while longer), and have a high risk of repair mission failure... or is cheaper to just build a new telescope. The current HST has lost some of its abilities due to the optics repair since the mirror is incorrectly ground... so a smaller telescope built correctly would have similar abilities.

Unlike HST, don't spend a dime making the thing space-serviceable. The cost to fix it later on will probobly be similar to the cost of simply making a new one all over again. Rigid Ga-As solar cells, extra gyros, long-life batteries, modern computers, maybe even a laser data downlink... If a robot is gong to cost $1Bn to go fix HST, why not just build a new telescope?

Edit: To put things in a little perspective...

Probable cost of rushing to mount a robot mission in about two years is looking to come in around $750M-$1Bn

The cost of the Chandra XST: $2.5Bn including Shuttle launch

The cost of the SIRTF infra-red telescope including Delta-II launch: $450M

So... a billion dollars for a brand new telescope doesn't sound outrageous, especially since some of the sensors are already built (for the final HST serviceing), we have become better at building large aperature telescopes from multiple small (cheap, fast) mirrors, and the thing would be built without all the anticent 1960s/1970s hardware.

Make is smaller make it lighter, folding mirror assemblies, collapseable shroud, modern electronics, no niggling with making it serviceable on orbit, built-in deorbit rocket... and put it on a Delta-IV Medium or Atlas-V for $100-150M.

RobertDyck · 2004-07-19 11:51:40

Your arguments sound good, until you look at reality. They have no intention of building a new telescope. The so called "new" telescope to replace Hubble with be infrared only; no capability to see in visible light. Politicians have been told the James Webb Space Telescope is the replacement for Hubble. There are things you can do in IR, but that telescope won't have the ability to image stars the way human eyes see, or the ability to analyze stars with multiple spectra. This is a continuing strategy to prevent politicians from screwing up a good program; Hubble was designed so it could be brought down to Earth for servicing, then returned to space by Shuttle. When the mirror problem was discovered, they didn't bring it down for fear it would never go back up. If they had brought it down they could have replaced the mirror. Now the options are to find some means of servicing Hubble or loose the only visible light telescope.

clark · 2004-07-19 11:53:45

OR, build another one.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-19 12:13:59

Hypothetical senario... 2005

NASA investigates throughly the possibility of a robot mission to Hubble: a robot with gyros, OMS engine, solar panels, batteries, equipment "trays" and manipulator arms is concieved, to be launched on the Atlas-V 521... it would simply dock with Hubble's docking clamp and take over all operations except data handling, and the manipulators would open the telescope to swap out two cameras and switch power systems. Total cost of $1.1Bn including launch vehicle, to be completed and ready for launch in 2008. 85% chance of mission sucess, provided the (lets say) 25% chance that Hubble would lose attitude control by then (and be lost for good)... A Shuttle mission is definatly off the table.

So O'Keefe faces a decision, the White House agrees to back up his judgement... so O'Keefe goes to The Hill...

"Mr. Speaker, Senators, Congressmen... There is a chance to save the Hubble Space Telescope and all its huge scientific benefits, which would be lost to us without an optical telescope, but the only practical means to do so will cost over a billion dollars and has only a modest chance of sucess... As administrator of the space agency, it is my judgement that such a mission is a dubious investment, considering that an optical telescope of similar power could be built, use the new cameras already built for Hubble, for a sum of aproximatly $1.5Bn total. This new telescope would be the equal of Hubble, but cheaper and will last for years longer than the remaining life of the HST with advances in technology and lessons learned..."

If presented with the choice, I think Congress would go with the new scope'

BWhite · 2004-07-19 13:09:15

Practically speaking GCNRevenger is correct. A new Hubble-2 might well be a better deal than a $1 billion robot mission that might fail. So why is no one in NASA proposing that?

It solves the issues with that Maryland Seantor and takes lots of egg off O'Keefe's face.

= = =

Still, if it is "fundamentally irresponsible" to fly the orbiter to Hubble why isn't it "fundamentally irresponsible" to risk using ISS as a safe haven?

God forbid 8 astronauuts are stranded at ISS and only 6 can come down on 2 Soyuz because of technical glitches and 2 astronauts suffocate. ISS would then be a doomed station.

Or all astronauts are saved yet the life support and food and water supplies are totally trashed with no convenient way to replenish or refurbish the station.

Unless we abandon ISS, we will need another way to finish & support ISS besides the orbiter. If we find another way to support ISS, we can stick a Soyuz DM in the orbiter cargo bay and send 3 astronauts to service Hubble.

= = =

Edit: I see a nasty short story scenario. 8 or 9 astronauts on ISS. Orbiter at ISS cannot be repaired. Back up orbiter delayed or life support starts failing faster than predicted.

One Soyuz can bring back 3. A second Soyuz can bring back 3 more. A third Soyuz cannot be readied in time.

Now what?

Euler · 2004-07-19 13:14:05

Your arguments sound good, until you look at reality. They have no intention of building a new telescope. The so called "new" telescope to replace Hubble with be infrared only; no capability to see in visible light. Politicians have been told the James Webb Space Telescope is the replacement for Hubble. There are things you can do in IR, but that telescope won't have the ability to image stars the way human eyes see, or the ability to analyze stars with multiple spectra. This is a continuing strategy to prevent politicians from screwing up a good program; Hubble was designed so it could be brought down to Earth for servicing, then returned to space by Shuttle. When the mirror problem was discovered, they didn't bring it down for fear it would never go back up. If they had brought it down they could have replaced the mirror. Now the options are to find some means of servicing Hubble or loose the only visible light telescope.

The reason why there is no plan to send up another optical telescope is that advances in ground based telescopes have rendered them obsolete. With segmented mirrors, adaptive optics, and interferometry, modern telescopes are orders of magnitude more powerful than they were when Hubble was launched. For instance, the VLT operating in full interferometer mode will have a resolution of .001 arcseconds; Compared to this, Hubble's .1 arcseccond resolution just can't compete.

This is why space telescopes have shifted their focus to other spectrums that do not penetrate the atmosphere so easily. The James Webb telescope is an example of this. While it weighs only half as much as the Hubble telescope, it will have 5 times as much light gathering power and much more advanced electronics.

Telescope technology is advancing faster than almost any other field of technology right now. It just does not make much sense to spend a billion dollars to service a telescope that is decades old and completely obsolete.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-19 13:29:33

The reason why there is no plan to send up another optical telescope is that advances in ground based telescopes have rendered them obsolete.

Sounds like an even better argument not to launch anything... can ground-based telescopes really detect the same or similar spectrum that HST can, loiter on target as long, and produce as sharp an image? I think $1Bn is quite a sum to pay for the sentimentality of Hubble or for making a new optical ST when the $100M superscope on the ground is just as good.

Starting to talk like a believer in the Precautionary Principle Bill, lets take a little look at the facts and figures...

NASA isn't going to launch Shuttle anymore unless there is a spare that can be readied in time... There is a chance that one Shuttle can fail, but two in a row? The most vulnerable componet on Shuttle is its heat shielding, stranding you on orbit with the Shuttle's 2-3 week maximum load of supplies... so, the rescue Shuttle would have to be launched in that time frame, which is chancey. Then you have to worry about the crew of the stranded Shuttle mating up and getting from one to the other safely... which is substantially dangerous.

But throw the ISS into the mix, where if the most flimsy part of the ship breaks, you can simply dock (or stay docked) to ISS and climb through the docking hatch. On ISS, there would be several months worth of supplies for a "big" crew, giving you plenty of time to launch a 2nd Shuttle at liesure... and perhaps even ready a third just in case.

So, I think O'Keefe isn't (completly) BSing when he says a trip to Hubble is much more dangerous than a trip to the ISS, given we know how flimsy the TPS system is now.

BWhite · 2004-07-19 14:22:58

NASA isn't going to launch Shuttle anymore unless there is a spare that can be readied in time...

The magic words. :;):

Are we talking 30 days, 60 days, 90 days?

Okay, now lets translate this requirement into flight rates. I apologize if I have the rotation order wrong.

Shuttle Atlantic goes up.
Discovery is on deck.

Discovery goes up.
Endeavor is on deck.

Now, Endeavor cannot go up until Atlantis is ready. What is a reasonable post-Columbia turnaround for orbiter flight preparation?

How many flights per year is that? How do we possibly finish ISS by 2010?

A 30 day ready requirement? A Ready 30 shuttle? If not needed do we stand it down from "Ready 30" until the next one is ready to play backstop?

Endeavor is at "Ready 30" and Discovery proceeds flawlessly. Do we need to downgrade Endeavor's status until Atlantis is ready and then re-prep Endeavor?

Now suppose a 90 day requirement? What if a critical ISS component breaks in the meantime? There is my short story scenario.

Grypd · 2004-07-19 14:23:41

I wonder if all the fuss in saving the hubble is not really a fight between the two main groups in space advocacy. The hubble is a very visible symbol of we can do space science without touching group or no man needed, Saganists.

As it seems the other group the lets go, explore, exploit Zubrinists had the Hubble confined to the Scrap yard. The fact that they want to use a robot (no man needed) to sort the mess it is in kind of hints that they plan to prove why send people when a sterile machine can do better.

BWhite · 2004-07-19 14:27:24

I wonder if all the fuss in saving the hubble is not really a fight between the two main groups in space advocacy. The hubble is a very visible symbol of we can do space science without touching group or no man needed, Saganists.
As it seems the other group the lets go, explore, exploit Zubrinists had the Hubble confined to the Scrap yard. The fact that they want to use a robot (no man needed) to sort the mess it is in kind of hints that they plan to prove why send people when a sterile machine can do better.

I agree if we substitue Boehlert v Rohrbacher.

Zubrin wants both.

clark · 2004-07-19 14:31:26

Are we talking 30 days, 60 days, 90 days?

Less than 90 days. Neccessary question, what is the minimum flight crew requirement for ISS construction?

Do we need to send up seven people with each Shuttle? Or can we get away with two or three?

Now, Endeavor cannot go up until Atlantis is ready. What is a reasonable post-Columbia turnaround for orbiter flight preparation?

So Atlantis goes up, then Discovery. That's two flights in one year... right? 90 day requirement for emergency, so double it for actual flight. 180. 6 month turn around for a week on orbit.

So Atlantis then Discovery. 2 flights. 180 days later, Endeavor then Atlantis (Discovery should be ready less than 180 days because now the Shuttles are falling into a queue of advanced prep time).

How many flights per year is that? How do we possibly finish ISS by 2010?

Assume 6 years of construction time left. Assume a minimum of three flights per year: 18 flights (24 max at 4 per year). We finish ISS by cutting back on the number of flights Shuttle must carry by finding alternatives, or scaling back the design of the ISS.

Now suppose a 90 day requirement? What if a critical ISS component breaks in the meantime?

Have a Soyuz on deck. With a two person station and a three member visit team, you only need one extra Soyuz sent up with a pilot to pick up the two extra people.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-19 14:45:05

The three remaining Shuttles can do the job with the next being ready to go within 2-3mo if supply missions are essentially omitted... The chances of being on orbit with a crippled Shuttle AND somthing catastrophic going wrong on ISS within the 2-3mo window is a pretty small risk I think.

As far as crew size of the Shuttle flights, you could probobly get away with a crew of three... pilot, copilot (if you want to call them that) and a guy to operate the robot arm. So that makes five plus one Russian pilot sent up from Earth, so six back down.

clark · 2004-07-19 14:56:48

But here is what will most likely preclude completion of the ISS as currently defined: Shuttle launch window.

NASA can only launch during the day, on clear days, and in very restricted time frames.

I think what we may see, if they are really going to make this work, is a rapid fire succession where all three go up in the same month or two at the begining of the year. Then, they all get refurbished for another shot at the end of the year...

that would be 6 shots a year, for 6 years, so that's 36 flight loads? Isn't that enough to cover most of the ISS flight manifest?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-02-01 22:16:17

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#2 2004-02-01 23:03:39

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#3 2004-06-15 13:18:22

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#4 2004-06-15 16:13:56

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#5 2004-06-16 21:36:17

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#6 2004-06-16 22:47:56

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#7 2004-06-17 02:03:55

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#8 2004-06-17 04:24:53

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#9 2004-06-19 09:17:37

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#10 2004-07-18 17:20:13

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#11 2004-07-18 23:55:38

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#12 2004-07-19 07:10:25

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#13 2004-07-19 08:00:13

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#14 2004-07-19 11:51:40

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#15 2004-07-19 11:53:45

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#16 2004-07-19 12:13:59

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#17 2004-07-19 13:09:15

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#18 2004-07-19 13:14:05

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#19 2004-07-19 13:29:33

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#20 2004-07-19 14:22:58

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#21 2004-07-19 14:23:41

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#22 2004-07-19 14:27:24

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#23 2004-07-19 14:31:26

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#24 2004-07-19 14:45:05

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#25 2004-07-19 14:56:48

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

Board footer