Hubble mistake - Action needed

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-06 08:44:10

Its going to cost a minimum of half a billion dollars for a robot, probobly closer to a whole billion, and said robot would have to be built in only two years. Even with several billion, I don't know if a rush-job like that can be pulled off.

A Shuttle mission would cost at least a billion dollars, and if the flimsy TPS fails then we've lost another Shuttle, provided the crew can be rescued in time (only days of LSS supplies & power) by a second launch.

Orrr build a new telescope. Sure we would be out of optical scopes' for a while. Yes it probobly wouldn't have as wide of an aperature. No it probobly wouldn't be built to be serviced on orbit... But a brand new telescope would last longer and could be placed in a higher orbit without costing much if any more.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-06 08:55:43

So for the same 1 billion as a shuttle flight we could get a new scope with deorbit stage, hopefully better gyro's with all the upgrade gear that was to be used and even utilizing the museum held backup mirror we could be back up there looking at the stars again. Probably in the same amount of time as it would take to get the orbotic mission, which could be a failure since untested before Hubble would come down. Sounds more probable to do than the Hubble rescue at this point. But that also sets a standard of continual replacement for all probes which do cost alot rather than repair if they were nearer to the station. If other stations were in orbit the safe haven would also be a mute point also.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-06 12:07:16

Well here's another NASA flip flop on the issue of the

NASA Extends TRMM Operations Through 2004 Hurricane Season

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/au … M_ops.html

Last month NASA announced that it and JAXA had agreed to end the mission and deorbit the spacecraft in a controlled reentry in the next year.

It was only last month adn now they have found some money to continue using it. Daaa...
Just wait and they will change there mind again.

Here is some more wiggle from Nasa on the ciab recommendations for future shuttle flights.

Shuttle backups likely for 2 launches
NASA wants proof fixes work

http://www.floridatoday.com/news....TLE.htm

Euler · 2004-08-06 13:17:05

Orrr build a new telescope. Sure we would be out of optical scopes' for a while. Yes it probobly wouldn't have as wide of an aperature.

No, it would have a wider aperture. The James Webb telescope has more than 5 times as much mirror area as Hubble, despite weighing only half as much. That's progress.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-06 13:32:10

Ya but not quite the same animal,

"JWST is a large, infrared-optimized space telescope. It will have an 18-segment, 6.5-meter primary mirror and will reside in an L2 Lissajous orbit. JWST is scheduled for launch in 2011."

http://ngst.gsfc.nasa.gov/

http://hubble.nasa.gov/

Both are here on this site Space Telescope Science Institute
http://www.stsci.edu/resources/

Euler · 2004-08-06 13:58:12

Yes, the JWST is different from Hubble. However, it does show that mirror technology has advanced considerably since Hubble was launched.

Palomar · 2004-08-06 20:48:48

Hubbles]http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=13591]Hubble's imaging spectrograph has failed

"On August 3, 2004 @ 16:38 GMT (12:38 PM EDT) the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS) suspended after suffering a failed command echo check between the Control Section (CS) of the STIS Main Electronics Box (MEB) and the Multi-Anode Micro-channel Array (MAMA) Control Electronics (MCE)...

Further investigation has now revealed a probable failure mechanism linking these anomaly signatures. Accordingly, it is now believed that STIS’s mechanism functions are inoperable and unrecoverable. Because STIS has been single-string in its electronics since May 2001, it can no longer be used for science observations."

Check out "Corrective Action" paragraph. They're going to form a Failure Review Board. Wish I understood more of the tech lingo in the article, but I think I understand enough of it. :-\

--Cindy

deagleninja · 2004-08-07 13:34:24

Ah poor Hubble.....like a crippled veteran it has served its country well.....and like a veteran it can't get help because of money issues.

What I think is interesting is that NASA is making plans to have additional shuttles prepared and ready to fly should we have trouble when we resume shuttle launches in spring '05. My question is, if we are going to have additional shuttles ready to fly for the first few missions, then why aren't we going to service Hubble? Isn't this exactly what the Columbia commission recomended?

Hubble has generated more support for NASA than anything else they have done over the years including the Mars Rovers. I believe NASA should service the HST with humans. Doing anything else at this time would be stupid.

Palomar · 2004-08-07 14:08:03

Ah poor Hubble.....like a crippled veteran it has served its country well.....and like a veteran it can't get help because of money issues.

*That is a very, very, very, VERY apt analogy if I've ever read one!!

I totally agree.

And you're right-on about the generation of support for NASA point.

--Cindy

SpaceNut · 2004-08-09 06:06:49

Yes that was one of the recomendations by the board to have a second shuttle ready when the first went into space. But Nasa's definition of ready is not the same as ours. If you have been following the shuttle logs for return to flight. You will notice that there are almost months between the two shuttles that could fly come this early 2005 launch date. The third is a much longer way off nearly a year.

Also there is a flaw in that nasa sees this as another big expense in that readying a rescue shuttle only to unload it and to reprep it for the next mission. If they had a second launch pad they could off load that expense by just leaving it ready all the time. But that would only leave 2 vehicles for use then meaning more missions for each before the 2010 date of retirement. I guess the solution is to build more but that goes against operating cost which needs to be much lower.
Another though is that the second shuttle could also become damaged in the rescue attempt. Now where does that leave us with regards to completing the ISS, Not in a very good spot with our partners.
We need two things design to take the place of the shuttle, on is for the Heavy lift rocket which we need designed like as of yesterday and a more modest crew transportation vehicle design to take over flights to the ISS.
I would force this one back onto the Lockheed and Boeing to deliver something for there own rockets that fit the bill and or some SDV combo which ever would be best.

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-09 08:37:07

Sounds like the NASA 2007 "fix it deadline" is sounding more and more conservative... The more things that have to be replaced on Hubble, the worse off the proposition becomes. If it isn't going to cost under $1.0-1.5Bn to fix HST, then it is not worth the effort. This makes a robot mission particularly questionable, since we would have only two or three years to build it. Or just build a new telescope.

Making Shuttle-B/C to finish the ISS sounds like a great idea, but I don't think it can be accomplished in time for the 2010 ISS deadline. Its going to take a couple of years to design it, repackage the payloads & replan the assembly missions, get/build a tug, and by then its too late. Plus, there isn't any money for SDV unless Shuttle is eliminated.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-09 08:56:49

Does anybody know much about the full scale mock up unit concept that sits at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama in this 1989 according to this photo link?

http://www.space.com/php....0image.

Maybe this could be made functional.

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-09 13:22:25

Its really just a mockup to test the fit of everything, it isn't in any shape form or fasion flight-capable hardware.

GraemeSkinner · 2004-08-10 03:55:05

Does anyone know if Hubble can be placed in a higher orbit then shut down until a repair mission is viable. With one recent instrument failure, perhaps the others are on a similar lifespan and Hubble will go blind or even stop responding to commands. So why not put it out of harms way for a while until a repair is possible.

Graeme

SpaceNut · 2004-08-10 06:23:43

Hi GraemeSkinner,

Hubble has no ability to boost its orbit, that is why the Robotic mission is to attach a deorbit stage. Here is a couple of articles that detail the cost of the Robotic mission.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=200 … 5953-9102r
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centreda … 358626.htm
"The agency chief said the mission would cost roughly about $1 billion to $1.6 billion. But he warned that it was almost impossible to estimate the cost until a plan was developed."

Rxke · 2004-08-10 10:10:31

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/afp/20040 … html]Green light to fix Hubble.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-10 11:05:50

So does anyone know why the Hubble's replacement, the James Webb Space Telescope, scheduled to be launched sometime in 2011 is taking some many years to develope?

I know that there is talk of Hubble 2 also in the works using existing upgrade resources intended for the Hubble but what would that time line for launch be?

The light may be green but the cash is in the red before we can even start?

Peter I need to borrow from you in order to pay pal just will not work when it comes to space.

GraemeSkinner · 2004-08-10 23:58:53

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/afp/20040 … html]Green light to fix Hubble.

The plans however seem a stange to me however, the plans for Hubble's repair will only extend its life for up to five years. If they do nothing it will stop being useful by 2008, I'm all for saving Hubble, but if they only extend its life by five years is the million plus price tag worth it? Unless they plan on further missions after those five years have past to keep it operational I'm not sure - I still would like to see a robotic mission work, the lessons/experience would be useful. The five year estimate of course could be a minimum for the time it will continue in which case it could carry on for a few years after that - by then we may have better techniques for getting up there and repairing it.

Graeme

Morris · 2004-08-11 02:09:18

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/afp/20040 … html]Green light to fix Hubble.

All right! That's a big price tag, but, if successful, just demonstrating that robotic repairs of this magnitude can be made should be a big "first".

OTOH, I wonder what other project the money is coming from.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-11 07:26:13

Here is another though due to the most recent device failure.
Well depending on If it is feasable to do, Bring up Hubble 2 and a deorbit booster stage in a shuttle and be done with the whole issue of repair. Send Hubble to it's demise or leave it for spare parts once the bosster is attached.

The reason for shuttles not being used is lack of Safe Haven. A myth that only will last for the duration of the supplies available for the crew to use. Now if the safe Haven has a spare return capsule then we have something to work from.

Yes, give the shuttle crew the needed time to repair if possible but always give second and third options for getting back safely.

On any rescue mission to save the crew and or a badly damaged shuttle that the current crew could not. The rescue team needs to have someone from Macco to teach them how to do hole repair.

A use cutting tools to remove tiles from around damaged area, lay in and weld new sheet metal to cover hole, cut tile peices to shape, apply adhesive, place tile into location, grind and smoothen tile to flush finish for under body repairs.

Yes, the RCC leading edge panels would be harder since each panel is not assimetrical from right wing location to left at the same point on the wing. Maybe half RCC panels or some other wrap over technique can be applied.

The whole problem of severe damage to the TPS system is not a small hole to be filled with a sealing patch but is one of space required for replacement pieces of tiles and of tools.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-11 08:22:15

FYI for those that have not found it yet.

Android top pick to aid Hubble; Dubbed "Dextre," the Canadian robot would blast off on an Atlas 5 or Delta 4 rocket in late 2007 and then outfit the $3 billion observatory with fresh batteries and gyroscopes as well as two new $100 million science instruments.

http://www.flatoday.com/news....FIX.htm

Lots of details in the article.
Happy reading all.

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-11 11:44:54

And then try to outfit Hubble, which was intended to be serviced by humans

GraemeSkinner · 2004-08-11 13:11:15

And then try to outfit Hubble, which was intended to be serviced by humans

I don't see a great problem in using robots to repair something that was designed to be serviced by humans. It just proves we're adaptable, sure there will no doubt be problems along the way, but lets just learn from the experience and not doubt it at every turn.

Mars may be a more reasonable goal for manned missions if they know that robots can do things instead of using humans for everything. So spend the 1 or 2 billion on repairing Hubble, and learn from every part of the experience for use on other repair/exploratory missions.

Graeme

SpaceNut · 2004-08-11 13:57:32

I remember seeing in the last say 3 months articles from either a japanese firm or that of a university with a more human like robot. That could be used if a stationary platform were made.
There was talk of using such a robot to do the more difficult replacement items that they felt a robotic arm could not do.
It was shortly after the Human versus robot should explore space article that I saw possibly on cnn.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-11 14:04:47

These where the ones I could find but I have seen others.

Robonaut human looking Robot astronaut:

Who should explore space, man or machine?
http://www.cnn.com/2003....ex.html

Robots come to aid of human exploration
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/04/1 … index.html

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2004-08-06 08:44:10

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#102 2004-08-06 08:55:43

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#103 2004-08-06 12:07:16

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#104 2004-08-06 13:17:05

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#105 2004-08-06 13:32:10

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#106 2004-08-06 13:58:12

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#107 2004-08-06 20:48:48

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#108 2004-08-07 13:34:24

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#109 2004-08-07 14:08:03

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#110 2004-08-09 06:06:49

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#111 2004-08-09 08:37:07

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#112 2004-08-09 08:56:49

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#113 2004-08-09 13:22:25

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#114 2004-08-10 03:55:05

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#115 2004-08-10 06:23:43

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#116 2004-08-10 10:10:31

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#117 2004-08-10 11:05:50

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#118 2004-08-10 23:58:53

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#119 2004-08-11 02:09:18

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#120 2004-08-11 07:26:13

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#121 2004-08-11 08:22:15

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#122 2004-08-11 11:44:54

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#123 2004-08-11 13:11:15

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#124 2004-08-11 13:57:32

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#125 2004-08-11 14:04:47

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

Board footer