We have long advocated for SM-5. The tools used are in storage. You would not have to reinvent the wheel here.
Jim,Were not the tools used to remove and replace gyros sent back to Goddard? This was my understanding.I agree that sensor swap would be incredibly difficult and expensive - however - gyro swap would not be as expensive and we are not creating new technology for the gyros.Arguments will have to be made about using a commercial crew vehicle as well as a docking mechanism. I do not deny this. However, in light of where we are going this is, at least to me and a few huggers, more viable.Respectfully,Andrew Gasser
We have long advocated for SM-5. The tools used are in storage. You would not have to reinvent the wheel here.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/feb/11/20040211-093526-3983r/This is so much more realistic than JWST. Then again, I remember when Falcon 9 and Dragon was nothing more than "paper".We should focus on working with what we have.Respectfully,Andrew Gasser
Quote from: Tea Party Space Czar on 12/09/2013 02:22 amWe have long advocated for SM-5. The tools used are in storage. You would not have to reinvent the wheel here.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/feb/11/20040211-093526-3983r/This is so much more realistic than JWST. Then again, I remember when Falcon 9 and Dragon was nothing more than "paper".We should focus on working with what we have.Respectfully,Andrew GasserPardon me for asking but why are you pointing to an article that is 9 years and 10 months old?
Quote from: Tea Party Space Czar on 12/09/2013 02:38 amJim,Were not the tools used to remove and replace gyros sent back to Goddard? This was my understanding.I agree that sensor swap would be incredibly difficult and expensive - however - gyro swap would not be as expensive and we are not creating new technology for the gyros.Arguments will have to be made about using a commercial crew vehicle as well as a docking mechanism. I do not deny this. However, in light of where we are going this is, at least to me and a few huggers, more viable.Respectfully,Andrew GasserEasier to forget about an EVA fix and just operate from gyros installed in the deorbit stage.
Quote from: woods170 on 12/09/2013 06:19 amQuote from: Tea Party Space Czar on 12/09/2013 02:22 amWe have long advocated for SM-5. The tools used are in storage. You would not have to reinvent the wheel here.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/feb/11/20040211-093526-3983r/This is so much more realistic than JWST. Then again, I remember when Falcon 9 and Dragon was nothing more than "paper".We should focus on working with what we have.Respectfully,Andrew GasserPardon me for asking but why are you pointing to an article that is 9 years and 10 months old?Because it is from an ideologically correct source.
Quote from: Blackstar on 12/09/2013 12:33 pmQuote from: woods170 on 12/09/2013 06:19 amQuote from: Tea Party Space Czar on 12/09/2013 02:22 amWe have long advocated for SM-5. The tools used are in storage. You would not have to reinvent the wheel here.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/feb/11/20040211-093526-3983r/This is so much more realistic than JWST. Then again, I remember when Falcon 9 and Dragon was nothing more than "paper".We should focus on working with what we have.Respectfully,Andrew GasserPardon me for asking but why are you pointing to an article that is 9 years and 10 months old?Because it is from an ideologically correct source.Honestly we had been kicking this around for awhile. I never read this and when it came across one of my news feeds I was excited.No conspiracy theories. I do agree with it and I will look at dates of stories more closely on my feeds.Respectfully,Andrew
This is an interesting idea. Instead of a deorbit stage why not a life extension stage?
How would a stage attached to Hubble get access to the information from the fine guidance sensors? Obviously, it couldn't have its own set since it would need access to the optics for that.
Quote from: Lee Jay on 12/09/2013 02:42 pmHow would a stage attached to Hubble get access to the information from the fine guidance sensors? Obviously, it couldn't have its own set since it would need access to the optics for that.there is an umbilical on back of HST that was automatically connected when berthed in the shuttle, the data is supposedly available on it.
A very strange thread. Only Shuttle was capable of this task, and the TPIS were not lobbying for a Shuttle extension. Maybe if the Tea Party politicians supported NASA's budget instead of targeting it as another item to cull to fund tax cuts for millionaires, then maybe I would take you seriously.
A very strange thread. Only Shuttle was capable of this task (repair/service of Hubble)
Quote from: Peter NASA on 12/09/2013 08:35 pmA very strange thread. Only Shuttle was capable of this task (repair/service of Hubble)Why? Why not launch replacement components in a Falcon 9 shroud, then send the repair Astros up in a manned Dragon?