Author Topic: Don’t desert Hubble  (Read 15389 times)

Offline Tea Party Space Czar

  • President, Tea Party in Space
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 382
  • TEA Party in Space Czar
  • Washington DC
  • Liked: 294
  • Likes Given: 284
Don’t desert Hubble
« on: 12/09/2013 02:22 am »
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

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Don’t desert Hubble
« Reply #1 on: 12/09/2013 02:25 am »
We have long advocated for SM-5.  The tools used are in storage.  You would not have to reinvent the wheel here.


Yes, it would have to be reinvented.  The shuttle no longer exists.  Only thing feasible is a deorbit stage with attitude control for an extended mission but no instrument changeout.

Offline Tea Party Space Czar

  • President, Tea Party in Space
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 382
  • TEA Party in Space Czar
  • Washington DC
  • Liked: 294
  • Likes Given: 284
Re: Don’t desert Hubble
« Reply #2 on: 12/09/2013 02:38 am »
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

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Don’t desert Hubble
« Reply #3 on: 12/09/2013 03:33 am »
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

Easier to forget about an EVA fix and just operate from gyros installed in the deorbit stage.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: Don’t desert Hubble
« Reply #4 on: 12/09/2013 06:19 am »
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
Pardon me for asking but why are you pointing to an article that is 9 years and 10 months old?

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Don’t desert Hubble
« Reply #5 on: 12/09/2013 12:33 pm »
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
Pardon 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.

Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 914
Re: Don’t desert Hubble
« Reply #6 on: 12/09/2013 12:54 pm »
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

Easier to forget about an EVA fix and just operate from gyros installed in the deorbit stage.

This is an interesting idea. Instead of a deorbit stage why not a life extension stage?
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Offline Tea Party Space Czar

  • President, Tea Party in Space
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 382
  • TEA Party in Space Czar
  • Washington DC
  • Liked: 294
  • Likes Given: 284
Re: Don’t desert Hubble
« Reply #7 on: 12/09/2013 01:00 pm »
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
Pardon 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

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: Don’t desert Hubble
« Reply #8 on: 12/09/2013 01:34 pm »
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
Pardon 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

OK, thanks for the clarification.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Don’t desert Hubble
« Reply #9 on: 12/09/2013 01:59 pm »


This is an interesting idea. Instead of a deorbit stage why not a life extension stage?

It does both

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8566
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 327
Re: Don’t desert Hubble
« Reply #10 on: 12/09/2013 02:42 pm »
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.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Don’t desert Hubble
« Reply #11 on: 12/09/2013 03:37 pm »
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.

there is an umbilical on back of HST that was automatically connected when berthed in the shuttle, the data is supposedly available on it.

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8566
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 327
Re: Don’t desert Hubble
« Reply #12 on: 12/09/2013 03:40 pm »
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.

there is an umbilical on back of HST that was automatically connected when berthed in the shuttle, the data is supposedly available on it.

Pays to ask - I didn't know that!  Thanks!

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Don’t desert Hubble
« Reply #13 on: 12/09/2013 07:10 pm »
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
Pardon 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

And when you say "we" you mean "me and three other guys who don't really understand this stuff very well," right?

There's no money. There's no policy or technical support for this. It's just a ridiculous idea.

Offline Peter NASA

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1294
  • SOMD
  • Liked: 8747
  • Likes Given: 98
Re: Don’t desert Hubble
« Reply #14 on: 12/09/2013 08:35 pm »
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.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Don’t desert Hubble
« Reply #15 on: 12/09/2013 11:51 pm »
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.

The Tea Party isn't targeting NASA's budget. They would prefer cuts to mandatory spending actually. Sequester was signed by both parties including the President. Replacing sequester with other cuts is the responsability of both parties.
« Last Edit: 12/09/2013 11:55 pm by yg1968 »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Don’t desert Hubble
« Reply #16 on: 12/14/2013 02:53 pm »
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
Pardon me for asking but why are you pointing to an article that is 9 years and 10 months old?

Because, as he mentioned in the OP, he believes that "you wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel".  Jim's in the process of disproving that belief.  The age of the article is of somewhat lesser importance.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline imspacy

  • Member
  • Posts: 39
  • space technology, science, exploration advocate
  • florida
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 203
Re: Don’t desert Hubble
« Reply #17 on: 12/16/2013 01:10 am »
A 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?

Examination of Hubble/Shuttle history is instructive..
Original Nasa estimate cost to develop/construct Hubble: $400 million
What Nasa actually spent: $1.5 billion
much of this was research, learning curve,  and avoidable error... so assume a Hubble replacement (new and improved) cost of $300 million...
Cost of each Nasa shuttle flight: $1.6 billion (program cost of $220 billion / 135 flights)..
So, the shuttle cost to orbit Hubble exceeded the cost of Hubble..
And the cost of EACH Nasa SHUTTLE 'service' flight greatly exceeded the replacement cost of the entire Hubble...
Hubble had 5 shuttle 'repair/service' flights to extend it's life...
For the $7.5 billion Nasa spent on the 5 shuttle 'service' flights, we could have constructed and orbited TEN 'new and improved' Hubble space telescopes launched by ELVs..
 
Going forward, the existing SpaceX payload fairing is plenty big enough to launch a modernized improved Hubble telescope... on a Falcon Heavy for only $70 million....
We could have many improved Hubbles for a small part of Nasa's $17 billion/year budget... and a small part of what Nasa is spending on SLS/Orion..
« Last Edit: 12/16/2013 01:38 am by imspacy »
Longs Axiom: “An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications”

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Don’t desert Hubble
« Reply #18 on: 12/16/2013 03:28 pm »
A 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?


Why does everything have to do with spacex?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Don’t desert Hubble
« Reply #19 on: 12/16/2013 03:43 pm »
Because it is a LEO mission. SNC has also advertized that one of its configurations (the one with the robotic arm) could service Hubble. Whether this is a good idea is another manner.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1