Commercial Hubble Repair

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7 Next  All
Author Topic: Commercial Hubble Repair  (Read 9430 times)
docmordrid
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 1783
Location: Michigan



« Reply #15 on: 05/06/2012 04:40 AM »

A brace of SuperDraco's on either side would give it a kick in the gas, but that'll probably never happen.
Robotbeat
Full Member
*****
Online

Posts: 14566
Location: Minnesota



« Reply #16 on: 05/06/2012 04:55 AM »

A brace of SuperDraco's on either side would give it a kick in the gas, but that'll probably never happen.
There are other aerospace companies out there besides SpaceX. ;)
docmordrid
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 1783
Location: Michigan



« Reply #17 on: 05/06/2012 06:40 AM »

I know - but it's hypergolic and in the thrust range to be an abort motor. What are the other options?
Robotbeat
Full Member
*****
Online

Posts: 14566
Location: Minnesota



« Reply #18 on: 05/06/2012 04:36 PM »

I know - but it's hypergolic and in the thrust range to be an abort motor. What are the other options?
http://www.astronautix.com/fam/stoiquid.htm
Micahgtb
Full Member
**
Offline

Posts: 14
Location: Portland OR


« Reply #19 on: 05/06/2012 07:57 PM »

I know - but it's hypergolic and in the thrust range to be an abort motor. What are the other options?
http://www.astronautix.com/fam/stoiquid.htm

Thanks for this website, didn't know it existed! Wonderful knowledge source.
Robotbeat
Full Member
*****
Online

Posts: 14566
Location: Minnesota



« Reply #20 on: 05/06/2012 10:11 PM »

I know - but it's hypergolic and in the thrust range to be an abort motor. What are the other options?
http://www.astronautix.com/fam/stoiquid.htm

Thanks for this website, didn't know it existed! Wonderful knowledge source.
Just remember that it's not a primary source, so take its specific figures with a grain of salt. But yes, it's a very handy resource.
go4mars
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 2919


« Reply #21 on: 05/07/2012 03:23 PM »

I know - but it's hypergolic and in the thrust range to be an abort motor. What are the other options?
http://www.astronautix.com/fam/stoiquid.htm
Dracos and superdracos aren't on that list. 
Prober
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 4180


“Who is John Galt” - Atlas Shrugged Parts 1&2


« Reply #22 on: 05/07/2012 03:40 PM »

this is really an off the wall idea.   

Only NASA could pull off the EVA's and repairs.   I had the good fortune to have some time avai to watch many hours of the last repair mission.  It so impressed me.

Wonder if "all" the hours video of the mission are available ?   IMHO, It was NASA, the Shuttle etc. at its best!



adrianwyard
Full Member
****
Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #23 on: 05/07/2012 08:16 PM »

Returning to speculation on a Cargo/Servicing Dream Chaser:

Given how old the attached graphic is, and how easy these things are to generate, we have to keep plenty of grains of salt handy. Nevertheless, Mark Sirangelo has said servicing is a mission for Dream Chaser so it's interesting to guess how this might work.

In a previous post I suggested an airlock could be installed in the rear tunnel, and the upper stage adapter could house servicing-related equipment. It turns out these ideas were considered for the HL-42 (42% larger than HL-20). See http://www.astronautix.com/craft/hl42.htm. For some reason it didn't bother them that the 'towed package' was back next to the OMS engines...

As far as DC goes, I've changed my mind on these. If we assume that this graphic is about right, and the pressure bulkhead can easily be moved forward to open up a mini cargo bay, here are some observations.

+ We now have a place to house the replacement parts uphill, the robotic arm can be safely placed within the bay, and the system has the ability to return parts.

+ Such a craft could only visit the ISS unmanned as the crew can't get to the rear hatch.

+ If built, this would be the only way to return unpressurized cargo from the ISS (although Dragon and HTV can bring it up.)

+ For EVA you'd probably just depressurize the (smaller) cabin area. If having an IVA crewmember in shirt-sleeves during the EVA was valuable, then you'd repressurize the cabin immediately, and have to depress/repressurize to get the EVA crew back in. While this is wasteful, the extra O2 would surely be less mass than an airlock.

+ Or, if the design was matured in time, Dream Chaser would be a great application for a suitport. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitport

go4mars
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 2919


« Reply #24 on: 05/14/2012 12:06 AM »

+ If built, this would be the only way to return unpressurized cargo from the ISS (although Dragon and HTV can bring it up.)
What are some examples of unpressurized cargo they would like to send down?
Jim
Night Gator
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 17626
Location: Cape Canaveral Spaceport



« Reply #25 on: 05/14/2012 12:38 AM »

Returning to speculation on a Cargo/Servicing Dream Chaser:

Given how old the attached graphic is, and how easy these things are to generate, we have to keep plenty of grains of salt handy. Nevertheless, Mark Sirangelo has said servicing is a mission for Dream Chaser so it's interesting to guess how this might work.

In a previous post I suggested an airlock could be installed in the rear tunnel, and the upper stage adapter could house servicing-related equipment. It turns out these ideas were considered for the HL-42 (42% larger than HL-20). See http://www.astronautix.com/craft/hl42.htm. For some reason it didn't bother them that the 'towed package' was back next to the OMS engines...

As far as DC goes, I've changed my mind on these. If we assume that this graphic is about right, and the pressure bulkhead can easily be moved forward to open up a mini cargo bay, here are some observations.

+ We now have a place to house the replacement parts uphill, the robotic arm can be safely placed within the bay, and the system has the ability to return parts.

+ Such a craft could only visit the ISS unmanned as the crew can't get to the rear hatch.

+ If built, this would be the only way to return unpressurized cargo from the ISS (although Dragon and HTV can bring it up.)

+ For EVA you'd probably just depressurize the (smaller) cabin area. If having an IVA crewmember in shirt-sleeves during the EVA was valuable, then you'd repressurize the cabin immediately, and have to depress/repressurize to get the EVA crew back in. While this is wasteful, the extra O2 would surely be less mass than an airlock.

+ Or, if the design was matured in time, Dream Chaser would be a great application for a suitport. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitport



No need for an arm if it is unmanned.

Name a piece of unpressurized cargo that needs to be returned and can be returned by this?

It is null set or very small.
jimvela
Member
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 963


« Reply #26 on: 05/14/2012 01:08 AM »

The discussion of further manned servicing of Hubble is well and good, but is also very unlikely.

Before the final (Shuttle) servicing mission was re-instated, a considerable amount of effort was made towards planning an unmanned servicing and de-orbit prep mission.

Following the changes from the last servicing mission, it is now even more likely that *IF* any further mission to Hubble happens, it will be very much along the lines of the aborted plans for an unmanned servicing mission.

I know of at least two companies that have solid capabilities and mission designs that would allow an unmanned servicing mission with a high likelihood of success.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if at some point STScI could come up with enough funding and political support for a robotic mission, even with JWST  upcoming.  Particularly so if HST continues to hang on and operate suitably after JWST is launched.

adrianwyard
Full Member
****
Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #27 on: 05/14/2012 01:29 AM »

Jim, are you going to argue that there is never, ever, a need to bring back unpressurized cargo?

There is no urgent need for this now, but some day in the future I think it will be developed. If the need did arise soon, of the commercial crew vehicles, DC seems best suited to this because its pressurized crew module can be more easily shortened to open space for a cargo bay. And it's also the only vehicle where the addition of a suitport looks straightforward. Do I think this will actually happen? No, I do not.

And to state the obvious: when the Shuttle was flying we made use of the return ability several times. I'm sure others can list more than me, but from memory: pump modules, EVA tanks, MISSE experiments, Hubble instruments.
adrianwyard
Full Member
****
Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #28 on: 05/14/2012 01:35 AM »

Despite the back-and-forth my initial question on servicing (in the DC thread) remains unanswered:

SNC talk about the DC being well suited to satellite servicing. I can't really see how that's the case. If we're talking about the vehicles as specified for commercial crew, then Dragon seems to have the edge because the trunk could contain mission-specific servicing hardware...
QuantumG
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 3425
Location: Australia



WWW
« Reply #29 on: 05/14/2012 01:51 AM »

Despite the back-and-forth my initial question on servicing (in the DC thread) remains unanswered:

SNC talk about the DC being well suited to satellite servicing. I can't really see how that's the case. If we're talking about the vehicles as specified for commercial crew, then Dragon seems to have the edge because the trunk could contain mission-specific servicing hardware...

Why do you assume they're saying Dragon isn't well suited to satellite servicing? It is possible for both vehicles to be suitable isn't it?
Tags:
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7 Next  All
 

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 2.0 Beta 3.1 Public | SMF © 2006–2008, Simple Machines LLC
All content © 2005-2011 NASASpaceFlight.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.143 seconds with 21 queries.