Author Topic: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?  (Read 68522 times)

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9589
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 462
Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
« Reply #80 on: 09/27/2013 03:21 PM »
Here is your first wrong assumption.  The batteries are the white squares which are too large for inside Orion.

And there still your assumption that an arm is not needed.

Nope.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/228135main_astronaut_installing_battery.jpg

The attached image shows the batteries in comparison to ground crew, so you can get an idea of the size of THREE batteries grouped as a single module.
« Last Edit: 09/27/2013 03:26 PM by Danderman »

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9589
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 462
Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
« Reply #81 on: 09/27/2013 03:34 PM »
BTW, docking with Hubble with a module on the nose of Orion may prove to be unworkable.

How would that be different than ASTP?

Different spacecraft, but more importantly, I do not know the requirements for docking with the LIDS ring currently installed on HST. The ASTP APAS would designed to allow significant misalignments, but I don't know the tolerances of the passive LIDS ring.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31349
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9627
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
« Reply #82 on: 09/27/2013 04:09 PM »


The attached image shows the batteries in comparison to ground crew, so you can get an idea of the size of THREE batteries grouped as a single module.

Wrong again.  The batteries are not installed individually, they are installed as module/ORU. 

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31349
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9627
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
« Reply #83 on: 09/27/2013 04:13 PM »

Assuming that "Orion can support a "gyros and batteries" class servicing mission" isn't engineering.  Please provide the analysis to prove your assumptions.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/servicing/series/battery_story.html

"Hubble’s batteries are much larger and heavier. Collectively they weigh 460 pounds and measure 36 inches long, 32 inches wide, and 11 inches high."

That works out to 7.3 cubic feet of volume for the batteries.

According to NASA (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/510449main_SLS_MPCV_90-day_Report.pdf), Orion has 316 cubic feet NET habitable volume (total pressurized volume is 690 cubic feet).

Jim is suggesting that an Orion capsule with 316 cubic feet of habitable volume cannot accommodate hardware with a volume of 7.3 cubic feet.

A better question is whether the battery module can fit through the Orion hatch.

I wasn't suggesting anything.   Simple math is not engineering.  "Can't" covers many things other than volume, like door size, floor loading, hazardous materials in the crew compartment, etc.

Better question is why do you come up with such nonsensical scenarios?
« Last Edit: 09/27/2013 04:14 PM by Jim »

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9589
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 462
Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
« Reply #84 on: 09/27/2013 05:03 PM »


The attached image shows the batteries in comparison to ground crew, so you can get an idea of the size of THREE batteries grouped as a single module.

Wrong again.  The batteries are not installed individually, they are installed as module/ORU. 

The image shown is of a battery module/ORU, which is what you are referring to.

If you disagree that the image is of a battery module/ORU, please let us know.


The dimensions I gave above are for a battery module (36 x 32 x 11 inches = 7.3 cubic feet); however, I did omit that the dimensions are for one battery ORU module, whereas HST contains two such modules. It is likely that any mission to HST would require two modules, which would require 14 cubic feet of volume.

« Last Edit: 09/27/2013 05:04 PM by Danderman »

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9589
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 462
Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
« Reply #85 on: 09/27/2013 05:28 PM »
Attached is an image from STS-125, showing installation of a gyro. These are to be installed two at a time.

My contention is that these gyros would fit inside the cabin of an Orion spacecraft. Others may disagree.



Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 664
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
« Reply #86 on: 09/27/2013 05:38 PM »
Putting significant one-way cargo mass inside the capsule is problematic because of the weight distribution. The capsule needs to be able to re-enter, deploy parachutes, and safely with or without cargo.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9589
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 462
Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
« Reply #87 on: 09/27/2013 05:38 PM »
Attached is an image of two battery ORU/Modules in the clean room. My position is that these will fit in the cabin interior of Orion. Others may disagree.

What I have not discussed are other requirements, as Jim mentions, such as off-gassing constraints, cabin floor loading etc. At this point, I am only discussing volumetric constraints.


Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9589
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 462
Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
« Reply #88 on: 09/27/2013 05:39 PM »
Putting significant one-way cargo mass inside the capsule is problematic because of the weight distribution. The capsule needs to be able to re-enter, deploy parachutes, and safely with or without cargo.

Can you think of an earlier instance where significant DENSE cargo mass was introduced into a capsule on a one way basis?

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
« Reply #89 on: 09/27/2013 06:06 PM »
I assume this is would be at least a 3-person mission, if not 4.

No airlock, so you need to include room for an EMU for each crew member.
If you start adding up the room required for 3-4 EMUs, plus at least 2 sets of batteries and the Gyros, I can see it getting a bit snug.

Offline DMeader

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 953
  • Liked: 98
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
« Reply #90 on: 09/27/2013 06:55 PM »
At this point, I am only discussing volumetric constraints.

If that is your only consideration, then this whole discussion is pointless. It is not even known at this point what the final configuration of the cabin will be. Anyway, the pallet required to secure a mass of the size of the batteries that you keep quoting is likely to be of significant size itself, and must also be taken into consideration.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9589
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 462
Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
« Reply #91 on: 09/27/2013 07:08 PM »
I assume this is would be at least a 3-person mission, if not 4.

No airlock, so you need to include room for an EMU for each crew member.
If you start adding up the room required for 3-4 EMUs, plus at least 2 sets of batteries and the Gyros, I can see it getting a bit snug.

During the Apollo EVAs during the return from the Moon, did all crew members have EMUs?

You may be totally correct, but we need to ensure that any requirements or constraints that are levied are real.

Online jtrame

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 290
  • W4FJT
  • Knoxville, TN
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 302
Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
« Reply #92 on: 09/27/2013 07:25 PM »
I think an airlock/ mission module is needed from everything I've read on this thread.  If no money for that, no servicing mission.  Simple as that.  Could be designed as a multi-purpose module- the basic design adaptable to future use.  If Apollo had been needed for such a mission, it would have required a mission module (think Apollo-Soyuz).  Same with Orion. 

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9589
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 462
Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
« Reply #93 on: 09/27/2013 07:26 PM »
I think an airlock/ mission module is needed from everything I've read on this thread.  If no money for that, no servicing mission.

Can you explain why NASA is willing to do their asteroid mission EVAs without an airlock module?

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2715
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
« Reply #94 on: 09/27/2013 10:51 PM »
I think an airlock/ mission module is needed from everything I've read on this thread.  If no money for that, no servicing mission.

Can you explain why NASA is willing to do their asteroid mission EVAs without an airlock module?


Politics.
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline veblen

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 253
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 1418
Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
« Reply #95 on: 09/27/2013 11:25 PM »
Except that JWST isn't a 1-for-1 replacement for Hubble.  JWST is an IR telescope (which is why it's going out to L2); Hubble is broader spectrum.  Plus, Hubble is maintainable both in terms of location and design, where JWST is not.

Having JWST on orbit does not make Hubble obsolete.

No, not completely obsolete. But why risk lives for the sake of the optical part of the spectrum when you have a muscular new machine up there that will be the focus of scientists world-wide? Easler to design, build and launch a new optical telescope to space than to fix Hubble.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31349
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9627
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
« Reply #96 on: 09/28/2013 11:20 AM »

During the Apollo EVAs during the return from the Moon, did all crew members have EMUs?


They had the suits but no PLSS.  They were all umbilicaled to the capsule.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31349
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9627
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
« Reply #97 on: 09/28/2013 11:22 AM »

Can you explain why NASA is willing to do their asteroid mission EVAs without an airlock module?


A flailing effort to justify SLS.  Organizations/people will lower standards to maintain the status quo or to get something they want.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31349
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9627
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
« Reply #98 on: 09/28/2013 11:28 AM »
I assume this is would be at least a 3-person mission, if not 4.

No airlock, so you need to include room for an EMU for each crew member.
If you start adding up the room required for 3-4 EMUs, plus at least 2 sets of batteries and the Gyros, I can see it getting a bit snug.

You may be totally correct, but we need to ensure that any requirements or constraints that are levied are real.


And EMU servicing equipment for the multiple EVA's.  And arm.  You have ignored access needs.

As far as requirements or constraints that are levied are real, how about ensuring that the whole concept is real?  HST may need more than just batteries and RGS.  What about FGS or reaction wheels?

Also, you have yet to consider the deorbit spacecraft than can extend the life by taking over the pointing and power generation.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9589
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 462
Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
« Reply #99 on: 09/28/2013 02:15 PM »
I think an airlock/ mission module is needed from everything I've read on this thread.  If no money for that, no servicing mission.

Can you explain why NASA is willing to do their asteroid mission EVAs without an airlock module?


Politics.

This may explain why NASA wants to do the asteroid mission, but not specifically why they do not bother with an airlock module.

Tags: