They could build a new space telescope and delivered it to the Hubble location. Deploy the new and retrieve Hubble.
Pick mission(s) that need people. The mission does not have to be ISS based, it could be setting up assets for return to Moon or Mars/Phobos.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 09/27/2009 05:46 pm Pick mission(s) that need people. The mission does not have to be ISS based, it could be setting up assets for return to Moon or Mars/Phobos.incorrect posta. The shuttle isn't going to be around for the return to the moon or Mars/Phobos missionsb. Setting assets doesn't mean a crew is needed.c. There are no near term missions other than ISS that need a crew
1. There are pre-proposed Phobos missions that launch during President Obama's second term, 2009 + 7 = 20162. A Mars Transfer Vehicle (MTV) will weight more than 20 - 25 mT so would require multiple EELV to get to LEO. A possible design is a Sundancer with extra thick skin and cargo compartment pushed by a refuelled Centaur(s).3. The manned Dragon may be available but it does not have a robot arm so it cannot assemble the MTV, too soon for the J-246 4,so assembly is likely to be performed by the Shuttle. The Phobos astronaut launch could possibly also be performed by the STS.Now how is that for a glorious final mission?
Here's an interesting thought, but not sure if it is possible, let alone cost effective: If you fly an unmanned vehicle to Hubble c/w gyros, can it provide the guidance capability accurately enough? I'm thinking it can support Hubble for a few more months or years, and then when the gyros have failed (or something on the telescope) you use the spacecraft to de-orbit Hubble.
Quote from: robertross on 09/28/2009 05:22 pmHere's an interesting thought, but not sure if it is possible, let alone cost effective: If you fly an unmanned vehicle to Hubble c/w gyros, can it provide the guidance capability accurately enough? I'm thinking it can support Hubble for a few more months or years, and then when the gyros have failed (or something on the telescope) you use the spacecraft to de-orbit Hubble.that was the plan
{snip}2. Sundancer is not a NASA vehicle and 3. Who says an RMS is needed?
Quote from: Jim on 09/28/2009 05:59 pmQuote from: robertross on 09/28/2009 05:22 pmHere's an interesting thought, but not sure if it is possible, let alone cost effective: If you fly an unmanned vehicle to Hubble c/w gyros, can it provide the guidance capability accurately enough? I'm thinking it can support Hubble for a few more months or years, and then when the gyros have failed (or something on the telescope) you use the spacecraft to de-orbit Hubble.that was the planPerfect. Thanks Jim.See, no need for a servicing mission using shuttle. Cameras, batteries & computers will just have to last. The biggest threat is the gyros, but if the de-orbit spacecraft can provide that capability to extend the science, then I'm fine with that; even 1-2 addtional years is a good thing.
Quote from: robertross on 09/28/2009 08:11 pmSee, no need for a servicing mission using shuttle. Cameras, batteries & computers will just have to last. The biggest threat is the gyros, but if the de-orbit spacecraft can provide that capability to extend the science, then I'm fine with that; even 1-2 addtional years is a good thing.On what facts do you base the claim the gyros will fail first? The last ones worked since 1999, and two were still working in 2009 (plus one (degraded) spare). There is a two and a one gyro mode possible, the first one has been used.STIS failed after 7 years, ACS after 5, for example.Analyst
See, no need for a servicing mission using shuttle. Cameras, batteries & computers will just have to last. The biggest threat is the gyros, but if the de-orbit spacecraft can provide that capability to extend the science, then I'm fine with that; even 1-2 addtional years is a good thing.