If the shuttle program gets more missions added instead of the current schedule being stretched out, I have a few questions as followed.1) What would fly on these missions? Obviously MPLM missions but they cant all be MPLM supply missions can they?
2) Would STS-133 still leave the MPLM up on the space station or would the real last shuttle mission leave it up there?
3) What about another Hubble mission? Although I think this might be a dumb question, but can't we retrieve Hubble or service it to continue its lifespan?
I don't see another Shuttle HST mission: There are no new science instruments in development or planning. Gyros, batteries ... are new and good for at least 5 years. Everything can break everyday, but the odds are good HST will do good science beyond 2015.Bringing HST back would be a waste of a mission, plus you have to remove solar arrays etc. before to fit into the cargo bay.And no, I don't see an Orion service mission.Hubble goes as long as it goes and will likely be deorbited by a robotic craft.Analyst
Bringing HST back would be a waste of a mission, plus you have to remove solar arrays etc. before to fit into the cargo bay.Analyst
Quote from: Analyst on 09/26/2009 04:27 pmBringing HST back would be a waste of a mission, plus you have to remove solar arrays etc. before to fit into the cargo bay.AnalystA waste? Why?
Quote from: Zpoxy on 09/27/2009 12:37 amQuote from: Analyst on 09/26/2009 04:27 pmBringing HST back would be a waste of a mission, plus you have to remove solar arrays etc. before to fit into the cargo bay.AnalystA waste? Why? Because the shuttle would be empty for the flight to retrieve, which would be a huge waste of money.The 100's of millions of dollars for the flight would be better spent on a real science mission
Quote from: Jim on 09/27/2009 01:43 amQuote from: Zpoxy on 09/27/2009 12:37 amQuote from: Analyst on 09/26/2009 04:27 pmBringing HST back would be a waste of a mission, plus you have to remove solar arrays etc. before to fit into the cargo bay.AnalystA waste? Why? Because the shuttle would be empty for the flight to retrieve, which would be a huge waste of money.The 100's of millions of dollars for the flight would be better spent on a real science missionAgreed, like SpaceLAB and SpaceHAB. But seeing as we don't have spaceHAB flights anymore ISS Supply is the best option.
If the shuttle program gets more missions added instead of the current schedule being stretched out, I have a few questions as followed.1) What would fly on these missions? Obviously MPLM missions but they cant all be MPLM supply missions can they?2) Would STS-133 still leave the MPLM up on the space station or would the real last shuttle mission leave it up there?3) What about another Hubble mission? Although I think this might be a dumb question, but can't we retrieve Hubble or service it to continue its lifespan?Thanks!Orbiter
There is a (test model of) HST at the Smithsonian. There are other parts than the solar arrays (NICMOS radiator, NOBLs) which would have to be removed during EVAs. I am not even sure all internal on orbit repairs elements are safely mounted for reentry.
They could build a new space telescope and delivered it to the Hubble location. Deploy the new and retrieve Hubble.
Quote from: daver on 09/27/2009 01:43 pmThey could build a new space telescope and delivered it to the Hubble location. Deploy the new and retrieve Hubble. Couldn't happen. You wouldn't have enough fuel to do all that.
Probably not enough room in the payload bay, either.
Quote from: psloss on 09/27/2009 02:16 pmProbably not enough room in the payload bay, either. A new one up and deployed, HST captured and returned. You don't need twice a payload bay to do it.
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.
I would suggest (and have suggested) that one use of more Shuttle missions to ISS would be to retrieve the Pirs module for the purpose of ground inspection of a Russian module to re-certify the Russian segment for additional lifetime. Also, if Pirs were retrieved, it could serve as a backup to MLM if that module were to fail prior to docking with ISS.
wouldn't they need the second launch pad for a LON, and since that launch pad is no longer the SSP pad wouldn't it still be a no go to Hubble?