I didn't say there would not be multiple EVAs, but that without the requirement to replace instruments on Hubble, replacing the gyros and batteries would not require "extended" EVAs.
I suspect that you are going to argue that replacing the gyros and batteries using a robot servicer would be easy, but having astronauts do it would be hard.
whereas we know that it is NASA's intention to perform EVAs from Orion without an airlock.
Quote from: Danderman on 09/25/2013 09:31 pm whereas we know that it is NASA's intention to perform EVAs from Orion without an airlock.Only an idea for a stunt on a mission that is not going to happen and it is one short EVA. It doesn't mean it will be a capability available.
Has everyone forgotten about the Space Shuttle Payload Delivery Module proposed by the DIRECT team? You wouldn't need to modify the Orion at all, since the SSPDM would include both an airlock and a robot arm, as well as docking ports at both ends.Heck, I'd be interested to know whether a single Falcon Heavy could launch both the SSPDM and a crewed Dragon. Might be cheaper than the equivalent Orion mission.
Quote from: Sesquipedalian on 09/25/2013 04:27 pmHas everyone forgotten about the Space Shuttle Payload Delivery Module proposed by the DIRECT team? You wouldn't need to modify the Orion at all, since the SSPDM would include both an airlock and a robot arm, as well as docking ports at both ends.Heck, I'd be interested to know whether a single Falcon Heavy could launch both the SSPDM and a crewed Dragon. Might be cheaper than the equivalent Orion mission.Hubble orbital reboost delta-v requirement most likely means servicing would be an Orion mission. The orbital reboost might be the most critical servicing issue.
Hubble orbital reboost delta-v requirement most likely means servicing would be an Orion mission. The orbital reboost might be the most critical servicing issue.
An new optical telescope based on this would be cheaper than spending an Orion mission on fixing Hubble: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29081.0Cheapest option would be to simply, again, farm it out to the private sector to bid on. They either propose a robotic craft like Jim is proposing, a robotic craft with arms that can do a similar job as astronauts, or a trip in a Dragon, Dreamchaser, CST-100 or that Blue Origin capsule. Lots of options, all cheaper than using an Orion. ESPECIALLY if you use both an Orion and an SLS launch.
This thread is about whether Orion can do the job without major modifications. Extra credit if someone can explain if Orion can do the servicing mission launched on Delta IV Heavy.
Some of the Hubble bays for instruments, gyros and the like are physically quite large, and to change out/access them you need to use tools. The good news: Hubble was designed to be serviced by astronauts. The bad news is it was designed presuming you had a shuttle, its arm, these bulky replacement modules that could presume to fit in the shuttle cargo bay and astronauts.Go look at video from the servicing missions.... Then figure out how to get what you need. Orion is almost the least of your problems.
Quote from: Danderman on 09/26/2013 10:29 pmThis thread is about whether Orion can do the job without major modifications. Extra credit if someone can explain if Orion can do the servicing mission launched on Delta IV Heavy.This seems like a good opportunity to repeat my last post, which apparently got run over by the arguments already in progress...Quote from: Sesquipedalian on 09/25/2013 04:27 pmHas everyone forgotten about the Space Shuttle Payload Delivery Module proposed by the DIRECT team? You wouldn't need to modify the Orion at all, since the SSPDM would include both an airlock and a robot arm, as well as docking ports at both ends.Heck, I'd be interested to know whether a single Falcon Heavy could launch both the SSPDM and a crewed Dragon. Might be cheaper than the equivalent Orion mission.In regards to my second paragraph, I would be just as interested to know whether Orion and the SSPDM could both be launched on the Delta IV Heavy. (Or the Atlas V, considering that there are no plans to man-rate the Delta.)
In Engineering, you first try to reduce the requirements, so start off with the minimum necessary to do the job and then you can add requirements, desirements and the rest later. In this case, assuming Orion can support a "gyros and batteries" class servicing mission, what are the requirements for an additional module?BTW, docking with Hubble with a module on the nose of Orion may prove to be unworkable.
BTW, docking with Hubble with a module on the nose of Orion may prove to be unworkable.
Quote from: HappyMartian on 09/26/2013 03:02 pmHubble orbital reboost delta-v requirement most likely means servicing would be an Orion mission. The orbital reboost might be the most critical servicing issue.Why do you presume that no other vehicle can provide additional delta-V for HST?
Assuming that "Orion can support a "gyros and batteries" class servicing mission" isn't engineering. Please provide the analysis to prove your assumptions.