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.
Quote from: Danderman on 09/27/2013 01:00 amBTW, docking with Hubble with a module on the nose of Orion may prove to be unworkable.How would that be different than ASTP?
BTW, docking with Hubble with a module on the nose of Orion may prove to be unworkable.
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.
Quote from: Jim on 09/27/2013 11:17 amAssuming 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.
Assuming that "Orion can support a "gyros and batteries" class servicing mission" isn't engineering. Please provide the analysis to prove your assumptions.
Quote from: Danderman on 09/27/2013 03:21 pmThe 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.
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.
At this point, I am only discussing volumetric constraints.
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.
I think an airlock/ mission module is needed from everything I've read on this thread. If no money for that, no servicing mission.
Quote from: jtrame on 09/27/2013 07:25 pmI 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?
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.
During the Apollo EVAs during the return from the Moon, did all crew members have EMUs?
Can you explain why NASA is willing to do their asteroid mission EVAs without an airlock module?
Quote from: Lurker Steve on 09/27/2013 06:06 pmI 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.
Quote from: Danderman on 09/27/2013 07:26 pmQuote from: jtrame on 09/27/2013 07:25 pmI 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.