Quote from: AstroWare on 09/30/2022 04:03 amI think much may depend on if it's a boost only or a boost and service mission... If no eva is planned, I think they go nose-first docking. If they plan an EVA, then Aft-first. And either way - spaceX has the expertise to find the best technical option.If they decide to do a boost-only mission, I suspect they will decide to not do it as a crewed Polaris mission, but as a robotic mission - probably pitched to NASA as a commercial offering to be paid for by the agency. ( ... )
I think much may depend on if it's a boost only or a boost and service mission... If no eva is planned, I think they go nose-first docking. If they plan an EVA, then Aft-first. And either way - spaceX has the expertise to find the best technical option.
The fact that they consider themselves ready to officially drag NASA into this with a Space Act Agreement suggests that they have some clear ideas already "in-house" as to what they can do with Dragon for an EVA mission at Hubble. They've probably got some fairly concrete sketches drawn up for how to transport replacement parts to Hubble along with crew. My guess is that they needed the Space Act Agreement in order to start discussing solid details about exactly which components NASA would most like to replace on Hubble and how they could go about procuring them.
I think that the highest priority maintenance would be replacing the Giro's - They are down to 3 of 6, with one getting unhappy. It would still be able to some work with two, but not all observations. It has been down to 2 once before. The Giro units are relatively small and should be easily serviced.Dragon could easily carry those inside or in its trunk.While the instruments could be replaced, they would be a larger undertaking. They could be carried up in the trunk, but are probably too large to bring back down again inside the dragon.
Quote from: gemmy0I on 09/30/2022 04:48 amQuote from: AstroWare on 09/30/2022 04:03 amI think much may depend on if it's a boost only or a boost and service mission... If no eva is planned, I think they go nose-first docking. If they plan an EVA, then Aft-first. And either way - spaceX has the expertise to find the best technical option.If they decide to do a boost-only mission, I suspect they will decide to not do it as a crewed Polaris mission, but as a robotic mission - probably pitched to NASA as a commercial offering to be paid for by the agency. ( ... )There is a good chance that a Polaris 2 mission could cost >>>NASA<<< less than purchasing a traditionally procured robotic mission.
If the study just focuses on reboost, it clearly can be done more efficiently with a dedicated robotic tug.
Quote from: eeergo on 09/30/2022 09:22 amIf the study just focuses on reboost, it clearly can be done more efficiently with a dedicated robotic tug. Which could just as well be Dragon. Any tug needs to have a LIDS ring (the non-active part was inherited by IDSS), RCS, docking cameras, autonomous and remote operation capability, etc, which Dragon has. Dragon also has the advantage of already being developed and flying, so unlike a dedicated tug it's development cost (on top of any actual missions cost) is minimal, as is development time.
What does SpaceX get out of this study? Will this experience inform how you guys plan to dock tanker Starships in orbit, or other things that aren't ISS?
So first of all Hubble is a national asset and it's really an honor for us if we would be able to extend its lifetime, So I think first of all in the near-term that's just a great goal in itself. But SpaceX really sees the future in that we're a spacefaring civilisation and that means that there are spaceships flying all over the place, there is on-orbit refueling, there's vehicles from various companies, there's space stations from various companies, we do things like service very expensive spacecraft in higher orbits, we continue to service telescopes, we build bases on the moon and mars and do all kinds of things. And so when you look forward to this spacefaring civilisation, missions like this where companies are learning to adapt and figure out ways to dock to older vehicles and to basically make two vehicles in space compatible with each another, that weren't initially designed to be that way, I think that's an amazing capability and that's how the industry needs to move forward.
Should the study supports going forward with a mission we would aim to leave Hubble in a healthier & more capable state in addition to a boosted orbit. That is really the purpose of the study. Hubble deserves to operate for decades longer alongside JWST.
Easy answer: an off-the-shelf Cargo Dragon could do it equally well, adding significant upmass, mission timelime margins, stability, easing constraints... Doesn't hype Polaris though.
I saw in the article that they talked about pushing Hubble up just 24 miles or so. I was wondering if it might make more sense to push it up a lot higher. Not into the Van Allen belts, of course, but maybe just under them, say 600 miles up. Then it wouldn't have to be lifted again nor would there need to be a disposal mission--it would stay there for centuries.
Q Mike Wall Space.com - are you looking for a 30 km boost? How much longevity does it add? Study includes servicing too? Or just boost. A Patrick - we will study what the max boost is.. prelim 40-70 km boost possible... if we can get to 600km that adds 20 years of orbit life. The study will also examine waht else can we do... not as complex as Shuttle service but anything is on the table
Note the idea originated with SpaceX:QuoteZurbuchen: "A few months ago SpaceX approached NASA with the idea for a study of how a commercial crew could help boost our Hubble spacecraft into a higher orbit, that would extend its observational lifetime."NASA & SpaceX signed a Space Act Agreement for a feasibility study.
Zurbuchen: "A few months ago SpaceX approached NASA with the idea for a study of how a commercial crew could help boost our Hubble spacecraft into a higher orbit, that would extend its observational lifetime."NASA & SpaceX signed a Space Act Agreement for a feasibility study.
Quote from: M.E.T. on 02/14/2022 01:40 pmThey won’t invest heavily in further Dragon development. I am not allowed to go into details (per my sources), but I can say that your assessment is not entirely correct.
They won’t invest heavily in further Dragon development.
Quote from: eeergo on 09/30/2022 12:32 pmEasy answer: an off-the-shelf Cargo Dragon could do it equally well, adding significant upmass, mission timelime margins, stability, easing constraints... Doesn't hype Polaris though.Technically totally agreed. But in this case it might be the mission is only (potentially) happening because of the crew, even if it would make infinitely more sense to do it without one (assuming it's 'just' reboost).
Quote from: Welsh Dragon on 09/30/2022 01:49 pmQuote from: eeergo on 09/30/2022 12:32 pmEasy answer: an off-the-shelf Cargo Dragon could do it equally well, adding significant upmass, mission timelime margins, stability, easing constraints... Doesn't hype Polaris though.Technically totally agreed. But in this case it might be the mission is only (potentially) happening because of the crew, even if it would make infinitely more sense to do it without one (assuming it's 'just' reboost).Sure, I can see that - but then this study is more about "we want to add value to this mission which we already decided will happen, at comparatively little cost" rather than "we're studying ways to boost Hubble in the next few years, and think the best way to go about it is with Polaris and its crew (who supposedly will be concentrated on their sizeable main goals: first private spacewalk, optical T/C, health experiments...)".