NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

SLS / Orion / Beyond-LEO HSF - Constellation => Orion and Exploration Vehicles => Topic started by: Danderman on 09/09/2013 02:56 PM

Title: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/09/2013 02:56 PM
Although Jim will tell us that there is no money for such a mission, and that Hubble will be killed off shortly, such programmatic issues are often transitory, so let's look at this.

The unique top level requirements for a Hubble Servicing Mission are:

Achieve rendezvous (and now docking) with HST.
Support EVA
Transport necessarily ORUs.
Support orbit boost, if required.

What I don't know is if Delta IV Heavy would allow launch of Orion to the 600 km orbit. Probably, since the delta-V for HST missions is similar to ISS missions from Florida.

Also, I am assuming that Orion would only support a "batteries and gyros" mission, and not swap of major instruments.

Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 09/09/2013 03:23 PM


Also, I am assuming that Orion would only support a "batteries and gyros" mission, and not swap of major instruments.



Where are the "batteries and gyros" going to be carried?
How are EVA's going to performed without an airlock or EMU support from the Orion?

Gyros and reboost can be done with an unmanned vehicle.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/09/2013 03:30 PM
How much is this worth NASA? $200-$400 million? I say, put it up for bid to commercial crew and commercial satellite folks, let them put up or shut up. They can propose either a manned or unmanned mission to fix it.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: newpylong on 09/09/2013 03:49 PM
Surely the Asteroid Rendezvous (if it ever happens) won't have any airlock? Wouldn't they just purge the atmosphere in the CSM? The very notional videos have them climbing out the main hatch in EMUs.







Also, I am assuming that Orion would only support a "batteries and gyros" mission, and not swap of major instruments.



Where are the "batteries and gyros" going to be carried?
How are EVA's going to performed without an airlock or EMU support from the Orion?

Gyros and reboost can be done with an unmanned vehicle.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: IRobot on 09/09/2013 04:25 PM
How is Orion supposed to grab Hubble. I know there is a passive SCM on Hubble, but how would Orion dock with it? If it use the docking port, no EVA could be performed, or could it?

Dragon's trunk is much better for this. Also Dragon can carry much larger payloads that would not fit through a hatch.

Anyway, the commercial option was debated 1 year ago:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28805.0 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28805.0)
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/09/2013 04:33 PM
How is Orion supposed to grab Hubble. I know there is a passive SCM on Hubble, but how would Orion dock with it? If it use the docking port, no EVA could be performed, or could it?

Dragon's trunk is much better for this. Also Dragon can carry much larger payloads that would not fit through a hatch.

Anyway, the commercial option was debated 1 year ago:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28805.0 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28805.0)

EVAs would be through Orion's hatch, not the docking port. Same for Dragon, I would imagine (if any are done). Orion can also potentially carry cargo in its service module, I've seen several references to it (of course, pre-ATV business).
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Nomadd on 09/09/2013 04:45 PM
 Those SMs were a real bear with the shuttle doing the job. It doesn't seem too likely a capsule is going to handle one. Maybe, if Hubble is still in great shape when it starts getting a little low, a reboost could be done, but even that would probably be done by a robotic craft.
 
Gyros and reboost can be done with an unmanned vehicle.
As much trouble as they had getting one of those last sets of gyros in, I don't think there's any way they try it with a robot.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/09/2013 04:51 PM
What about a capsule with an arm? How would that be different from Shuttle? (this is a real question, not rhetorical)

And supposing part of that answer is "airlock," suppose you brought a small airlock along with, docked to the end of the capsule? (With another port on the other side to dock with Hubble)
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: JasonAW3 on 09/09/2013 05:04 PM

     It seems to me that if you were to stretch the length and widden the current Orion service module to ratios approximating that of the old Apollo service module, while you would have to add fuel and oxidizer to the overall rig, there should be a significant amount of volume available for additional payload in one or two of the opposing quarter bays. (Sorry, forgot to meantion deviding the XXL Service Module into quarter bays)

     Two Quarter Bays should be enough volume to handle the increased fuel and consumable loads, while the other two bays would contain 1 robot arm each and the replacement equipment needed for the mission.  Two robot arms, yes. One to hold the telescope and the other to hold the astronaut, equipment platform etc.  (Yes, I know that they can tie off to the telescope itself, but you need a 'cherry picker' to bring them the gear that is needed for servicing).

     A four person crew should be sufficent for the task, and the SLS seems to have enough payload to orbit capibility to be able to handle such a mission.

Jason
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/09/2013 05:09 PM
But it's a repair job, not exploration. Why not have the private sector bid on it?
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 09/09/2013 05:13 PM
As much trouble as they had getting one of those last sets of gyros in, I don't think there's any way they try it with a robot.

don't need to install the gyros, the robotic spacecraft stays attached and provides the control.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/09/2013 05:17 PM
What about a capsule with an arm? How would that be different from Shuttle? (this is a real question, not rhetorical)

And supposing part of that answer is "airlock," suppose you brought a small airlock along with, docked to the end of the capsule? (With another port on the other side to dock with Hubble)

No airlock required. Orion's command module has airlock capability.

The mission does not require an arm, Orion can dock with the existing docking adapter at HST.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 09/09/2013 05:18 PM

     It seems to me that if you were to stretch the length and widden the current Orion service module

That is not on the table
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/09/2013 05:20 PM

     It seems to me that if you were to stretch the length and widden the current Orion service module to ratios approximating that of the old Apollo service module, while you would have to add fuel and oxidizer to the overall rig, there should be a significant amount of volume available for additional payload in one or two of the opposing quarter bays. (Sorry, forgot to meantion deviding the XXL Service Module into quarter bays)

     Two Quarter Bays should be enough volume to handle the increased fuel and consumable loads, while the other two bays would contain 1 robot arm each and the replacement equipment needed for the mission.  Two robot arms, yes. One to hold the telescope and the other to hold the astronaut, equipment platform etc.  (Yes, I know that they can tie off to the telescope itself, but you need a 'cherry picker' to bring them the gear that is needed for servicing).

     A four person crew should be sufficent for the task, and the SLS seems to have enough payload to orbit capibility to be able to handle such a mission.

Jason

This mission would not be feasible if it required modifications to the Orion service module.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/09/2013 05:22 PM

Where are the "batteries and gyros" going to be carried?


These won't fit inside the Orion command module?
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 09/09/2013 05:26 PM

No airlock required. Orion's command module has airlock capability.


No, it doesn't.  It is only can support decompress for contingencies.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 09/09/2013 05:27 PM

Where are the "batteries and gyros" going to be carried?


These won't fit inside the Orion command module?

No, those aren't gyros and  especially not the astronaut.
 
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 09/09/2013 05:28 PM


The mission does not require an arm, Orion can dock with the existing docking adapter at HST.


The arm is not for capture but to support the spacewalkers
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: newpylong on 09/09/2013 05:57 PM

http://www.universetoday.com/88434/human-mission-to-an-asteroid-the-orion-mpcv/

Per Lockheed:

Logistically, the Orion MPCV could even support doing an EVA from the hatch on the capsule.
“We have a hatch that is big enough that an astronaut in a space suit can get out,” Hopkins said, “and the internal systems in the spacecraft are designed to tolerate the cabin being depressurized. We don’t rely on air circulation to carry the heat away from the electronics – they have their own cold plates to take the heat away. The knobs are designed to be manipulated with spacesuit gloves on, not just bare hands. A lot of those features just worked out to be pretty applicable to the asteroid mission because it was designed for a similar set of mission requirements.”

Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 09/09/2013 06:15 PM
marketing words
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Proponent on 09/09/2013 06:28 PM
NASA seems to plan EVAs directly from Orion for EM-2 (http://www.nasa.gov/content/new-imagery-of-asteroid-mission/) (from 1:35 in the video).

EDIT: "seems plan" -> "seems to plan"
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 09/09/2013 06:37 PM
NASA seems plan EVAs directly from Orion for EM-2 (http://www.nasa.gov/content/new-imagery-of-asteroid-mission/) (from 1:35 in the video).

Two crew and preposition tools.  The room from the other two crew would be taken up by EMUs and their servicing equipment.  All they are doing getting some sample on one EVA and nothing like repairing HST, which would involve long multiple EVA's
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/09/2013 06:40 PM

No airlock required. Orion's command module has airlock capability.


No, it doesn't.  It is only can support decompress for contingencies.

It is good to know that Orion can not support EVA for missions such as the asteroid rendezvous.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/09/2013 06:42 PM

http://www.universetoday.com/88434/human-mission-to-an-asteroid-the-orion-mpcv/

Per Lockheed:

Logistically, the Orion MPCV could even support doing an EVA from the hatch on the capsule.
“We have a hatch that is big enough that an astronaut in a space suit can get out,” Hopkins said, “and the internal systems in the spacecraft are designed to tolerate the cabin being depressurized. We don’t rely on air circulation to carry the heat away from the electronics – they have their own cold plates to take the heat away. The knobs are designed to be manipulated with spacesuit gloves on, not just bare hands. A lot of those features just worked out to be pretty applicable to the asteroid mission because it was designed for a similar set of mission requirements.”




marketing words


Hmmmm ... we have data from the designer, we have NASA issued video showing EVA from Orion, and we have an opposite opinion from Jim.

Question: Can Dragon support EVA, and if so, what technology is available to Dragon that Orion does not have?
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 09/09/2013 06:45 PM

It is good to know that Orion can not support EVA for missions such as the asteroid rendezvous.


Just as much a fantasy as HST repair.  Current Orion requirements exclude EVA capability.  A standard Orion can not support an EVA.  Anything can be done if given enough money. 
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/09/2013 06:47 PM

Where are the "batteries and gyros" going to be carried?


These won't fit inside the Orion command module?

No, those aren't gyros and  especially not the astronaut.
 

According to the attached fact sheet, the gyros have the following dimensions:

Size: 12.8 x 10.5 x 8.9 inches
Weight: 24.3 pounds

Actually, this is for a rate sensor unit, which contains 2 TWO gyros.

This is literally smaller than a breadbox. Can this really NOT fit into Orion?
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: renclod on 09/09/2013 07:40 PM
A single Orion would probably not be able to service Hubble, but two Orions...

One would stay pretty much standard / unmodified and would hold the crew. The other would be launched without LAS,  main engine,  maybe even without parachutes and proper heatshield - but with the needed robotic arm(s), ORUs, space suits, etc. and should still be a known quantity wrt life support, EVA, hatch, avionics, and so on.

Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: gfagley on 09/09/2013 07:58 PM
launch from SLS, dock with an airlock/cargo hold (stored behind Orion during launch).   dock with Hubble with airlock.    how service mission can happen from the airlock.   all needed gear can be stored in cargo hold.  use robotic arm to move what needs being moved...   may have to add thrusters to the airlock/cargo hold to control everything (especially when you add the Hubble to the end of it)
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Mark S on 09/09/2013 08:04 PM
A single Orion would probably not be able to service Hubble, but two Orions...

One would stay pretty much standard / unmodified and would hold the crew. The other would be launched without LAS,  main engine,  maybe even without parachutes and proper heatshield - but with the needed robotic arm(s), ORUs, space suits, etc. and should still be a known quantity wrt life support, EVA, hatch, avionics, and so on.

I'm a big fan of maximizing use of Orion and SLS, but launching two Orions would be excessive. Instead, a better idea would be to design a "Hubble Servicing Module", which would take the place of the ICPS. This module could have a robotic arm to grapple the HST, or Orion could dock with the passive docking fixture that is now attached to HST. The module would have plenty of room to carry whatever spares are needed by the telescope.

The Orion should have plenty of delta-V to take both itself and a servicing module up to Hubble's orbit, eliminating the need for the ICPS.

Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 09/09/2013 08:07 PM

Actually, this is for a rate sensor unit, which contains 2 TWO gyros.

This is literally smaller than a breadbox. Can this really NOT fit into Orion?


I was thinking reaction wheels
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Lars_J on 09/09/2013 08:43 PM
Question: Can Dragon support EVA, and if so, what technology is available to Dragon that Orion does not have?

No, not as far as we know. It will be less capable of EVA than Orion.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: BrightLight on 09/09/2013 08:53 PM
Wouldn't make more sense, reduce risk, and be more utilitarian to use a Skylab II in LEO or MEO than to risk astronauts and the Hubble.  With the Skylab II approach, Hubble, Spitzer, Kepler etc. systems could be re-fitted, refueled etc whereas the MPCV method is a one-launch-one-mission approach which would be of limited value.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 09/09/2013 11:42 PM
  With the Skylab II approach, Hubble, Spitzer, Kepler etc. systems could be re-fitted, refueled etc

No, because those are all in different orbits
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: DMeader on 09/10/2013 12:17 AM
Hubble, Spitzer, Kepler etc. systems could be re-fitted, refueled etc...

You do realize that Kepler isn't even in Earth orbit...
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/10/2013 12:36 AM
Question: Can Dragon support EVA, and if so, what technology is available to Dragon that Orion does not have?

No, not as far as we know. It will be less capable of EVA than Orion.

Unless someone sticks something like the MMSEV on the Dragon.  How is the development of the MMSEV's suit port getting along?
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 09/10/2013 01:12 AM

Unless someone sticks something like the MMSEV on the Dragon.  How is the development of the MMSEV's suit port getting along?

Those are mutually exclusive.  Dragon is a spacecraft and not a fairing for the MMSEV. 
MMSEV is not a flight project, so there is no real work in developing the suit lock.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/10/2013 01:16 AM

Unless someone sticks something like the MMSEV on the Dragon.  How is the development of the MMSEV's suit port getting along?

Those are mutually exclusive.  Dragon is a spacecraft and not a fairing for the MMSEV. 
MMSEV is not a flight project, so there is no real work in developing the suit lock.

I do not need the Dragon (or CST-100) to be a fairing to the MMSEV but a crew delivery vehicle that docks with the granddaughter of MMSEV.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 09/10/2013 01:29 AM

Unless someone sticks something like the MMSEV on the Dragon.  How is the development of the MMSEV's suit port getting along?

Those are mutually exclusive.  Dragon is a spacecraft and not a fairing for the MMSEV. 
MMSEV is not a flight project, so there is no real work in developing the suit lock.

I do not need the Dragon (or CST-100) to be a fairing to the MMSEV but a crew delivery vehicle that docks with the granddaughter of MMSEV.

You need?  You don't have any say in anything related. 
"sticks something like the MMSEV on the Dragon" implies carrying and not connecting to.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Robert Thompson on 09/10/2013 03:29 AM
Hubble will be killed off shortly
Are there any references to this?
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/10/2013 04:40 AM
"sticks something like the MMSEV on the Dragon" implies carrying and not connecting to.


They can both have NDS ports.

p.s.  I was assuming that the two spacecraft meet in LEO before flying to Hubble.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: HappyMartian on 09/11/2013 11:00 AM
Hubble will be killed off shortly
Are there any references to this?

"By the time of the final repair mission, during which all six gyros were replaced (with two new pairs and one refurbished pair), only three gyros were still working. Engineers are confident that they have identified the root causes of the gyro failures,[147] and the new models should be much more reliable."

And, "If it is not re-boosted by a shuttle or other means, it will re-enter the Earth's atmosphere sometime between 2019 and 2032, with the exact date depending on how active the Sun is and its impact on the upper atmosphere."

From: Hubble Space Telescope    Wikipedia
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope


An Orion Hubble servicing mission would be far more useful than a mission to a captured and moved asteroid.

Edited.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: HappyMartian on 09/11/2013 11:11 AM
"Based on the latest projections, the space telescope is expected to fall back to Earth sometime between 2030 and 2040, depending on solar activity and its effects on how much altitude-reducing "atmospheric drag" the telescope experiences."

From: Four years after final service call, Hubble Space Telescope going strong  05/30/2013  By WILLIAM HARWOOD    CBS News
At: http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/home/spacenews/files/1ae7cac0d167055e41e1f0da7b0ac6a3-588.html
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 09/11/2013 11:24 AM
It is unlikely that an Orion mission to service Hubble will ever be approved or funded - such a mission would cost a couple billion. The money spent would be better off going towards a true Hubble replacement, such as a Large Aperture Telescope.  http://www.stsci.edu/institute/atlast
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 09/11/2013 12:08 PM

An Orion Hubble servicing mission would be far more useful than a mission to a captured and moved asteroid.


Both are still better than a lunar mission.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 09/11/2013 12:23 PM
...Unless it were a Lunar landing mission - say, two whole weeks at a geologically rich site, or even the Lunar South Pole. But don't anyone hold their breath for that...
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: HappyMartian on 09/11/2013 01:22 PM

An Orion Hubble servicing mission would be far more useful than a mission to a captured and moved asteroid.


Both are still better than a lunar mission.

That is not quite right. Of course we should do the Hubble servicing mission, but comparing the renewed international interest in the robotic and human exploration of the Moon to do ISRU with a singular mission to visit a hauled space rock is a bit silly. It would be like comparing a visit to a random boulder to regular trips to permanent mining camps on an enormous mountain range. They cannot really be compared.

Astronauts will someday visit a minimoon when an interesting one comes wandering into cislunar space, but Orion was designed for Lunar missions and the law says NASA should put astronauts on the Moon. In any case, Congress doesn't seem eager to fund the President's asteroid mission.   


"Many objective measures show the positive impact of Hubble data on astronomy. Over 9,000 papers based on Hubble data have been published in peer-reviewed journals,[108] and countless more have appeared in conference proceedings."

And, "Of the 200 papers published each year that receive the most citations, about 10% are based on Hubble data.[109]"

From: Hubble Space Telescope    Wikipedia
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope



"Apollo stimulated many areas of technology. The flight computer design used in both the lunar and command modules was, along with the Minuteman Missile System, the driving force behind early research into integrated circuits. Computer-controlled machining was first used in the fabrication of Apollo structural components."

And, "An estimated one-fifth of the population of the world watched the live transmission of the Apollo 11 moonwalk."

And, "The Apollo program returned 838.2 pounds (380.2 kg) of lunar rocks and soil to the Lunar Receiving Laboratory in Houston."

And, "According to The Economist, Apollo succeeded in accomplishing President Kennedy's goal of taking on the Soviet Union in the Space Race, and beat it by accomplishing a singular and significant achievement, and thereby showcased the superiority of the capitalistic, free-market system as represented by the US."

From: Apollo program  Wikipedia
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Samples_returned


An international servicing mission to Hubble might be a useful precursor mission for international human Lunar surface missions.

Edited.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: JohnFornaro on 09/11/2013 03:47 PM

Where are the "batteries and gyros" going to be carried?


These won't fit inside the Orion command module?

What?  The astro won't fit into the CM?

No, those aren't gyros and  especially not the astronaut.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: TomH on 09/21/2013 05:39 AM
I have to wonder what would be lower risk and more cost efficient, try a Hubble refurbishment or just let it die and replace it with one of those telescopes NRO donated to NASA.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/21/2013 05:50 AM
It is unlikely that an Orion mission to service Hubble will ever be approved or funded - such a mission would cost a couple billion. The money spent would be better off going towards a true Hubble replacement, such as a Large Aperture Telescope.  http://www.stsci.edu/institute/atlast

What requirements would drive mission costs into the billions of dollars?
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: HappyMartian on 09/21/2013 02:54 PM
It is unlikely that an Orion mission to service Hubble will ever be approved or funded - such a mission would cost a couple billion. The money spent would be better off going towards a true Hubble replacement, such as a Large Aperture Telescope.  http://www.stsci.edu/institute/atlast

What requirements would drive mission costs into the billions of dollars?


An Orion Hubble LEO servicing mission side by side cost comparison with all the combined costs of the beyond LEO robotic vehicle that captures and hauls a small asteroid and the Orion mission that would be involved with visiting and sampling the asteroid would be interesting.

Directly comparing the real risks through Loss of Mission and Loss of Crew numbers would also be useful.

The likely scientific output of frequently cited research papers that could be enabled by these two different types of missions should also be carefully compared.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/21/2013 04:49 PM
It is unlikely that an Orion mission to service Hubble will ever be approved or funded - such a mission would cost a couple billion. The money spent would be better off going towards a true Hubble replacement, such as a Large Aperture Telescope.  http://www.stsci.edu/institute/atlast

What requirements would drive mission costs into the billions of dollars?


An Orion Hubble LEO servicing mission side by side cost comparison with all the combined costs of the beyond LEO robotic vehicle that captures and hauls a small asteroid and the Orion mission that would be involved with visiting and sampling the asteroid would be interesting.

Directly comparing the real risks through Loss of Mission and Loss of Crew numbers would also be useful.

The likely scientific output of frequently cited research papers that could be enabled by these two different types of missions should also be carefully compared.

Since the HST servicing mission (presumably) could be launched on Delta IV Heavy, whereas an asteroid mission requires SLS, the cost comparison falls apart at that point. There are no billions of dollars in cost for an Orion HST servicing mission.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 09/25/2013 04:27 PM
Has everyone forgotten about the Space Shuttle Payload Delivery Module (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIRECT#Proposed_and_Possible_Missions) 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.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/25/2013 05:03 PM
I should note that as a policy, I would much prefer that NASA issue a commercial RFP for private spacecraft and crew to perform this mission.

However, this thread is about whether Orion is technical able to perform the mission without significant modifications. I am assuming that the designs NASA is proposing for the asteroid mission would be available for a Hubble Servicing Mission. IF NASA is proposing a variant of Orion for the asteroid mission that, for example, could support EVA, but which cannot be done for an HST servicing mission, I give up.

On the same note, if Orion cannot carry HST batteries and gyros, the NASA has a bigger problem that Hubble falling into the ocean some day.

Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 09/25/2013 05:57 PM

On the same note, if Orion cannot carry HST batteries and gyros, the NASA has a bigger problem that Hubble falling into the ocean some day.


Why?  That isn't a problem.  Orion was never designed for it. 
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 09/25/2013 06:01 PM
I am assuming that the designs NASA is proposing for the asteroid mission would be available for a Hubble Servicing Mission. IF NASA is proposing a variant of Orion for the asteroid mission that, for example, could support EVA, but which cannot be done for an HST servicing mission, I give up.


There is no comparison.

The EVA for asteroid mission is short and only two crew and only involves obtaining some samples.   It is nothing like an HST repair which took multiple shifts of two crewmembers and an IVA crewmember to operate the arm.

Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/25/2013 07:54 PM
I am assuming that the designs NASA is proposing for the asteroid mission would be available for a Hubble Servicing Mission. IF NASA is proposing a variant of Orion for the asteroid mission that, for example, could support EVA, but which cannot be done for an HST servicing mission, I give up.


There is no comparison.

The EVA for asteroid mission is short and only two crew and only involves obtaining some samples.   It is nothing like an HST repair which took multiple shifts of two crewmembers and an IVA crewmember to operate the arm.



Please explain why a gyro and battery replacement operation from a docked Orion requires an arm, or extended EVAs.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 09/25/2013 08:27 PM

Please explain why a gyro and battery replacement operation from a docked Orion requires an arm, or extended EVAs.

You're the expert, explain how it is done without the arm and not multiple EVA's and even with the arm explain how it is not done with multiple EVAs?
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/25/2013 08:38 PM

Please explain why a gyro and battery replacement operation from a docked Orion requires an arm, or extended EVAs.

You're the expert, explain how it is done without the arm and not multiple EVA's and even with the arm explain how it is not done with multiple EVAs?

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.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: simonbp on 09/25/2013 09:06 PM
Even replacing the instruments could be relatively easy with a special-purpose derrick (Russian-style) rather than a complex and expensive arm.

But then, IMHO, the whole thing would easier with a Dragon simply because it can carry external cargo without any modifications.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/25/2013 09:31 PM
Even replacing the instruments could be relatively easy with a special-purpose derrick (Russian-style) rather than a complex and expensive arm.

But then, IMHO, the whole thing would easier with a Dragon simply because it can carry external cargo without any modifications.

You are assuming you know the mass and dimensions of the batteries and gyros, and that it would be easier to translate back to the Dragon trunk and then over to HST, as opposed to directly from Orion WITH the ORUs over to HST.

Also, you are assuming that Dragon can support EVA without an airlock, whereas we know that it is NASA's intention to perform EVAs from Orion without an airlock.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 09/25/2013 09:57 PM

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.


Extended as in longer than asteroid mission EVA.  You still haven't addressed the arm.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 09/25/2013 09:59 PM

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.

Yes, because there is no need for EVA's, on't need to replace, just add on.  It doesn't have to be a servicer, just a spacecraft that takes over attitude control and provides power through an existing umbilical connector.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 09/25/2013 10:07 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.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: newpylong on 09/26/2013 11:12 AM
Yes a capability built for contingencies, nonetheless, available in mission scope as I've posted multiple links. I don't believe we will see the mission but it is highly speculative to claim it won't happen.


Also, every DRM I have seen for the Heist portrays more than 1 EVA. For example: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/756678main_20130619-NRC_Tech_Panel_Stich.pdf



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.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: HappyMartian on 09/26/2013 03:02 PM
Has everyone forgotten about the Space Shuttle Payload Delivery Module (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIRECT#Proposed_and_Possible_Missions) 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.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/26/2013 04:49 PM
Has everyone forgotten about the Space Shuttle Payload Delivery Module (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIRECT#Proposed_and_Possible_Missions) 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.
If it needs an Orion, then the mission will never happen guaranteed.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/26/2013 05:50 PM

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.


Why do you presume that no other vehicle can provide additional delta-V for HST?
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: veblen on 09/26/2013 06:04 PM
Orion mission to service Hubble is like spending several thousands in repair costs to fix car that is worth few thousands, plus risking human lives to boot. Scientists thought risking astro's lives was worth it when Hubble was the only game in town. And what Admin Goldin thought (the "you are not saving Hubble you are saving NASA" speech to astros). After Ariane delivers JWST to L2, Hubble will be the equivalent of your old car in the driveway that you can't get rid of for sentimental reasons.

Similar thing will happen to ISS eventually.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: mheney on 09/26/2013 06:35 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/26/2013 07:03 PM
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=29081.0


Cheapest 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.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/26/2013 10:29 PM
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=29081.0


Cheapest 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 not about the policy option of NASA issuing a commercial RFP.

This thread is not about whether Hubble should be serviced.

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.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: jg on 09/26/2013 10:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 09/26/2013 10:59 PM
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.

This seems like a good opportunity to repeat my last post, which apparently got run over by the arguments already in progress...

Has everyone forgotten about the Space Shuttle Payload Delivery Module (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIRECT#Proposed_and_Possible_Missions) 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.)
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/27/2013 12:57 AM
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.

I think you are confusing the requirements for changing out Hubble instruments with the requirements for changing out gyros and batteries. Why would "physically large bays for instruments" be a problem for servicing HST gyros and batteries using Orion?
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/27/2013 01:00 AM
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.

This seems like a good opportunity to repeat my last post, which apparently got run over by the arguments already in progress...

Has everyone forgotten about the Space Shuttle Payload Delivery Module (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIRECT#Proposed_and_Possible_Missions) 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.)

I didn't ignore your post.

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.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 09/27/2013 11:17 AM


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.



Assuming that "Orion can support a "gyros and batteries" class servicing mission" isn't engineering.  Please provide the analysis to prove your assumptions.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 09/27/2013 11:31 AM
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.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: DMeader on 09/27/2013 11:34 AM
BTW, docking with Hubble with a module on the nose of Orion may prove to be unworkable.

How would that be different than ASTP?
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: HappyMartian on 09/27/2013 02:13 PM
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=29081.0


Cheapest 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.




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.


Why do you presume that no other vehicle can provide additional delta-V for HST?


For vehicles that can carry a crew, the Orion with its Service Module offer a total delta-v of 1,595 m/s and both have some useful designed-in long-term mission capabilities.

After doing the servicing mission, and with an Orion no longer attached to the SM, a modified ESA Service Module could offer some significant delta-v possibilities for the Hubble Space Telescope. Other mission profiles could be used.

Orion's origins included some possible useful Orion Service Module payloads and diverse capabilities for LEO missions:


INPUT TO THE REVIEW OF U.S. HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT PLANS COMMITTEE LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION       ORION STATUS AND MULTI-MISSION CAPABILITIES

"Currently, the program baseline is to qualify Orion for both a two propellant tank and a four propellant tank version. By flying only two of its four propellant tanks, Orion can use the additional volume to perform ISS resupply missions for un-pressurized cargo. Additionally, the Crew Module can deliver and return pressurized cargo depending on the number of crew aboard Orion. This cargo concept can deliver approximately 1,800 lbs of pressurized and unpressurized cargo every crewed mission (four crew), or approximately 3,600 lbs of cargo per year at little or no additional cost."

And, "Orion could also provide 100% of ISS annual cargo requirements at a cost equal to or less than the current commercial approaches to sup-plement planned commercial systems. This concept employs an upgraded autono-mous Orion Service Module as a tug once the primary ISS mission is complete and after the Crew Module has been delivered to its de-orbit target."

And, "In addition to providing cargo services in conjunction with Orion’s nominal ISS missions, the upgraded autonomous Service Module as described above could be launched to deliver 30,000 lbs of unpressurized cargo including additional nodes, large spares and Orbital Replacement Units (ORUs) if the ISS continues to operate beyond 2016."

And, "Orion can support NASA’s Science Mission Directorate by hosting payloads and delivering or servicing spacecraft. A remote manipulator system can be in-stalled in one of the cargo compartments and on-orbit servicing for the ISS and other spacecraft can be performed."



Using the ESA Service Module as a tug might eventually offer several interesting options for capturing cargo vehicles the are not ISS-qualified and taking those vehicles to the ISS or to another space station, but the main issue of this thread is using the Orion and, or, its ESA Service Module to do maintenance and reboost on the Hubble Space Telescope. 

The important questions in terms of a crewed Hubble servicing option revolve around what will be the real capabilities and options that will be available with the Orion and ESA Service Module.

If reboost, electrical power, and three axis control of the Hubble Space Telescope are the main issues for a Hubble servicing mission, then perhaps only launching a suitably modified ESA Service Module that semi-permanently docks to the Hubble would be a suitable answer. No Orion would need to be flown.

If a "remote manipulator system can be in-stalled in one of the cargo compartments and on-orbit servicing for the ISS and other spacecraft can be performed" without the presence of a crew, then depending on what is needed, that option may be the best way to accomplish a Hubble servicing mission.

Perhaps if an appropriately modified Orion and ESA Service Module have some robots and a "remote manipulator system" they would be quite capable and could return the captured asteroid samples from a Lunar orbit without needing a crew on board.

Obviously, there might be no real need for a crew and Orion to travel to the Hubble if the ESA Service Module and some robots could do the servicing mission.


Edited.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/27/2013 03:20 PM

Assuming 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.


Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/27/2013 03:21 PM
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.

Nope.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/228135main_astronaut_installing_battery.jpg

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.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/27/2013 03:34 PM
BTW, docking with Hubble with a module on the nose of Orion may prove to be unworkable.

How would that be different than ASTP?

Different spacecraft, but more importantly, I do not know the requirements for docking with the LIDS ring currently installed on HST. The ASTP APAS would designed to allow significant misalignments, but I don't know the tolerances of the passive LIDS ring.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 09/27/2013 04:09 PM


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.

Wrong again.  The batteries are not installed individually, they are installed as module/ORU. 
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 09/27/2013 04:13 PM

Assuming 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.

I wasn't suggesting anything.   Simple math is not engineering.  "Can't" covers many things other than volume, like door size, floor loading, hazardous materials in the crew compartment, etc.

Better question is why do you come up with such nonsensical scenarios?
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/27/2013 05:03 PM


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.

Wrong again.  The batteries are not installed individually, they are installed as module/ORU. 

The image shown is of a battery module/ORU, which is what you are referring to.

If you disagree that the image is of a battery module/ORU, please let us know.


The dimensions I gave above are for a battery module (36 x 32 x 11 inches = 7.3 cubic feet); however, I did omit that the dimensions are for one battery ORU module, whereas HST contains two such modules. It is likely that any mission to HST would require two modules, which would require 14 cubic feet of volume.

Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/27/2013 05:28 PM
Attached is an image from STS-125, showing installation of a gyro. These are to be installed two at a time.

My contention is that these gyros would fit inside the cabin of an Orion spacecraft. Others may disagree.


Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Lars_J on 09/27/2013 05:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/27/2013 05:38 PM
Attached is an image of two battery ORU/Modules in the clean room. My position is that these will fit in the cabin interior of Orion. Others may disagree.

What I have not discussed are other requirements, as Jim mentions, such as off-gassing constraints, cabin floor loading etc. At this point, I am only discussing volumetric constraints.

Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/27/2013 05:39 PM
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.

Can you think of an earlier instance where significant DENSE cargo mass was introduced into a capsule on a one way basis?
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Lurker Steve on 09/27/2013 06:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: DMeader on 09/27/2013 06:55 PM
At this point, I am only discussing volumetric constraints.

If that is your only consideration, then this whole discussion is pointless. It is not even known at this point what the final configuration of the cabin will be. Anyway, the pallet required to secure a mass of the size of the batteries that you keep quoting is likely to be of significant size itself, and must also be taken into consideration.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/27/2013 07:08 PM
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.

During the Apollo EVAs during the return from the Moon, did all crew members have EMUs?

You may be totally correct, but we need to ensure that any requirements or constraints that are levied are real.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: jtrame on 09/27/2013 07:25 PM
I think an airlock/ mission module is needed from everything I've read on this thread.  If no money for that, no servicing mission.  Simple as that.  Could be designed as a multi-purpose module- the basic design adaptable to future use.  If Apollo had been needed for such a mission, it would have required a mission module (think Apollo-Soyuz).  Same with Orion. 
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/27/2013 07:26 PM
I 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?
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: HappyMartian on 09/27/2013 10:51 PM
I 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.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: veblen on 09/27/2013 11:25 PM
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.

No, not completely obsolete. But why risk lives for the sake of the optical part of the spectrum when you have a muscular new machine up there that will be the focus of scientists world-wide? Easler to design, build and launch a new optical telescope to space than to fix Hubble.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 09/28/2013 11:20 AM

During the Apollo EVAs during the return from the Moon, did all crew members have EMUs?


They had the suits but no PLSS.  They were all umbilicaled to the capsule.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 09/28/2013 11:22 AM

Can you explain why NASA is willing to do their asteroid mission EVAs without an airlock module?


A flailing effort to justify SLS.  Organizations/people will lower standards to maintain the status quo or to get something they want.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 09/28/2013 11:28 AM
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.

You may be totally correct, but we need to ensure that any requirements or constraints that are levied are real.


And EMU servicing equipment for the multiple EVA's.  And arm.  You have ignored access needs.

As far as requirements or constraints that are levied are real, how about ensuring that the whole concept is real?  HST may need more than just batteries and RGS.  What about FGS or reaction wheels?

Also, you have yet to consider the deorbit spacecraft than can extend the life by taking over the pointing and power generation.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/28/2013 02:15 PM
I 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.

This may explain why NASA wants to do the asteroid mission, but not specifically why they do not bother with an airlock module.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Lurker Steve on 09/28/2013 02:23 PM
I'll all for giving Hubble a new set of solar array's and batteries, which is probably more easily accomplished by docking a complete "service module" onto Hubble. Of course, an EVA is still required to wire up the SM to Hubble to provide power to the instruments and disable Hubble's current guidance system.

I assume you could almost start with any of the commercial sat busses as a base for the SM. Does Hubble's ability to point in one spot in space exceed that of say the average Boeing or Orbital satellite ?

If the proposal is to perform the same types of replacements / upgrades as previous Hubble servicing missions, then I would imagine a "mission module" almost the size of the shuttle cargo bay would be required. Sounds like that turns into a dual-launch mission for Hubble servicing no matter what. 1 launch for Orion, 1 launch for the SM or the mission module.

Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: jg on 09/28/2013 02:23 PM
Guys, some here are in danger of your hands exceeding escape velocity in the hand waving.

Go back and look at video showing how Hubble was serviced.  Hubble was designed presuming human servicing.  And also designed before most robotics so no experience informed that design about what might be hard for robots to do.

For example, go back and observe the bulk size of the instrument modules, and realize that at that size telescope, optics forbids them being small objects. So to put an upgraded instrument into Hubble, which might increase the research value of Hubble and justify its continued support, you swap the instrument out.  Getting inside the instrument for repair on orbit is really, really hard.  And building brand new instruments are a lot of money. The original plan included repair/refurbishment of instruments when we were deluded about Shuttle costs.

Even with shuttle, and superb and extremely thorough preparation, all sorts of specialized tools built when on one of the missions the repairs went beyond anticipated module swaps, there were really major unanticipated problems that almost got them, including problems with access doors that should have been easy having problems. The last mission was possibly the best demonstration of what humans can do in space that is really impressive you can see. It is a great demo about why we would like humans in space and why it is unlikely we can do everything just with robotic craft.

But it didn't come cheap.  Orion missions look certainly no cheaper.

To do what had to be done is well beyond the current state of robotic art...

And until we change the cost of access to space in serious ways, the economics work against humans, which impose serious limits of time on station, etc. Orion isn't changing those economics and comes at a very high initial cost, and little if any amortization of those mission costs.

For human repair to make sense, you may just not be able to afford to do it on a single mission at that cost.

So we gotta change the economic equation and I am skeptical that is done by Orion and its presumptions, particularly without other pieces of stuff you need to succeed since shuttle gone.

Technology has enabled much/most of what Hubble does to now be done much more cheaply by ground based telescopes, so Hubble's value for figuring out the universe is significantly lower today than it once was. 

From astronomy's point of view, they get N dollars per year, and have to trade off how they get spent and make plans over many years of the important priorities. That is what the decadal studies are for, and the field has (and will continue to have to make tradeoffs) between the programs that bring in the information.  At times, even major assets have to be turned off. Those studies inform which projects and missions receive support from the scientific community. 

So when it is a tradeoff between turning off Hubble, or maybe launching a brand new roughly similar sized telescope based on one of the left over KH's to retain abilities that ground based still/may never be able to do at those wavelengths or with the other astronomers ground and space based observatories, (or neither of those options). you can be sure the astronomers will vote with their virtual pocket book.  And they are busy doing that analysis, as we hand wave, having had those come out of nowhere. 

Astronomers are as  fond of Hubble as most people here are of manned spaceflight, and additionally, most astronomers believe that in the long term, humanity must leave the planet.  But astronomers are used to taking a much longer view of time than most people and unless they perceive urgency (like asteroids coming our way, and they have been working hard to answer tat question), funding a more expensive manned mission will reduce other astronomy work and come out of their hides.

Astronomy will vote for what gets the most science for the buck.

After that, it becomes politics.

So economics do push these ultimately political decisions.

To demonstrate human repair on orbit does not make economic sense isn't good for human spaceflight.  Hubble demonstrated that if and when we make the economics work, human spaceflight can do some amazing things. If you want human spaceflight, apply it where it accomplishes things other alternatives can't.

But let us stay below escape velocity on the hand waving now, and continue with more data if we can?
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/28/2013 02:35 PM
I'll all for giving Hubble a new set of solar array's and batteries, which is probably more easily accomplished by docking a complete "service module" onto Hubble. Of course, an EVA is still required to wire up the SM to Hubble to provide power to the instruments and disable Hubble's current guidance system.

I assume you could almost start with any of the commercial sat busses as a base for the SM. Does Hubble's ability to point in one spot in space exceed that of say the average Boeing or Orbital satellite ?

If the proposal is to perform the same types of replacements / upgrades as previous Hubble servicing missions, then I would imagine a "mission module" almost the size of the shuttle cargo bay would be required. Sounds like that turns into a dual-launch mission for Hubble servicing no matter what. 1 launch for Orion, 1 launch for the SM or the mission module.



The premise of this thread is to use Orion for a "batteries and gyros" replacement function.   No new solar arrays, no new instruments.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/28/2013 02:36 PM
Guys, some here are in danger of your hands exceeding escape velocity in the hand waving.

Go back and look at video showing how Hubble was serviced.  Hubble was designed presuming human servicing.  And also designed before most robotics so no experience informed that design about what might be hard for robots to do.

For example, go back and observe the bulk size of the instrument modules, and realize that at that size telescope, optics forbids them being small objects. So to put an upgraded instrument into Hubble, which might increase the research value of Hubble and justify its continued support, you swap the instrument out.  Getting inside the instrument for repair on orbit is really, really hard.  And building brand new instruments are a lot of money. The original plan included repair/refurbishment of instruments when we were deluded about Shuttle costs.


The premise of this thread is to have Orion perform a "batteries and gyros" replacement mission. No new instruments, no shuttle bay required.

The tools for battery and gyros replacement already exist, and astronauts have already used them.


Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 09/28/2013 02:59 PM
Such a mission is a 'nice-to-have' concept. But no Orion, Astronauts & new Hubble Gyros will be going to the telescope - no way, no how, not ever. Not impossible; just very, very unlikely. NASA has other priorities and concepts to address; and sadly, little budget or leadership to address them.

Such a mission would cost $ billions. NASA would be better off refurbishing and launching the two Hubble-like telescopes they were 'gifted' with last year. There might be enough spare instruments and cameras 'lying around' to equip one 'scope with the abilities to do Hubble-like observations. Then; launch it on an Atlas V to a similar orbit to Hubble. In fact; 2x these upgraded to their maximum capabilities might have given better bang-for-buck than the terribly over-budget and behind schedule JWST!!

But technology is moving on. I would still like to see a new 'single-barrel' space telescope that works in visible light wavelengths, capable of being launched on an Atlas V-551 with a 5.4 meter payload fairing. Such an instrument could have a primary mirror up to 4 meters in diameter - much better than Hubble's. Combine that with modern cameras, smoother-running long-life gyros, and processing power and you'd have one heck of a space telescope. There's even been talk on and off over the years to have the EELV's use a 7 meter fairing - Big 'scope could fit under that!!

Hubble is doing splendid work and will continue to do so for years to come. But when it's evetually worn out; we'll have to let it go. It's time will have ended... :(
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: HappyMartian on 09/28/2013 03:06 PM
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.

No, not completely obsolete. But why risk lives for the sake of the optical part of the spectrum when you have a muscular new machine up there that will be the focus of scientists world-wide? Easler to design, build and launch a new optical telescope to space than to fix Hubble.



"Easler to design, build and launch a new optical telescope to space than to fix Hubble."

Given that we don't know exactly what would eventually be needed "to fix Hubble" and the willingness of Congress to fund a new telescope and the real costs and risks of any such Hubble equivalent telescope, the proof of that odd assumption is to be found where?

Note that a risk reduction program of testing Orion and its ESA Service Module in LEO could be wise, useful, and supported by many folks in Congress.

A mission to the ISS and another one to service the Hubble Space Telescope could be considered by members of Congress and our international space exploration partners as affordable and needed missions that are logical and step-by-step expansions of the flight test envelope of the Orion and ESA Service Module, instead of being a risky and politically devised space stunt as seems to be the situation with the mission to a captured and hauled space boulder.   

And if a serious problem or accident occurs with the crew, new Orion or ESA Service Module during a Hubble servicing mission and that problem leads to a mission abort, a quick return from LEO to the Earth's surface should be a lower risk option than an abort and one-week trip, or longer, from a high Lunar orbit and then an Earth atmosphere reentry at a significantly higher velocity and kinetic energy than would be the case for a LEO mission.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: jg on 09/28/2013 03:43 PM
Guys, some here are in danger of your hands exceeding escape velocity in the hand waving.

Go back and look at video showing how Hubble was serviced.  Hubble was designed presuming human servicing.  And also designed before most robotics so no experience informed that design about what might be hard for robots to do.

For example, go back and observe the bulk size of the instrument modules, and realize that at that size telescope, optics forbids them being small objects. So to put an upgraded instrument into Hubble, which might increase the research value of Hubble and justify its continued support, you swap the instrument out.  Getting inside the instrument for repair on orbit is really, really hard.  And building brand new instruments are a lot of money. The original plan included repair/refurbishment of instruments when we were deluded about Shuttle costs.


The premise of this thread is to have Orion perform a "batteries and gyros" replacement mission. No new instruments, no shuttle bay required.

The tools for battery and gyros replacement already exist, and astronauts have already used them.


That makes an analysis somewhat simpler.  Someone will have to remind us if those are in an easily accessible part of Hubble.  If yes, then one should cost out a one off robotic repair attempt, but I have no background there to do even a wild added guess of what building such a device might be.

It is pretty easy to dig up what building instruments on Hubble cost... I have enough background to probably find such data, but am too jetlagged to want to do so today. Astronomers will be weighing the costs of building instruments for KH plus a launch vehicle against a repair.  By chance, I will be catching up with an old friend who is an astronomer who might have first but probably has at most second hand knowledge of what the astronomical community is doing about the KH's this weekend. Just how similar or dissimilar the KH is from Hubble would be great to know too, though I know they do have significantly different focal lengths.

The mirrors for Hubble were made in the same Perkin Elmer Danbury building that the KH mirrors were figured in, which is why independent verification of the figure of the mirror was made impossible and the mistake in the optical test missed. To get to the lab you had to walkthrough where the KH mirrors were being made.
That took an insane level of clearance.

After college I happened to interview with PE at that building.  Personally I have never, ever seen similar security rigor at any other building though I have not ever done classified work, so it may be not that usual. My interview was just outside the security entrance. For example, the guards issued/retained all badges as people went in and out, and it was clear sitting there waiting that no one was allowed to bring in or out any briefcases, etc. Once people entered, you could not see further...

I don't remember if PE made me an offer or not.  My SAO appointment came through finally and made further interviewing unnecessary. Most likely I  called them and and called them and told them I had accepted SAO's offer. This must have been late summer 1978.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/28/2013 05:22 PM
Such a mission is a 'nice-to-have' concept. But no Orion, Astronauts & new Hubble Gyros will be going to the telescope - no way, no how, not ever. Not impossible; just very, very unlikely. NASA has other priorities and concepts to address; and sadly, little budget or leadership to address them.

Such a mission would cost $ billions.


Discussions about new telescopes and whether NASA would actually do a gyros and batteries mission are off topic here.

What IS on topic are cost estimates.

Could you please provide a budget for batteries and gyros mission to HST showing why costs would be in the billions of dollars?
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/28/2013 05:34 PM
I'll all for giving Hubble a new set of solar array's and batteries, which is probably more easily accomplished by docking a complete "service module" onto Hubble. Of course, an EVA is still required to wire up the SM to Hubble to provide power to the instruments and disable Hubble's current guidance system.

I assume you could almost start with any of the commercial sat busses as a base for the SM. Does Hubble's ability to point in one spot in space exceed that of say the average Boeing or Orbital satellite ?

If the proposal is to perform the same types of replacements / upgrades as previous Hubble servicing missions, then I would imagine a "mission module" almost the size of the shuttle cargo bay would be required. Sounds like that turns into a dual-launch mission for Hubble servicing no matter what. 1 launch for Orion, 1 launch for the SM or the mission module.



The premise of this thread is to use Orion for a "batteries and gyros" replacement function.   No new solar arrays, no new instruments.

Do not over restrict it.  The mission module carrying the arm may have plenty of room for some solar panels.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: DMeader on 09/28/2013 05:49 PM
The tools for battery and gyros replacement already exist, and astronauts have already used them.

The tools exist, but the workbench is gone, and you insist on doing the job with all your screwdrivers jammed in your top pocket and no place to do the work and nothing to hold your stuff. Your premise simply is not workable.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/28/2013 05:56 PM
The tools for battery and gyros replacement already exist, and astronauts have already used them.

The tools exist, but the workbench is gone, and you insist on doing the job with all your screwdrivers jammed in your top pocket and no place to do the work and nothing to hold your stuff. Your premise simply is not workable.

You are suggesting that no system other than a revived Space Shuttle could service the batteries and gyros.

The history of space station EVAs would indicate that having a space shuttle with a long robotic arm is not quite necessary for dealing with small ORUs.  Bolts are regularly removed from the Russian segment without the systems you cite as being necessary. 

I think you may be confusing the phrase "in order for an Orion crew to perform replacement of HST batteries and gyros,  new utility systems may have to be devised to make operations more efficient" with "nothing can service HST except a robotic system".


Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: DMeader on 09/28/2013 06:07 PM
No, I'm suggesting that just the stock Orion with no mission module and no arm cannot do the job.

When I go to a jobsite, I don't pile some tools and parts on the seat of my car. I take my service truck. Ok, the service truck (the Shuttle) is gone. Orion is my car. It cannot hold all the equipment and support the job. Something else is needed. In this case, at the very least something the equivelant of a trailer behind my car with work fixtures and parts storage and a compressor and maybe a generator. That's the mission module.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/28/2013 06:43 PM
No, I'm suggesting that just the stock Orion with no mission module and no arm cannot do the job.

When I go to a jobsite, I don't pile some tools and parts on the seat of my car. I take my service truck. Ok, the service truck (the Shuttle) is gone. Orion is my car. It cannot hold all the equipment and support the job. Something else is needed. In this case, at the very least something the equivelant of a trailer behind my car with work fixtures and parts storage and a compressor and maybe a generator. That's the mission module.

OK, let's talk about what requirements your mission module meets that a BEO Orion cannot.  My assumption is that the Orion can serve as a mission module, but I am willing to entertain other ideas.

And also, when the Russians perform an EVA to fix some part on the outside of the Russian segment, why don't they need a mission module?

For historical context, during the Shuttle Era, virtually all ISS USOS EVAs were performed by Shuttle crews, using the Shuttle payload bay for support. Now that the Shuttle is no longer flying, ISS Crews perform USOS EVAs without the Shuttle. So, what was a requirement for EVA support in the old days turns out to be more of a desirement.



Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/28/2013 06:51 PM
Orion was obviously designed to be a flying camper-van.   Altair moved things like the rover and drill.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/28/2013 08:06 PM
Just for reference:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kT-IT6TutAs


No arm. No airlock. No mission module.


Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Lurker Steve on 09/28/2013 08:20 PM
Such a mission is a 'nice-to-have' concept. But no Orion, Astronauts & new Hubble Gyros will be going to the telescope - no way, no how, not ever. Not impossible; just very, very unlikely. NASA has other priorities and concepts to address; and sadly, little budget or leadership to address them.

Such a mission would cost $ billions. NASA would be better off refurbishing and launching the two Hubble-like telescopes they were 'gifted' with last year. There might be enough spare instruments and cameras 'lying around' to equip one 'scope with the abilities to do Hubble-like observations. Then; launch it on an Atlas V to a similar orbit to Hubble. In fact; 2x these upgraded to their maximum capabilities might have given better bang-for-buck than the terribly over-budget and behind schedule JWST!!

But technology is moving on. I would still like to see a new 'single-barrel' space telescope that works in visible light wavelengths, capable of being launched on an Atlas V-551 with a 5.4 meter payload fairing. Such an instrument could have a primary mirror up to 4 meters in diameter - much better than Hubble's. Combine that with modern cameras, smoother-running long-life gyros, and processing power and you'd have one heck of a space telescope. There's even been talk on and off over the years to have the EELV's use a 7 meter fairing - Big 'scope could fit under that!!

Hubble is doing splendid work and will continue to do so for years to come. But when it's evetually worn out; we'll have to let it go. It's time will have ended... :(

From what I understand, you can't really call the surplus equipment that was gifted by the DOD a telescope. They might have a primary mirror, but no science instruments. It's a start in building a short focal length device, but it will take significant funding to make them usable. Maybe even the same amount of funding necessary to extend the life of Hubble another 10 years.

Scientists may be more interested in the non-visible frequencies that JWST will be capable of, for looking farther back in time, but the general public likes pretty pictures. That's why Hubble is a fan favorite. It is much more capable of selling it's value to the general public.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 09/28/2013 08:23 PM
. Of course, an EVA is still required to wire up the SM to Hubble to provide power to the instruments and disable Hubble's current guidance system.


No, there is an umbilical on the aft end of the spacecraft that was remotely connected while in the payload bay of the shuttle.  It was for power and commanding.  The support spacecraft would use this.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 09/28/2013 08:29 PM

1.  And also, when the Russians perform an EVA to fix some part on the outside of the Russian segment, why don't they need a mission module?

2,  For historical context, during the Shuttle Era, virtually all ISS USOS EVAs were performed by Shuttle crews, using the Shuttle payload bay for support. Now that the Shuttle is no longer flying, ISS Crews perform USOS EVAs without the Shuttle. So, what was a requirement for EVA support in the old days turns out to be more of a desirement.

1.  Because they are working on the mission module (Russian segment).  All the tools, hardware and mobility equipment are already attached to it.  Orion has none of this.  The HST servicing conops was based on an arm available.

2.  No, not true.  USOS EVA's have an MBS, SSRMS, and ISS truss which replaces the functionality of the shuttle payload bay.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 09/28/2013 08:33 PM
Just for reference:

No arm. No airlock. No mission module.


That is not an applicable analogy. 
Apollo was designed from the beginning for such ops.  Orion is not. The EVA was on the Apollo spacecraft with mobility equipment built in, it is not on another spacecraft further away.   There is no EVA pathway to do the work.   The retrieved film was small and light and did not require tools.   The batteries are too heavy to be hand carried.

All your examples (Russian, ISS, Apollo) are not the same as repairing HST. 
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 09/28/2013 08:46 PM


And also, when the Russians perform an EVA to fix some part on the outside of the Russian segment, why don't they need a mission module?

For historical context, during the Shuttle Era, virtually all ISS USOS EVAs were performed by Shuttle crews, using the Shuttle payload bay for support. Now that the Shuttle is no longer flying, ISS Crews perform USOS EVAs without the Shuttle. So, what was a requirement for EVA support in the old days turns out to be more of a desirement.

There are difference between the amount of EVA support a spacecraft can do. The Russians have an airlock on their side(in fact ISS has two airlocks total with quest in theory able to support Russian suits too—if the parts have been sent as well as a small airlock on the Japanese lab that can move out small items). Russians also have two strela cranes to move items around. The strela system is manually operated. The ISS has large amounts of internal and external storage for items.

The shuttle had airlock and arm as well as large cargo bay as well as large amounts of internal storage in the cabin.

Orion is like Apollo, can support a spacewalk in a pinch but not the most practical way to do it. With no airlock you are limited to having to decompress the whole crew compartment. With the shuttle you could have one person or two people working the arm indoors while you had 2-3 people out in the cargo bay.  You could carry big, bulky items. Apollo had a simbay that could hold small item,s and I have not seen any bay design on Orion’s service module. Apollo also used the LM as Airlock whenever possible to keep from depressing the whole cabin.
 And the small Orion cabin won't carry much extra.

It is like comparing a car to a pickup truck, sure a car can haul a small amount of cargo in a pinch but it won't sub for a pick up truck when needed.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/28/2013 08:48 PM


The batteries are too heavy to be hand carried.

 

Here is an image of an astronaut carrying a battery ORU at HST. Although the astronaut's feet are attached to the arm, there is no reason why the same operation could not be performed with the astronaut's feet attached to handrails.

Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: LegendCJS on 09/28/2013 09:07 PM


The batteries are too heavy to be hand carried.

 

Here is an image of an astronaut carrying a battery ORU at HST. Although the astronaut's feet are attached to the arm, there is no reason why the same operation could not be performed with the astronaut's feet attached to handrails.

Do you not understand the difference between transporting and positioning?

Why fix up the old scope?  With the story going around that there are essentially two more Hubble class optical platforms sitting in surplus storage, who here thinks its a better investment to spend money on a super expensive Orion launch and custom mission module over flying two fresh Hubble class telescopes for probably much less total cost to outfit and fly both of them (assuming someone makes a cheap 53 ton launcher).
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: veblen on 09/28/2013 09:12 PM
Getting greedy with an aging space telescope is the way to danger. Somebody some day may die during an EVA, I really hope not trying to fix the HST. Hubble has an amazing, unrivalled legacy, better to let it go to an elegant and well-deserved retirement.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/28/2013 09:21 PM


The batteries are too heavy to be hand carried.

 

Here is an image of an astronaut carrying a battery ORU at HST. Although the astronaut's feet are attached to the arm, there is no reason why the same operation could not be performed with the astronaut's feet attached to handrails.

Do you not understand the difference between transporting and positioning? What I am getting at here is the difference between a hard requirement and a "nice to have". I suspect that for moving battery ORUs from Orion to the battery bay on HST, an arm is "nice to have" but not a requirement.





Which of these movements cannot be performed without a robotic arm?

As for your other discussion about wanting two more telescopes, that is all great, but needs its own thread.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: veblen on 09/28/2013 09:30 PM


The batteries are too heavy to be hand carried.

 

Here is an image of an astronaut carrying a battery ORU at HST. Although the astronaut's feet are attached to the arm, there is no reason why the same operation could not be performed with the astronaut's feet attached to handrails.

Do you not understand the difference between transporting and positioning? What I am getting at here is the difference between a hard requirement and a "nice to have". I suspect that for moving battery ORUs from Orion to the battery bay on HST, an arm is "nice to have" but not a requirement.





Which of these movements cannot be performed without a robotic arm?

As for your other discussion about wanting two more telescopes, that is all great, but needs its own thread.

yeah lets not discuss risk or how freakin expensive this is going to be or what we get out of it in terms of science, or some practical alternatives, let's just focus on what you think you know about robotic arms
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: LegendCJS on 09/28/2013 09:54 PM


The batteries are too heavy to be hand carried.

 

Here is an image of an astronaut carrying a battery ORU at HST. Although the astronaut's feet are attached to the arm, there is no reason why the same operation could not be performed with the astronaut's feet attached to handrails.

Do you not understand the difference between transporting and positioning? What I am getting at here is the difference between a hard requirement and a "nice to have". I suspect that for moving battery ORUs from Orion to the battery bay on HST, an arm is "nice to have" but not a requirement.





Which of these movements cannot be performed without a robotic arm?

As for your other discussion about wanting two more telescopes, that is all great, but needs its own thread.

Umm, don't know how this happened Danderman, but your quote box is attributing text to me that I never wrote.  Only the first sentence was mine.  I've struck out the other lines.

I'll nix this post if you and Veblen fix yours.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 09/29/2013 12:49 AM
Such a mission is a 'nice-to-have' concept. But no Orion, Astronauts & new Hubble Gyros will be going to the telescope - no way, no how, not ever. Not impossible; just very, very unlikely. NASA has other priorities and concepts to address; and sadly, little budget or leadership to address them.

Such a mission would cost $ billions.


Discussions about new telescopes and whether NASA would actually do a gyros and batteries mission are off topic here.

What IS on topic are cost estimates.

Could you please provide a budget for batteries and gyros mission to HST showing why costs would be in the billions of dollars?


I said in my own previous post (which you are selectively quoting from to try distort that post) that there are probably enough spares 'lying around' on Earth for a refurbishment or an upgrade of the similar telescopes. But also - an SLS, Orion, and the required training and preparations for a servicing mission wont come for free. There's the billions - why are you not seeing this?! Because you don't want to, that's why. 'Could I please provide a budget' etc. Don't be facetious - I don't work for the Hubble Telescope folk in Baltimore, nor NASA, nor ESA. If you do; then perhaps you can provide the budget figures for us?! We'd be delighted to see them - since this whole idea is one you just wont let go, no matter how much I and smarter folk than me patiently explain to you how unlikely it all is. :(
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: DMeader on 09/29/2013 02:32 AM

Here is an image of an astronaut carrying a battery ORU at HST.

You miss the point of the arm. The astro is simply HOLDING the ORU. The arm is what is maneuvering both of them.

Without the arm, think of the astro, with one hand holding that (massive) battery trying to maneuver along a handrail as you propose. Anyone familiar with EVA ops would probably tell you it isn't possible.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 09/29/2013 03:04 AM
Just to add certain moves in zero g are harder than on earth such as lifting an item. With nothing to push against you can’t get your leg muscles to help so you can't lift as much as you can on earth or at least not in the same way.  ISS and Space Shuttle suits have hard torsos and so you can’t bend in the either. Orion suits are supposed to allow some bending due to being made to work in gravity, but that ability is going to be limited.  The suit itself works against the person who is wear it making any sort of moving and bending a joint harder than on earth(air pressure differences). It just isn’t as simple as dock Orion to Hubble and you are ready to go.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: HappyMartian on 09/29/2013 03:21 AM
. Of course, an EVA is still required to wire up the SM to Hubble to provide power to the instruments and disable Hubble's current guidance system.


No, there is an umbilical on the aft end of the spacecraft that was remotely connected while in the payload bay of the shuttle.  It was for power and commanding.  The support spacecraft would use this.


Reboost, electrical power, three axis control, and an eventual deorbit option for the Hubble Space Telescope could be the main issues. Launching only a suitably modified ESA Service Module that semi-permanently docks itself to the Hubble could suffice in this situation. An Orion isn't flown.

If other maintenance issues require the Orion and its crew, then an inflatable service/airlock/docking/mission module with an arm could also be flown on the SLS.

However, even in this situation, it should be useful for the suitably modified ESA Service Module to return and dock with Hubble after it does the deorbit burn for the Orion and separates from it.

After docking with the repaired Hubble, the ESA Service Module would do the reboost part of the servicing mission and remain docked to the Hubble.

The ESA Service Module may offer some interesting options. Testing the Service Module for a decade or more in LEO while it is docked to Hubble could be a win-win situation for ESA, Hubble, NASA, and taxpayers.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: LegendCJS on 09/29/2013 03:27 AM
. Of course, an EVA is still required to wire up the SM to Hubble to provide power to the instruments and disable Hubble's current guidance system.


No, there is an umbilical on the aft end of the spacecraft that was remotely connected while in the payload bay of the shuttle.  It was for power and commanding.  The support spacecraft would use this.


Reboost, electrical power, three axis control, and an eventual deorbit option for the Hubble Space Telescope could be the main issues. Launching only a suitably modified ESA Service Module that semi-permanently docks itself to the Hubble could suffice in this situation. An Orion isn't flown.

If other maintenance issues require the Orion and its crew, then an inflatable service/airlock/docking/mission module with an arm could also be flown on the SLS.

However, even in this situation, it should be useful for the suitably modified ESA Service Module to return and dock with Hubble after it does the deorbit burn for the Orion and separates from it.

After docking with the repaired Hubble, the ESA Service Module would do the reboost part of the servicing mission and remain docked to the Hubble.

The ESA Service Module may offer some interesting options. Testing the Service Module for a decade or more in LEO while it is docked to Hubble could be a win-win situation for ESA, Hubble, NASA, and taxpayers.

Nonsense! A telescope is useless if it can't be very accurately pointed and slewed and kept free from all vibration.  No way in heck that permanently attaching some random hunk of service module isn't going to screw all those factors up for good.  Give it up.  You would have to pay for a 130 mt launcher to even get orion and the service module into orbit in the first place to execute this scheme. Apparently its off topic to speculate on a better action to take with this same amount of money with respect to science return, but use your imagination.  And we have a place for decades long testing of space hardware already in orbit, no need to look for a new one.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: HappyMartian on 09/29/2013 03:52 AM
. Of course, an EVA is still required to wire up the SM to Hubble to provide power to the instruments and disable Hubble's current guidance system.


No, there is an umbilical on the aft end of the spacecraft that was remotely connected while in the payload bay of the shuttle.  It was for power and commanding.  The support spacecraft would use this.


Reboost, electrical power, three axis control, and an eventual deorbit option for the Hubble Space Telescope could be the main issues. Launching only a suitably modified ESA Service Module that semi-permanently docks itself to the Hubble could suffice in this situation. An Orion isn't flown.

If other maintenance issues require the Orion and its crew, then an inflatable service/airlock/docking/mission module with an arm could also be flown on the SLS.

However, even in this situation, it should be useful for the suitably modified ESA Service Module to return and dock with Hubble after it does the deorbit burn for the Orion and separates from it.

After docking with the repaired Hubble, the ESA Service Module would do the reboost part of the servicing mission and remain docked to the Hubble.

The ESA Service Module may offer some interesting options. Testing the Service Module for a decade or more in LEO while it is docked to Hubble could be a win-win situation for ESA, Hubble, NASA, and taxpayers.

Nonsense! A telescope is useless if it can't be very accurately pointed and slewed and kept free from all vibration.  No way in heck that permanently attaching some random hunk of service module isn't going to screw all those factors up for good.  Give it up.  You would have to pay for a 130 mt launcher to even get orion and the service module into orbit in the first place to execute this scheme. Apparently its off topic to speculate on a better science return on this same amount of money but use your imagination.


Historically, launchers have been considered much cheaper than large payloads.  Building a Hubble equivalent space telescope wouldn't be cheap nor would it be necessarily politically supported in Congress.

Long duration Lunar and deep space missions will require extensive and diverse skills and experience with EVA repairs and general maintenance. The importance and value of getting, maintaining, and expanding that skill base should not be minimized or ignored.

The SLS, Orion, and ESA Service Module will need to be tested in LEO. Hubble will most likely need a servicing mission that also adds eventual deorbit options at about that time.

An inflatable servicing/airlock/docking/mission module with an arm could be useful for other Orion missions in LEO, cislunar, and beyond cislunar space. That all potentially sounds like a win-win situation for everyone.

Edited.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 09/29/2013 05:27 AM
"An inflatable servicing/airlock/docking/mission module with an arm could be useful for other Orion missions in LEO, cislunar, and beyond cislunar space. That all potentially sounds like a win-win situation for everyone."

Yes! With a 'mini-Canadarm' on the module. Such a module would be useful for L1/L-2, NEA, Phobos and Ceres missions, I reckon.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: HappyMartian on 09/29/2013 09:57 AM
"An inflatable servicing/airlock/docking/mission module with an arm could be useful for other Orion missions in LEO, cislunar, and beyond cislunar space. That all potentially sounds like a win-win situation for everyone."

Yes! With a 'mini-Canadarm' on the module. Such a module would be useful for L1/L-2, NEA, Phobos and Ceres missions, I reckon.


Yep!

"Such a module" could even be useful for Lunar surface mission scenarios, which under current American law, budgets, and political realities is the most likely next permanent destination for the SLS and international Orion missions during the 2020s and 2030s.

An Orion servicing mission for the Hubble Space Telescope could offer many real benefits.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 09/29/2013 10:57 AM
By the time Orion/SLS is ready for such a notional Hubble mission; that telescope would already be dead or close to it. Hubble is an icon, yes but it's time to start thinking beyond it and to new telescopes and technologies. We have to let it go when its time is over. I say again; the billions spent on a Orion/SLS mission would be better off used for another mission, say to a NEA or even the Asteroid Heist mission. Or my preference; a Lunar Polar Sortie mission or missions; partnered with a Commercial or International-made crew lander. But that's a topic for another thread...

And let's not lose sight of the fact that SLS may yet get cancelled. We cannot carry on as if SLS were guaranteed to survive the next Congressional and Presidential Administrations!?
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 09/29/2013 11:46 AM

Here is an image of an astronaut carrying a battery ORU at HST. Although the astronaut's feet are attached to the arm, there is no reason why the same operation could not be performed with the astronaut's feet attached to handrails.


There are many reasons that are intuitively obvious.
How does the battery get from the storage location to the astronaut who is fixed on the handrails.  The battery is too heavy to be "dragged" to be walked into place.  How is the foot restraint on the hand rails placed there?  What says a foot restraint on the handrail can be placed in the right position?  What says the handrail can take the loads?  Where is the foot restrain carried?
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: HappyMartian on 09/29/2013 12:55 PM
By the time Orion/SLS is ready for such a notional Hubble mission; that telescope would already be dead or close to it. Hubble is an icon, yes but it's time to start thinking beyond it and to new telescopes and technologies. We have to let it go when its time is over. I say again; the billions spent on a Orion/SLS mission would be better off used for another mission, say to a NEA or even the Asteroid Heist mission. Or my preference; a Lunar Polar Sortie mission or missions; partnered with a Commercial or International-made crew lander. But that's a topic for another thread...

And let's not lose sight of the fact that SLS may yet get cancelled. We cannot carry on as if SLS were guaranteed to survive the next Congressional and Presidential Administrations!?


"Based on the latest projections, the space telescope is expected to fall back to Earth sometime between 2030 and 2040, depending on solar activity and its effects on how much altitude-reducing "atmospheric drag" the telescope experiences."

From: Four years after final service call, Hubble Space Telescope going strong  05/30/2013  By WILLIAM HARWOOD    CBS News
At: http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/home/spacenews/files/1ae7cac0d167055e41e1f0da7b0ac6a3-588.html


The Hubble Space telescope is likely to still be operational when the SLS and Orion fly their first and second crews into orbit.

And as to "another mission, say to a NEA" the risks to the crew for such a mission are higher than a Lunar mission and the costs of such an SLS/Orion asteroid mission are around 120,000,000,000 dollars. Mars missions may cost 500,000,000,000 to one trillion dollars.

Congress has shown little interest in funding the President's human missions to an NEA and Mars "or even the Asteroid Heist mission."

Due to Congress's bipartisan supported National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010, also known as PUBLIC LAW 111–267—OCT. 11, 2010, it is unlikely that the carefully managed SLS, which launches the quite useful and versatile Orion into cislunar space, would be cancelled.

It is probably more likely that the funding for the private human carrying commercial spacecraft would be cut back or eliminated in a 'budget crunch' than would the funding for the Orion and SLS.

Why? Because Orion, with its ESA Service Module, is becoming an international spacecraft that is capable of both LEO and beyond LEO missions.

In considering the availability of the SLS and Orion for a Hubble Servicing Mission, it may also be quite useful to consider:

"(b) UNITED STATES HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT CAPABILITIES.—Congress reaffirms the policy stated in section 501(a) of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16761(a)), that the United States shall maintain an uninterrupted capability for human space flight and operations in low-Earth orbit, and beyond, as an essential instrument of national security and of the capacity to ensure continued United States participation and leadership in the exploration and utilization of space."

And, "SEC. 302. SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM AS FOLLOW-ON LAUNCH VEHICLE
TO THE SPACE SHUTTLE.
(a) UNITED STATES POLICY.—It is the policy of the United States that NASA develop a Space Launch System as a follow on to the Space Shuttle that can access cis-lunar space and the regions of space beyond low-Earth orbit in order to enable the United States to participate in global efforts to access and develop
this increasingly strategic region."

And, ""(3) CIS-LUNAR SPACE.—The term 'cis-lunar space' means the region of space from the Earth out to and including the region around the surface of the Moon."

From the: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010 also known as PUBLIC LAW 111–267—OCT. 11, 2010
Available at:  http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/649377main_PL_111-267.pdf   


Assured access to LEO and other areas of cislunar space with the SLS and Orion form "an essential instrument of national security and of the capacity to ensure continued United States participation and leadership in the exploration and utilization of space" and also "enable the United States to participate in global efforts to access and develop this increasingly strategic region."

The strategic interests of the United States in having access to, and in developing, cislunar space are far more important to Congress than are the desires of some space cadets for America to cancel the cislunar mission capable SLS and Orion, and then head off to an NEA and Mars.

A Hubble Servicing Mission could provide a useful LEO test flight for the SLS and Orion.


Edited.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/29/2013 02:33 PM

yeah lets not discuss risk or how freakin expensive this is going to be or what we get out of it in terms of science, or some practical alternatives, let's just focus on what you think you know about robotic arms

I am happy to talk about the risks of using Orion for Hubble Servicing.

I am happy talk about HST servicing requirements that require an arm.

I am not happy to talk about how it is stupid to service HST. That requires its own thread.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/29/2013 02:35 PM

A Hubble Servicing Mission could provide a useful LEO test flight for the SLS and Orion.




I am suggesting that a Delta IV Heavy could inject Orion into the HST orbit (or at least to a lower orbit, with enough prop for Orion to move itself into the HST orbit).

My belief is that requiring SLS for this mission  makes the mission too expensive.

And yes, a "shakedown" of Orion in LEO prior to missions beyond LEO would be useful.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/29/2013 02:37 PM

Here is an image of an astronaut carrying a battery ORU at HST. Although the astronaut's feet are attached to the arm, there is no reason why the same operation could not be performed with the astronaut's feet attached to handrails.


There are many reasons that are intuitively obvious.
How does the battery get from the storage location to the astronaut who is fixed on the handrails.  The battery is too heavy to be "dragged" to be walked into place.  How is the foot restraint on the hand rails placed there?  What says a foot restraint on the handrail can be placed in the right position?  What says the handrail can take the loads?  Where is the foot restrain carried?

The issue on the table is whether an astronaut can translate from Orion to the battery bay on HST while carrying a battery ORU.

As mention before, the battery ORU is something like 36 inches x 32 inches x 11 inches, and weighs some 400 pounds.


While I am at it, I should ask if anyone questions whether astronauts can change out the rate sensor units (gyros) using Orion.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: HappyMartian on 09/29/2013 04:31 PM

Here is an image of an astronaut carrying a battery ORU at HST. Although the astronaut's feet are attached to the arm, there is no reason why the same operation could not be performed with the astronaut's feet attached to handrails.


There are many reasons that are intuitively obvious.
How does the battery get from the storage location to the astronaut who is fixed on the handrails.  The battery is too heavy to be "dragged" to be walked into place.  How is the foot restraint on the hand rails placed there?  What says a foot restraint on the handrail can be placed in the right position?  What says the handrail can take the loads?  Where is the foot restrain carried?

The issue on the table is whether an astronaut can translate from Orion to the battery bay on HST while carrying a battery ORU.

As mention before, the battery ORU is something like 36 inches x 32 inches x 11 inches, and weighs some 400 pounds.


While I am at it, I should ask if anyone questions whether astronauts can change out the rate sensor units (gyros) using Orion.



1. Battery energy storage efficiency is changing. Could the replacement batteries be lighter or smaller than the current batteries?

2. Could each battery pack be broken into four, or even eight, smaller units that could be 'snapped together' just prior to their installation?


If using a Delta IV Heavy is doable for an Orion mission to service the Hubble, that would be nifty. Having the Delta IV Heavy tested in LEO as a secondary or backup launcher for various Orion missions could be quite useful. 

However, the SLS also needs to be tested with the Orion and crew in LEO. The SLS could offer some useful extra launch and delta-v capability along with some mission risk reducing options, such as an inflatable servicing/airlock/docking/mission module with an arm or possibly even two arms.


3. Would it be reasonable to use the ESA Service Module to reboost the Hubble only after the ESA Service Module has done the deorbit burn for the Orion and then independently made a rendezvous and docking with the Hubble?

4. In that mission scenario, would it be reasonable to keep the ESA Service Module docked long-term to the Hubble for possible backup electrical power, 3 axis control, and future reboost or deorbit options?

Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 09/29/2013 07:08 PM
No, an astronaut can not translate with a 400lb object.  No corroborating data is needed, it is intuitively obvious.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 09/29/2013 09:27 PM

1. Battery energy storage efficiency is changing. Could the replacement batteries be lighter or smaller than thecurrent batteries?

2. Could each battery pack be broken into four, or even eight, smaller units that could be 'snapped together' just prior to their installation?


There some possibility that the three battery ORU could be assembled on-orbit, allowing astronauts to carry one third of a battery ORU at a time. This is still over 100 lbs per load, however.

IF there were a hard requirement to replace the Hubble batteries, and the only option were to service using Orion, then alternatives such as reducing the mass of the batteries or developing some sort of translation tool would be considered.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: veblen on 09/29/2013 09:33 PM

yeah lets not discuss risk or how freakin expensive this is going to be or what we get out of it in terms of science, or some practical alternatives, let's just focus on what you think you know about robotic arms

I am happy to talk about the risks of using Orion for Hubble Servicing.

I am happy talk about HST servicing requirements that require an arm.

I am not happy to talk about how it is stupid to service HST. That requires its own thread.

"Stupid" your word not mine. And I followed the last repair mission to HST very closely. The planning and effort involved rivalled an Apollo mission. Hubble is child of Shuttle. Shuttle has gone away. Better to manage Hubble conservatively into very old age from the ground, as its excellent minders are currently doing.

Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: deltaV on 10/17/2013 09:01 PM
It's obvious that one cannot walk around carrying a 400 lb object here on Earth but why can't that be done in space? If you limit acceleration to say 0.25 m/s/s you only have to push with 10 lbf. Keep speeds low to avoid accidents. Note that people pushing heavy boats around is an analogous situation here on Earth.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 10/17/2013 09:13 PM
It's obvious that one cannot walk around carrying a 400 lb object here on Earth but why can't that be done in space? If you limit acceleration to say 0.25 m/s/s you only have to push with 10 lbf. Keep speeds low to avoid accidents. Note that people pushing heavy boats around is an analogous situation here on Earth.

Because there is no way to control the mass and translate at the same time while EVA.  And it would be an analogous situation on Earth wrt heavy boats only if the person pushing was in separate boat and using only one hand.

As for limiting  acceleration to 0.25 m/s/s, how would you ensure that?  Are you going to put a inertial reference system on the battery to measure the acceleration or are you going to calibrate the astronauts arms to ensure that they don't push too hard?
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: HappyMartian on 10/17/2013 11:49 PM

1. Battery energy storage efficiency is changing. Could the replacement batteries be lighter or smaller than thecurrent batteries?

2. Could each battery pack be broken into four, or even eight, smaller units that could be 'snapped together' just prior to their installation?


There some possibility that the three battery ORU could be assembled on-orbit, allowing astronauts to carry one third of a battery ORU at a time. This is still over 100 lbs per load, however.

IF there were a hard requirement to replace the Hubble batteries, and the only option were to service using Orion, then alternatives such as reducing the mass of the batteries or developing some sort of translation tool would be considered.


If an arm or two is needed, then:

"Similarly, the notional Robotics and EVA Module (REM) is envisioned as an 'add on’ airlock to other destination elements, consisting of a suitlock with two suitports, at least one robotic arm with a grapple fixture and EVA positioning end effectors, an international docking system standard interface, an external equipment pallet, a crew lock, and mounting points to which elements and payload hardware can be mounted.'"

From: Space agencies push for deep space cooperation  By Marshall Murphy   October 14, 2013
At: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/10/space-agencies-deep-space-cooperation/


Are there any real show stoppers if NASA is given the task to use Orion for Hubble Service Missions?
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: veblen on 10/18/2013 12:10 AM
not "showstoppers", just no need to repair Hubble

Magellan...

http://www.gmto.org/overview.html

and there are other observatories planned both on earth and launched to space

Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: HappyMartian on 10/18/2013 03:20 PM
not "showstoppers", just no need to repair Hubble

Magellan...

http://www.gmto.org/overview.html

and there are other observatories planned both on earth and launched to space


Both Earth and space based telescopes have their particular strengths.

Note:

"The usefulness of adaptive optics versus HST observations depends strongly on the particular details of the research questions being asked. In the visible bands, adaptive optics can only correct a relatively small field of view, whereas HST can conduct high-resolution optical imaging over a wide field. Only a small fraction of astronomical objects are accessible to high-resolution ground-based imaging; in contrast Hubble can perform high-resolution observations of any part of the night sky, and on objects that are extremely faint."

From: Hubble Space Telescope     Wikipedia
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope


Astronomical need for space telescope observational time will not be fully met by new space based telescopes.

Space based telescopes also face a more hazardous environment, restricted repair and servicing options, and a quite limited lifespan when compared to Earth based telescopes, thus significant backup space telescope capabilities are needed for both astronomical research and essential NEO defense purposes.   

The ability of astronauts to use Orion and its capabilities to do orbital change, repair, and servicing missions for space telescopes, space modules, and satellites needs to be experimentally tested and confirmed in LEO before trying to do such missions in beyond LEO space. 

Our need for extensive experience in using the robust capabilities of Orion to repair or service space assets is unlikely to be satiated for many decades.

Using Orion for ongoing Hubble Servicing Missions makes sense if we really are serious about the development of cislunar space and devising a layered defense capability against NEOs.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 12/24/2013 02:45 PM
The premise of this thread is to determine the suitability of Orion for servicing Hubble for a "batteries and gyros" changeout mission.

If you are interested in using Orion to change out actual HST instruments, this is not the thread for you.

If you want to talk about whether Hubble should be serviced commercially, there is a thread for that.

Where we left off, Jim made the point that the Hubble batteries are too massive for an astronaut to translate them from some point in the Orion payload bay (or inside Orion itself), although the batteries are compact, without the use of some sort of RMS. 

I am attaching an image of an astronaut translating an ISS Pump module - although the RMS is moving the astronaut, the astronaut is manipulating the pump module.  Later images show the astronaut moving the Pump module into position. I have the impression that if the Hubble batteries were close enough to Hubble that the arm itself would not be required, the astronauts could do the translation themselves.


Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 12/24/2013 03:28 PM

I am attaching an image of an astronaut translating an ISS Pump module - although the RMS is moving the astronaut, the astronaut is manipulating the pump module.  Later images show the astronaut moving the Pump module into position. I have the impression that if the Hubble batteries were close enough to Hubble that the arm itself would not be required, the astronauts could do the translation themselves.


Wrong impression and quite nonsensical.  The astronaut is  not translating, he is only a fixture to hold the pump.  He is holding on with two hands and both feet are in a foot restraint. That is how he can handle it because he firmly anchored.  He would not be able do anything with his feet free. How do you propose he translate without the arm?  Walk out of the restraints?

This is basic EVA engineering: It takes two hands to translate and it takes two hands to manipulate a large, heavy object. 
How do you propose they do either?

Anytime an astronaut has handled a large object, he has been restrained.   EVA astronauts do not translate by hand with large objects.  Basic EVA engineering
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: HappyMartian on 12/25/2013 12:16 PM

I am attaching an image of an astronaut translating an ISS Pump module - although the RMS is moving the astronaut, the astronaut is manipulating the pump module.  Later images show the astronaut moving the Pump module into position. I have the impression that if the Hubble batteries were close enough to Hubble that the arm itself would not be required, the astronauts could do the translation themselves.


Wrong impression and quite nonsensical.  The astronaut is  not translating, he is only a fixture to hold the pump.  He is holding on with two hands and both feet are in a foot restraint. That is how he can handle it because he firmly anchored.  He would not be able do anything with his feet free. How do you propose he translate without the arm?  Walk out of the restraints?

This is basic EVA engineering: It takes two hands to translate and it takes two hands to manipulate a large, heavy object. 
How do you propose they do either?

Anytime an astronaut has handled a large object, he has been restrained.   EVA astronauts do not translate by hand with large objects.  Basic EVA engineering


Jim, are you saying such a mission is fundamentally impossible or just that it is not doable in the manner suggested?

If the President and Congress wanted the Orion for Hubble Service Mission to be done, how could it be accomplished while minimizing risks? 
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 12/25/2013 10:55 PM

Jim, are you saying such a mission is fundamentally impossible or just that it is not doable in the manner suggested?

If the President and Congress wanted the Orion for Hubble Service Mission to be done, how could it be accomplished while minimizing risks? 

An arm of some kind will be required.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 12/25/2013 11:10 PM

Jim, are you saying such a mission is fundamentally impossible or just that it is not doable in the manner suggested?

If the President and Congress wanted the Orion for Hubble Service Mission to be done, how could it be accomplished while minimizing risks? 

An arm of some kind will be required.

An arm or some sort of rig that would be able to help transport relatively compact batteries from a bay in the service module to the appropriate HST bay.  It doesn't seem like rocket science.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 12/25/2013 11:30 PM

An arm or some sort of rig that would be able to help transport relatively compact batteries from a bay in the service module to the appropriate HST bay.  It doesn't seem like rocket science.


A robotic mission negates the need for the arm or EVA.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 12/25/2013 11:43 PM

An arm or some sort of rig that would be able to help transport relatively compact batteries from a bay in the service module to the appropriate HST bay.  It doesn't seem like rocket science.


A robotic mission negates the need for the arm or EVA.

Now that you have described the robotic mission as some sort of augmentation of HST rather than a robotic servicer, it makes a lot more sense.

I just don't know if the HST instruments would work with a multi-ton object attached to the base. I recall that the "flutter" from solar panels would interfere with observations, so it is TBD whether the loads from a new spacecraft mated to the docking adapter would similarly interfere with observations.

Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: HappyMartian on 12/26/2013 12:18 PM

An arm or some sort of rig that would be able to help transport relatively compact batteries from a bay in the service module to the appropriate HST bay.  It doesn't seem like rocket science.


A robotic mission negates the need for the arm or EVA.


Any robot and spacecraft relatively 'off the shelf' that could be modified for such a servicing mission?

Or would you want the robot to permanently dock to the Hubble and assume some of the Hubble's capabilities?

What exactly could the robot do in a servicing mission?

Approximately how much $ and time to prepare and launch the robot?
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 12/26/2013 07:07 PM

An arm or some sort of rig that would be able to help transport relatively compact batteries from a bay in the service module to the appropriate HST bay.  It doesn't seem like rocket science.


A robotic mission negates the need for the arm or EVA.


Any robot and spacecraft relatively 'off the shelf' that could be modified for such a servicing mission?

Or would you want the robot to permanently dock to the Hubble and assume some of the Hubble's capabilities?

What exactly could the robot do in a servicing mission?

Approximately how much $ and time to prepare and launch the robot?

Jim's approach is not a "Servicing mission" but rather a permanent addition to HST to provide power and attitude control, much like a system that SkyCorp was proposing for GEO comsats.

The robot would not replace or augment any HST science capabilities.

Therefore, the robot would be a direct competitor to a "gyros and batteries" only servicing mission conducted by humans.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: HappyMartian on 12/27/2013 01:07 PM

An arm or some sort of rig that would be able to help transport relatively compact batteries from a bay in the service module to the appropriate HST bay.  It doesn't seem like rocket science.


A robotic mission negates the need for the arm or EVA.


Any robot and spacecraft relatively 'off the shelf' that could be modified for such a servicing mission?

Or would you want the robot to permanently dock to the Hubble and assume some of the Hubble's capabilities?

What exactly could the robot do in a servicing mission?

Approximately how much $ and time to prepare and launch the robot?

Jim's approach is not a "Servicing mission" but rather a permanent addition to HST to provide power and attitude control, much like a system that SkyCorp was proposing for GEO comsats.

The robot would not replace or augment any HST science capabilities.

Therefore, the robot would be a direct competitor to a "gyros and batteries" only servicing mission conducted by humans.

Orion can do a significant and relatively quick boost of the 24,500 lb (11,110 kg) Hubble to a higher orbit.

If the robot uses electric rocket propulsion to boost Hubble to a higher orbit, that might mean a period of a month or more when the Hubble might not be available for doing astronomical observations.

If the robot remained attached to Hubble would there be problems with a new center of gravity and any still functional "gyros" and also issues with the additional solar panels or could the robot have a distributed mass in its arms such that the Hubble is slid into the robot's long and heavy arms and thus the center of mass wouldn't change?

Could it be useful to have a dual mission with both the robot that remains attached to Hubble and Orion launched on the same SLS?

Could such a mission be seen as training for future missions to service space telescopes and important satellites?

Could the Orion's ESA Service Module have room for an attached folding or telescoping composite arm, or even arms, to hold or restrain the astronaut?

Edited.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 12/27/2013 01:26 PM


Could it be useful to have a dual mission with both the robot that remains attached to Hubble and Orion launched on the same SLS?

Could such a mission be seen as training for future missions to service space telescopes and important satellites?



Don't need SLS or Orion for this.  Any one of the existing ELV's can do it

No "training"  is needed.  Already have done HST repair missions and there is the ISS.
And there are no "important" satellites that would need to be repaired
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: HappyMartian on 12/27/2013 03:22 PM


Could it be useful to have a dual mission with both the robot that remains attached to Hubble and Orion launched on the same SLS?

Could such a mission be seen as training for future missions to service space telescopes and important satellites?



Don't need SLS or Orion for this.  Any one of the existing ELV's can do it

No "training"  is needed.  Already have done HST repair missions and there is the ISS.
And there are no "important" satellites that would need to be repaired



We haven't "done HST repair missions" with the international Orion and that possibility is the issue of this thread.

The James Webb Space Telescope, or JWST at $8.7 billion and eventually expected to orbit around the Earth-Sun L2 Lagrange point, about 1,500,000 kilometers or 930,000 miles beyond the Earth, might someday need a little help from an Orion mission. The JWST wasn't fully designed to be serviced but still one never knows. Mission extensions for the JWST may occur.

Maintaining and extending our skills with our new deep space capable human vehicle by doing a Hubble telescope mission in LEO with an Orion prior to doing a mission in a distant orbit for the JWST or some other costly telescope, satellite, or even a passing asteroid that gets gravitationally hung up in cis-lunar space for a year or two, or an asteroid that may get dragged into a high Lunar orbit by a robotic spacecraft, seems sensible.

Note:

"At such a great distance, the Webb telescope would be more difficult to service after launch than the Hubble telescope. Nevertheless, a docking ring was added to the design in 2007 to facilitate this possibility, either by a robot or future crewed spacecraft such as the Orion MPCV."

From: James Webb Space Telescope    Wikipedia
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope#Orbit


Careful planning, preparation, and practice makes for real and useful extensions of our human capabilities in flying missions with the international Orion spacecraft.

Preparing for an Orion, or robot, or Orion and robot Hubble servicing mission is a good idea and could significantly extend the life of a valuable international astronomy asset that was designed to orbit and be serviced in LEO.


Edited.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 12/27/2013 04:37 PM
IF NASA decides that Orion needs a LEO check out mission with a crew prior to flying off into interplanetary space, a Hubble servicing mission could be a useful mission objective.

Certainly, the risk of flying in LEO without docking to a space station, which was considerable for Shuttle, could not really be a factor for Orion.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 12/27/2013 05:37 PM
Concerning translation of 400 kg batteries from Orion to HST, an "arm" is not necessarily a hard requirement, other methods may be possible. One solution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strela_%28crane%29

Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 12/27/2013 07:55 PM
Concerning translation of 400 kg batteries from Orion to HST, an "arm" is not necessarily a hard requirement, other methods may be possible. One solution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strela_%28crane%29



Strela is an arm
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 12/27/2013 11:08 PM
Concerning translation of 400 kg batteries from Orion to HST, an "arm" is not necessarily a hard requirement, other methods may be possible. One solution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strela_%28crane%29



Strela is an arm

Whether you call it a "boom" or an "arm", the point is that developing and deploying a rig that can translate 400 kg objects the 10 meters or so from the Orion payload bay to HST would not be a show stopper for a "batteries and gyros" changeout servicing mission.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Tea Party Space Czar on 01/02/2014 02:32 AM
Simply Fascinating.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/02/2014 11:24 AM
Purely FWIW, one of the things I liked in the DIRECT proposals was the 'Space Shuttle Payload Module', a barge-like frame in which Space Shuttle payload components like an EVA airlock and the Hubble docking and servicing structure could be fixed and towed around by an Orion.

Yes, that would be expensive but it made the Orion a lot more useful in LEO in the event that BEO ran onto a funding sand-bank. It also prevented "ISS Access Back-up" from being a bad joke.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 12/08/2014 09:26 PM
If Orion is not going to have any useful missions for 10 years or so, this would be a great opportunity for Orion to fly on a relatively cheap mission that probably needs humans to accomplish, a "batteries and gyros" replacement mission.

On the other hand, replacing entire instruments would be very expensive.



Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 12/08/2014 09:34 PM
If Orion is not going to have any useful missions for 10 years or so, this would be a great opportunity for Orion to fly on a relatively cheap mission that probably needs humans to accomplish, a "batteries and gyros" replacement mission.


 Got one thing right, it will be "a relatively cheap mission" because is can't be done and hence will cost nothing.

And repeating it over and over does not make it true.  The previous posts show why it won't happen.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Bob Shaw on 12/08/2014 09:35 PM
While not being too enamoured of an Orion mission to Hubble in itself, seeing such as a mission as preparatory for a flight to sort out/service Webb is another matter. Webb's deployment mechanism is awfully complex, and if it doesn't go as advertised then having an astronaut in close proximity might be a good bit of insurance. However, going to an L-point to do major EVA work with Orion *without* any form of practice seems a bit foolhardy!

In short, the best reason for a manned service mission to Hubble is to prepare for a manned mission to Webb.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 12/08/2014 09:36 PM
While not being too enamoured of an Orion mission to Hubble in itself, seeing such as a mission as preparatory for a flight to sort out/service Webb is another matter. Webb's deployment mechanism is awfully complex, and if it doesn't go as advertised then having an astronaut in close proximity might be a good bit of insurance. However, going to an L-point to do major EVA work with Orion *without* any form of practice seems a bit foolhardy!

In short, the best reason for a manned service mission to Hubble is to prepare for a manned mission to Webb.

both are bad ideas
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Prober on 12/08/2014 10:22 PM
If Orion is not going to have any useful missions for 10 years or so, this would be a great opportunity for Orion to fly on a relatively cheap mission that probably needs humans to accomplish, a "batteries and gyros" replacement mission.

On the other hand, replacing entire instruments would be very expensive.

Orion is written into the law as a backup for the ISS.   That's been signed off on.  Time to fund and make it work.

Hubble is done when it fails, the replacement is the JWST.
 
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 12/08/2014 11:32 PM


Hubble is done when it fails, the replacement is the JWST.
 

Actually, it isn't, due to different wavelengths.

Once HST batteries and gyros start to fail, you will hear more about this as the scientists demand that Hubble be serviced.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 12/08/2014 11:42 PM
Orion is written into the law as a backup for the ISS.   That's been signed off on.  Time to fund and make it work.

Congress has passed laws that say all sorts of dumb things, many of them contradicting other things in other laws Congress has passed.  Just because it was in a bill that passed doesn't mean we should never question it.

Using Orion as a backup for crew access to the ISS was a terrible idea when the law mentioning it passed.  It's an even worse idea now, given that commercial crew has been progressing so well and we have signed commitments from two different companies to do crew missions much more cheaply than they could be done by Orion.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: llanitedave on 12/09/2014 02:13 AM


Hubble is done when it fails, the replacement is the JWST.
 

Actually, it isn't, due to different wavelengths.

Once HST batteries and gyros start to fail, you will hear more about this as the scientists demand that Hubble be serviced.

More likely the demand will be for a new and larger instrument.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Prober on 12/09/2014 12:02 PM


Hubble is done when it fails, the replacement is the JWST.
 

Actually, it isn't, due to different wavelengths.

Once HST batteries and gyros start to fail, you will hear more about this as the scientists demand that Hubble be serviced.

More likely the demand will be for a new and larger instrument.

knew this was coming.....NASA has those two old spy sats they could rework and launch.  A lot cheaper than another Hubble servicing.  However in light of JWST costs its going to be a hard sell.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: gospacex on 12/09/2014 12:30 PM
What's up with this Hubble fandom?
Do you want to continue to use this thing until its mirror cracks from a debris impact?

If we wouldn't bother repairing Hubble and instead kept making and launching new ones, by now we'd have about half a dozen of functioning 2-4 meter telescopes up there, and an assembly line which churns out a new telescope every ~2 years. We'd avoid JWST trainwreck.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Bob Shaw on 12/09/2014 12:36 PM
What's up with this Hubble fandom?
Do you want to continue to use this thing until its mirror cracks from a debris impact?

If we wouldn't bother repairing Hubble and instead kept making and launching new ones, by now we'd have about half a dozen of functioning 2-4 meter telescopes up there, and an assembly line which churns out a new telescope every ~2 years. We'd avoid JWST trainwreck.

I agree. Especially with those stubby-Hubble mirrors in storage, and an established industrial base building spy satellites.

My big fear re Webb is that after NASA has finished selling the farm to pay for it, the thing fizzles for one reason or another. Webb is a one-off, and one-offs always cost more and are more risky (hence the added costs in an attempt to mitigate the risks).

Throwaway Hubble-lite missions on a regular drumbeat are the way to go, nice though it is to see astronauts doing that spaceman stuff.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: newpylong on 12/09/2014 02:04 PM
While not being too enamoured of an Orion mission to Hubble in itself, seeing such as a mission as preparatory for a flight to sort out/service Webb is another matter. Webb's deployment mechanism is awfully complex, and if it doesn't go as advertised then having an astronaut in close proximity might be a good bit of insurance. However, going to an L-point to do major EVA work with Orion *without* any form of practice seems a bit foolhardy!

In short, the best reason for a manned service mission to Hubble is to prepare for a manned mission to Webb.

both are bad ideas

In your opinion perhaps - but servicing our brand new $8 Billion telescope may someday become a necessity and a true test.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: pagheca on 12/09/2014 02:15 PM
In your opinion perhaps - but servicing our brand new $8 Billion telescope may someday become a necessity and a true test.

The JWST, unlike the HST, is not serviceable by design.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 12/09/2014 03:04 PM

In your opinion perhaps - but servicing our brand new $8 Billion telescope may someday become a necessity and a true test.


Not an opinion.  Both are truly bad ideas, wastes of money.  JWST is not designed for servicing.   

That would be throwing good money at bad.

Aside from HST and ISS, science missions (like Cassini) are not designed for repair.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: llanitedave on 12/09/2014 03:35 PM


Hubble is done when it fails, the replacement is the JWST.
 

Actually, it isn't, due to different wavelengths.

Once HST batteries and gyros start to fail, you will hear more about this as the scientists demand that Hubble be serviced.

More likely the demand will be for a new and larger instrument.

knew this was coming.....NASA has those two old spy sats they could rework and launch.  A lot cheaper than another Hubble servicing.  However in light of JWST costs its going to be a hard sell.

JWST costs had very little to do with the optics, and very much to do with the need to maintain and extremely stiff and lightweight structure at very low temperatures to reduce IR interference.  An instrument designed for optical wavelengths would not have nearly such onerous requirements.  I'd guess an 8m spin-cast monolithic mirror with a nice high-resolution instrument package could be built and launched on SLS for not much cost difference than an Orion service mission to Hubble.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Danderman on 12/09/2014 03:40 PM
There is a separate thread for JWST servicing. Please keep this thread to the wonderful idea of servicing Hubble using Orion.

The question is which launcher would be suitable for Orion to attain the 600 km HST orbit?
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 12/09/2014 04:13 PM
I'd guess an 8m spin-cast monolithic mirror

where would such a mirror be built and how would it get to the spacecraft manufacture and then to the launch site?
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 12/09/2014 04:18 PM
There is a separate thread for JWST servicing. Please keep this thread to the wonderful idea of servicing Hubble using Orion.


Why? Neither are wonderful.  Why not keep the farcical topics to a limited part of the forum so as not to infect the rest of it.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: bob the martian on 12/09/2014 06:35 PM
The question is whether a HST batteries and gyros service/replacement mission can be done in principle, ignoring any issues of politics or cost or sensibility, using the Orion spacecraft as it will most likely be configured for a real manned flight.  This means:

1.  No arms, booms, or other sticky-outy bits
2.  No special purpose mission modules
3.  HST batteries and gyros will be carried in the Orion spacecraft, along with EMUs and all the necessary tools

Not being an engineer, rocket scientist, or other expert, the issues that come to mind are as follows:

1.  Volume constraints - the batteries and gyros by themselves may fit within the Orion spacecraft volume.  However, the spacecraft volume must also contain racks or palettes to secure the batteries and gyros, along with EMUs, tools, and, oh yeah, the meat sacks;

2.  Aperture constraints - it doesn't matter if the interior volume of Orion can accomodate the batteries and gyros if they don't fit through the hatch (and that picture of the fully assembled battery pack has me dubious); I haven't found the dimensions for it after some cursory googling, so I don't know whether they will or not;

3.  Translating/positioning the parts - This, to me, kills the whole mission dead - once at the HST, the astronauts have to get the batteries and gyros out of the Orion spacecraft and over to the HST, meaning at least two people in bulky EMUs are going to get to manhandle 400 lbm units off their palettes/racks, maneuver them within the spacecraft and through a hatch without banging them against, say, a control panel or something, then somehow translate themselves and the parts and their tools from the spacecraft to HST without a powered boom or an arm, which means going hand-over-hand along a rail or tether, which means they need both hands free, which is going to make it somewhat difficult to hold on to the spare parts, then they get to position said parts into the right place on the HST, using nothing but their own muscle power the whole time

You'd want at least 3 astronauts for such a mission for safety's sake (have at least one crew member who isn't exhausted from humping 400 lbm batteries from one spacecraft to another), ideally 4 so you can have two shifts, because you know it's going to take multiple trips, which implies multiple depress/repress cycles.   You'd also want a way to secure the two spacecraft together; you wouldn't want them to be in free drift relative to each other.

So, no.  Not without a specialized service module, not without an arm. 
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: llanitedave on 12/09/2014 11:35 PM
I'd guess an 8m spin-cast monolithic mirror

where would such a mirror be built and how would it get to the spacecraft manufacture and then to the launch site?

How do 8m mirrors get to the observatory sites? The aren't cast on site.  But they get there.

Steward Observatory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steward_Observatory) has a facility located underneath the University of Arizona football stadium that spin-casts honeycomb telescope mirrors up to 8.4 meters in diameter.  Those mirrors are already used in several observatories, including The large Binocular Telescope on Mt. Graham, which has a pair of 8.4m mirrors, the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope, now under construction in Chile, and 3 of the 7 mirrors of the Giant Magellan Telescope, with 4 more still to be cast. 

They haven't given up just because the mirrors are too large for a regular truck bed.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: newpylong on 12/10/2014 02:12 PM

In your opinion perhaps - but servicing our brand new $8 Billion telescope may someday become a necessity and a true test.


Not an opinion.  Both are truly bad ideas, wastes of money.  JWST is not designed for servicing.   

That would be throwing good money at bad.

Aside from HST and ISS, science missions (like Cassini) are not designed for repair.

Then why is there a docking ring on it? It's not designed for servicing but there are contingencies.

So, opinion. Your opinion != fact
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 12/10/2014 02:33 PM

Then why is there a docking ring on it?

 Are you sure it is still on the spacecraft?
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: newpylong on 12/10/2014 03:03 PM

Then why is there a docking ring on it?

 Are you sure it is still on the spacecraft?

I haven't seen anything that that particular feature has been removed in the design. Have you?
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: arachnitect on 12/10/2014 07:47 PM

Then why is there a docking ring on it?

 Are you sure it is still on the spacecraft?

I haven't seen anything that that particular feature has been removed in the design. Have you?

I don't see much evidence that this feature actually made it into the final design, either. I can't find any recent references to any kind of docking or grapple fixture.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: woods170 on 12/11/2014 11:09 AM

Then why is there a docking ring on it?

 Are you sure it is still on the spacecraft?

I haven't seen anything that that particular feature has been removed in the design. Have you?

Then why is there a docking ring on it?

 Are you sure it is still on the spacecraft?

I haven't seen anything that that particular feature has been removed in the design. Have you?

I don't see much evidence that this feature actually made it into the final design, either. I can't find any recent references to any kind of docking or grapple fixture.
And that is quite correct. The very reason why Jim hinted at it.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: newpylong on 12/11/2014 11:20 AM
If something is known come right out and say it. We don't get gold stars for guessing hints.

That's an interesting change nonetheless. What is the evidence for the omission?
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: arachnitect on 12/11/2014 04:16 PM
If something is known come right out and say it. We don't get gold stars for guessing hints.

That's an interesting change nonetheless. What is the evidence for the omission?

I just can't find any references to such a thing from the last 5 or 6 years (since the 2011 re-baseline). There are no pictures or mentions of it being assembled. It's not on the latest renderings. The JWST website doesn't say anything about a docking/grapple fixture, but does say that JWST can't be serviced.

There's only one place to put a docking fixture like LIDS/NDSS (whatever it's called nowadays) and it just isn't there. It's possible they've hidden an FRGF or other grapple fixture somewhere, but I can't find any reference to that either.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: pagheca on 12/11/2014 04:51 PM
If something is known come right out and say it. We don't get gold stars for guessing hints.

That's an interesting change nonetheless. What is the evidence for the omission?

Servicing a serviceable system in low orbit like HST is complicated. Servicing something that is not designed to be serviceable in L2, like the JWST, is impossible. As simple like that.

You cannot bend the reality of things, and there are  plenty of official resources about the JWST (http://jwst.nasa.gov/faq_scientists.html#astronauts) online clearly saying it is not serviceable. 
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: jgoldader on 12/11/2014 05:30 PM
All the HST servicing support stood down after the last servicing mission.  People reassigned, hardware disposed of, etc.

The large ground-based telescopes with adaptive optics will be routinely giving better imaging than Hubble, or are doing that already.  The main loss is the high resolution UV that only a space telescope can give.  There was a proposal by Johns Hopkins to fly a UV telescope with the UV instruments that went up on the last servicing mission, back when that flight didn't look likely to happen. (IIRC, the proposal was called HOP, the Hubble Origins Probe.)  A 1.5-m UV-optimized with an imager and spectrometer could recover most of the unique science that will be lost when HST finally goes.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Bob Shaw on 12/13/2014 12:25 AM
JWST has a grapple fixture. It was forced onto the spacecraft at the last minute, but will be there. It's for, er, *grappling*. Which implies...
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: jgoldader on 12/14/2014 12:52 PM
JWST has a grapple fixture. It was forced onto the spacecraft at the last minute, but will be there. It's for, er, *grappling*. Which implies...

HST was designed to be serviced.  JWST was designed to not be serviced.  The word order matters here.  There are no handholds, and no foot restraints for astronauts to use.  There are no bays meant to be opened by astronauts.  The mirror is out in the open, and my ex-astronomer gut tells me that contamination from RCS products would be Very Bad for the optics.

If there's a grapple fixture on JWST, the only possible reason is to guard against complete LOM due to a deployment failure.  If JWST doesn't work because it couldn't deploy itself properly, the hearings will make the HST spherical aberration look like a kindergarten party. 

But its existence doesn't mean the grapple would be useful. It would be years before a rescue mission could be mounted (you'd need a non-existant hab module for starters), and some failures (the sunshade getting tangled, say) might be beyond repair.  And again, my guess is the optics would be contaminated enough by Orion's RCS that the telescope's science goals would be compromised.  I know the folks at STScI are capable of near-miracles, so I bet they could recover some science, but it would be really compromised (example: deconvolution of the aberrated HST images recovered some science before the servicing missions installed corrections for the optics; but we later saw many cases, like Eta Carinae, where what we believed we were seeing in deconvolved images was shown to be just plain wrong once we had the corrective optics installed).

I've seen enough weird deployment failures to think putting 1-2 small RMS analogues on especially valuable satellites with deployable parts might be a good idea.  Give the arms enough strength to give a good push or pull and a small camera for inspection.  AFAIK, JWST has no selfie-cams, so if something fails in the deployment sequence, we might not be able to tell why.  I suspect there's enough instrumentation to give a detailed understanding of the configuration, but not necessarily why the telescope is in that configuration.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Hog on 12/15/2014 12:05 AM
All the HST servicing support stood down after the last servicing mission.  People reassigned, hardware disposed of, etc.

The large ground-based telescopes with adaptive optics will be routinely giving better imaging than Hubble, or are doing that already.  The main loss is the high resolution UV that only a space telescope can give.  There was a proposal by Johns Hopkins to fly a UV telescope with the UV instruments that went up on the last servicing mission, back when that flight didn't look likely to happen. (IIRC, the proposal was called HOP, the Hubble Origins Probe.)  A 1.5-m UV-optimized with an imager and spectrometer could recover most of the unique science that will be lost when HST finally goes.
  Depends what your goal is  "better" is subjective in this case.

Even before Hubble was launched, there were techniques that allowed for better resolution from ground bases telescopes, though back in the 90's HST could look at MUCH dimmer objects(edit: 8 magnitudes dimmer than 90's ground based using aperture masking inferiometry).

Its not all about resolution.
"The usefulness of adaptive optics versus HST observations depends strongly on the particular details of the research questions being asked. In the visible bands, adaptive optics can only correct a relatively small field of view, whereas HST can conduct high-resolution optical imaging over a wide field. Only a small fraction of astronomical objects are accessible to high-resolution ground-based imaging; in contrast Hubble can perform high-resolution observations of any part of the night sky, and on objects that are extremely faint."
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: jgoldader on 12/15/2014 10:19 AM
  Depends what your goal is  "better" is subjective in this case.

Even before Hubble was launched, there were techniques that allowed for better resolution from ground bases telescopes, though back in the 90's HST could look at MUCH dimmer objects(edit: 8 magnitudes dimmer than 90's ground based using aperture masking inferiometry).

Its not all about resolution.
"The usefulness of adaptive optics versus HST observations depends strongly on the particular details of the research questions being asked. In the visible bands, adaptive optics can only correct a relatively small field of view, whereas HST can conduct high-resolution optical imaging over a wide field. Only a small fraction of astronomical objects are accessible to high-resolution ground-based imaging; in contrast Hubble can perform high-resolution observations of any part of the night sky, and on objects that are extremely faint."

Creating artificial guide stars using lasers and multi-conjugate AO (adaptive optics) have gone far to mitigate the need for natural AO guide stars and small isoplanatic patch size.  Of course, we can't do much about the night sky brightness, you're right.  But there is JWST coming up, and if it works as intended, it will see far deeper than HST.

But JWST is an IR telescope, with no UV and little if any optical instrumentation (there was a plan to go down to about 650nm, but wasn't it either eliminated or the requirements loosened years ago?  I forget).  There's lots of interesting science that can be done between 91 nm (or 122 for Lyman alpha) and ~400 nm.  The atmosphere blocks light at those wavelengths, but it's where hot stars have most of their really important diagnostic spectral features.  When HST is gone, we won't have much in orbit to do science there, spectroscopy in particular.  I remember a bitter quote from many years ago, lamenting that it would be a shame if we had a Milky Way supernova go off and couldn't observe it in the UV.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as big a fan of space telescopes as you'll find--I used HST!--but at some point we have to let HST go and move on.  I will have a good cry when that happens.  I will especially lament the loss of the UV, though.  I wish we had a plan of regularly (5-7 yrs cadence) launching meter-class or so observatories.  It would be great for spurring instrument and tech development, and there would be many eggs in many baskets.  You could have them focus on particular science areas, with a clear target of opportunity program that's more open.  But alas.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Hog on 12/15/2014 11:10 AM
  Depends what your goal is  "better" is subjective in this case.

Even before Hubble was launched, there were techniques that allowed for better resolution from ground bases telescopes, though back in the 90's HST could look at MUCH dimmer objects(edit: 8 magnitudes dimmer than 90's ground based using aperture masking inferiometry).

Its not all about resolution.
"The usefulness of adaptive optics versus HST observations depends strongly on the particular details of the research questions being asked. In the visible bands, adaptive optics can only correct a relatively small field of view, whereas HST can conduct high-resolution optical imaging over a wide field. Only a small fraction of astronomical objects are accessible to high-resolution ground-based imaging; in contrast Hubble can perform high-resolution observations of any part of the night sky, and on objects that are extremely faint."

Creating artificial guide stars using lasers and multi-conjugate AO (adaptive optics) have gone far to mitigate the need for natural AO guide stars and small isoplanatic patch size.  Of course, we can't do much about the night sky brightness, you're right.  But there is JWST coming up, and if it works as intended, it will see far deeper than HST.

But JWST is an IR telescope, with no UV and little if any optical instrumentation (there was a plan to go down to about 650nm, but wasn't it either eliminated or the requirements loosened years ago?  I forget).  There's lots of interesting science that can be done between 91 nm (or 122 for Lyman alpha) and ~400 nm.  The atmosphere blocks light at those wavelengths, but it's where hot stars have most of their really important diagnostic spectral features.  When HST is gone, we won't have much in orbit to do science there, spectroscopy in particular.  I remember a bitter quote from many years ago, lamenting that it would be a shame if we had a Milky Way supernova go off and couldn't observe it in the UV.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as big a fan of space telescopes as you'll find--I used HST!--but at some point we have to let HST go and move on.  I will have a good cry when that happens.  I will especially lament the loss of the UV, though.  I wish we had a plan of regularly (5-7 yrs cadence) launching meter-class or so observatories.  It would be great for spurring instrument and tech development, and there would be many eggs in many baskets.  You could have them focus on particular science areas, with a clear target of opportunity program that's more open.  But alas.
I'm not sure on the visual component of JWST, I do remember that its visual componentry was always a tag on, in order to possibly keep interest in the project.

I like your idea and cadence about meter class observatories, and the advantages that come with it.  Instead of servicing like HST, new observatories take advantage of technological advances.

I think the following graphic illustrates just how far HST and its upgrades have taken us, and what the future may bring.  HST is a baby of the Shuttle era, economical or not, the work that has been done is astonishing.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: newpylong on 12/15/2014 02:47 PM
If something is known come right out and say it. We don't get gold stars for guessing hints.

That's an interesting change nonetheless. What is the evidence for the omission?

Servicing a serviceable system in low orbit like HST is complicated. Servicing something that is not designed to be serviceable in L2, like the JWST, is impossible. As simple like that.

You cannot bend the reality of things, and there are  plenty of official resources about the JWST (http://jwst.nasa.gov/faq_scientists.html#astronauts) online clearly saying it is not serviceable.

No one is "bending" reality. But others, such as the ones designing JWST obviously have put thought into contingencies, or there wouldn't have been a ring on initial designs or a grapple on the flight article. Call it serviceable, call it last ditch resort, it doesn't make a difference.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: jgoldader on 12/15/2014 04:30 PM
If something is known come right out and say it. We don't get gold stars for guessing hints.

That's an interesting change nonetheless. What is the evidence for the omission?

Servicing a serviceable system in low orbit like HST is complicated. Servicing something that is not designed to be serviceable in L2, like the JWST, is impossible. As simple like that.

You cannot bend the reality of things, and there are  plenty of official resources about the JWST (http://jwst.nasa.gov/faq_scientists.html#astronauts) online clearly saying it is not serviceable.

No one is "bending" reality. But others, such as the ones designing JWST obviously have put thought into contingencies, or there wouldn't have been a ring on initial designs or a grapple on the flight article. Call it serviceable, call it last ditch resort, it doesn't make a difference.

My guess, as I noted earlier, is that the grapple fixture is there in case of some catastrophic deployment failure.  And even then, getting a positive outcome is iffy at best.  Just getting an Orion to JWST would cost billions and take so long the telescope might have died before the capsule even got there.

JWST was designed such that Hubble-type servicing just isn't feasible.  There are no openable bays, and no easily accessed parts that could be replaced. 

A deployment failure is about the only thing a grapple fixture might help fix (call it clumsily analogous to a flat tire in your car), so including the grapple fixture for a last-ditch chance makes some sense (as does having a spare tire) as long as it does not compromise the operation of the telescope.  But HST was designed to have its innards accessible, and JWST is not.  Having a grapple fixture does not make servicing possible.  Having a spare tire in your car is good if you get a flat tire, but useless if the problem is in your engine, and you can't get the hood open.

Designing the telescope in a way that prohibits servicing was a design choice made very early in the project.  The cost of designing with servicing in mind would have been higher, and JWST has always had budget issues; it required a whole lot more tech development than was originally anticipated, IIRC.  The HST servicing missions were some of NASA's greatest triumphs since Apollo, but were quite expensive.  Put simply, that money wasn't going to be there for JWST, and the telescope was designed accordingly.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: pagheca on 12/15/2014 04:39 PM
My guess, as I noted earlier, is that the grapple fixture is there in case of some catastrophic deployment failure. 

Is there? Where?

Maybe you mean should have been there?
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: jgoldader on 12/15/2014 05:17 PM
My guess, as I noted earlier, is that the grapple fixture is there in case of some catastrophic deployment failure. 

Is there? Where?

Maybe you mean should have been there?

Others have posted that it IS there.  **IF** is there, then I stand by my post.  And I don't think there's much reason for JWST to have a grapple, as I've noted.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: newpylong on 12/15/2014 07:07 PM
If something is known come right out and say it. We don't get gold stars for guessing hints.

That's an interesting change nonetheless. What is the evidence for the omission?

Servicing a serviceable system in low orbit like HST is complicated. Servicing something that is not designed to be serviceable in L2, like the JWST, is impossible. As simple like that.

You cannot bend the reality of things, and there are  plenty of official resources about the JWST (http://jwst.nasa.gov/faq_scientists.html#astronauts) online clearly saying it is not serviceable.

No one is "bending" reality. But others, such as the ones designing JWST obviously have put thought into contingencies, or there wouldn't have been a ring on initial designs or a grapple on the flight article. Call it serviceable, call it last ditch resort, it doesn't make a difference.

My guess, as I noted earlier, is that the grapple fixture is there in case of some catastrophic deployment failure.  And even then, getting a positive outcome is iffy at best.  Just getting an Orion to JWST would cost billions and take so long the telescope might have died before the capsule even got there.

JWST was designed such that Hubble-type servicing just isn't feasible.  There are no openable bays, and no easily accessed parts that could be replaced. 

A deployment failure is about the only thing a grapple fixture might help fix (call it clumsily analogous to a flat tire in your car), so including the grapple fixture for a last-ditch chance makes some sense (as does having a spare tire) as long as it does not compromise the operation of the telescope.  But HST was designed to have its innards accessible, and JWST is not.  Having a grapple fixture does not make servicing possible.  Having a spare tire in your car is good if you get a flat tire, but useless if the problem is in your engine, and you can't get the hood open.

Designing the telescope in a way that prohibits servicing was a design choice made very early in the project.  The cost of designing with servicing in mind would have been higher, and JWST has always had budget issues; it required a whole lot more tech development than was originally anticipated, IIRC.  The HST servicing missions were some of NASA's greatest triumphs since Apollo, but were quite expensive.  Put simply, that money wasn't going to be there for JWST, and the telescope was designed accordingly.

I'm with ya. Deployment failure is a scenario I was referring to rather than routine service.
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: sghill on 02/23/2016 07:21 PM

Then why is there a docking ring on it?

 Are you sure it is still on the spacecraft?

I haven't seen anything that that particular feature has been removed in the design. Have you?

I don't see much evidence that this feature actually made it into the final design, either. I can't find any recent references to any kind of docking or grapple fixture.

Thread bump.

Huh?  A docking ring is right there at minute 14:32 on the video when STS-125 released Hubble. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_WTemRaTN0
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: Jim on 02/23/2016 07:45 PM

Then why is there a docking ring on it?

 Are you sure it is still on the spacecraft?

I haven't seen anything that that particular feature has been removed in the design. Have you?

I don't see much evidence that this feature actually made it into the final design, either. I can't find any recent references to any kind of docking or grapple fixture.

Thread bump.

Huh?  A docking ring is right there at minute 14:32 on the video when STS-125 released Hubble. 


The docking ring was in reference to JWST and not HST
Title: Re: Orion for Hubble Service Mission?
Post by: sghill on 02/25/2016 03:56 PM

Then why is there a docking ring on it?

 Are you sure it is still on the spacecraft?

I haven't seen anything that that particular feature has been removed in the design. Have you?

I don't see much evidence that this feature actually made it into the final design, either. I can't find any recent references to any kind of docking or grapple fixture.

Thread bump.

Huh?  A docking ring is right there at minute 14:32 on the video when STS-125 released Hubble. 


The docking ring was in reference to JWST and not HST

Ok.  Thank you Jim.  It was driving me nuts.