-
LIVE: STS-125 Flight Day 8 - EVA-5
by
Chris Bergin
on 18 May, 2009 02:41
-
-
#1
by
speez
on 18 May, 2009 04:16
-
Reboost ? After completion of EVA-5, or overnight?
-
#2
by
MKremer
on 18 May, 2009 04:53
-
Reboost ? After completion of EVA-5, or overnight?
Unless there's a drastic re-think to put it back in, reboost was taken off the table in the final planning for the revised mission to save as much propellant as possible (because of the increased MMOD dangers).
-
#3
by
John44
on 18 May, 2009 05:24
-
-
#4
by
moosekaka
on 18 May, 2009 08:17
-
Reboost ? After completion of EVA-5, or overnight?
Unless there's a drastic re-think to put it back in, reboost was taken off the table in the final planning for the revised mission to save as much propellant as possible (because of the increased MMOD dangers).
what? are you sure? this paper says without reboost the orbit will decay by 2013... didnt one of the mission guys say they hope to get possibly 10 years out of HST?
http://hubble.nasa.gov/a_pdf/news/facts/sm3b/fact_sheet_reboost.pdf
-
#5
by
elmarko
on 18 May, 2009 08:22
-
The figure I heard most often was a guaranteed extra 5.
-
#6
by
moosekaka
on 18 May, 2009 08:30
-
The figure I heard most often was a guaranteed extra 5.
guaranteed extra five assuming no solar flareups? even then i woudlnt think they would say 5 possibly 10 years if they know the orbit will decay without reboost. and it seems silly to go thru all that trouble to reach and repair hubble and then not reboost it.
-
#7
by
orbitaldebris
on 18 May, 2009 09:11
-
Browsing through the decay tables, I see that most satellites at Hubble's present altitude last around 5-15 years
-
#8
by
AnalogMan
on 18 May, 2009 09:18
-
Today's NASA TV schedule.
-
#9
by
glanmor05
on 18 May, 2009 09:33
-
Reboost ? After completion of EVA-5, or overnight?
Unless there's a drastic re-think to put it back in, reboost was taken off the table in the final planning for the revised mission to save as much propellant as possible (because of the increased MMOD dangers).
Might be being thick here (I'm sure you'll tell me), but given that we'll be 8 days through an 11 day flight after this EVA (and some of the remaining days will be spend at a lower altitude), can it not be assumed that most of the MMOD dangers (and therefore the need for propellant to avoid them) has passed? What I'm saying is, I agree it would be a shame not to reboost.
-
#10
by
dsmillman
on 18 May, 2009 09:53
-
-
#11
by
orbitaldebris
on 18 May, 2009 09:54
-
Maybe not reboosting Hubble will reduce the risk for the telescope as well in the long run.
-
#12
by
Bejowawo
on 18 May, 2009 09:54
-
-
#13
by
AnalogMan
on 18 May, 2009 10:04
-
Today's mission summary timelines.
(Outer blanket layer tasks listed as NOBL 5 and partial NOBL 8 for the nominal plan, with no change to planned overall EVA duration of 5:45)
-
#14
by
shaula1247
on 18 May, 2009 10:13
-
Crew advises no PMC required.
-
#15
by
shaula1247
on 18 May, 2009 10:17
-
Today's spacewalk to kick off at 8:16 and is scheduled to last 5 hr 25 min.
-
#16
by
shaula1247
on 18 May, 2009 10:26
-
Suit preparations continue in the shuttle airlock. Verified biomedical data link with MCC is good and EVA1 and EVA2 radio checks good.
-
#17
by
psloss
on 18 May, 2009 10:30
-
Reboost ? After completion of EVA-5, or overnight?
Unless there's a drastic re-think to put it back in, reboost was taken off the table in the final planning for the revised mission to save as much propellant as possible (because of the increased MMOD dangers).
what? are you sure? this paper says without reboost the orbit will decay by 2013... didnt one of the mission guys say they hope to get possibly 10 years out of HST?
http://hubble.nasa.gov/a_pdf/news/facts/sm3b/fact_sheet_reboost.pdf
MMOD risk is not the reason given by the people at the news conferences. The reason for no reboost is that the current solar minimum has been especially quiet and a reboost was not required. The reboost sheet posted above is almost six years old and the solar flux predictions have likely changed quite a bit since then.
-
#18
by
mikes
on 18 May, 2009 10:37
-
-
#19
by
Analyst
on 18 May, 2009 10:43
-
Reboost: There is an inconsistency in NASAs argumentation, something repeated here. If MMOD risk is not the reason to not perform a reboost, when what is the reason? More landing opportunities? A reboost would buy time, time for a longer HST lifetime or a longer time to develop a deorbit strategy. A reboost was always planned, until a few weeks ago. It costs nothing. Risk is not a factor. So why not do it?
The "not needed" argument is pretty lame: NOBLs are not needed, but desired. Who knows the solar flux in the next decade? Who knows how long HST will operate? To many questions to not use an option which costs nothing.
Analyst