-
#40
by
Analyst
on 19 May, 2009 11:24
-
It is confirmed that there will bo no raising orbit of telescope ya?
Yes.
Analyst
-
#41
by
Analyst
on 19 May, 2009 11:25
-
Asking again if anyone knows why there is a window for deployment instead of just "whenever"
Viewing, sun angle, comm issues.
Analyst
-
#42
by
stockman
on 19 May, 2009 11:26
-
-
#43
by
shaula1247
on 19 May, 2009 11:26
-
-
#44
by
stockman
on 19 May, 2009 11:26
-
-
#45
by
Nomadd
on 19 May, 2009 11:27
-
The latter is key.
Even without a reboost, HST's orbit is expected to be good through at least 2020, which is much longer than HST's systems are expected to last. So Goddard did not make reboost a requirement. If they thought that a reboost would add operational lifetime to HST, they would have.
I'm not sure who "expects" 2020 to be much longer than systems are expected to last, but with the upgraded gyros and new batteries what would surprise anybody by being operational in 15 years?
-
#46
by
shaula1247
on 19 May, 2009 11:27
-
-
#47
by
stockman
on 19 May, 2009 11:27
-
thats it for me for a while...
-
#48
by
Chris Bergin
on 19 May, 2009 11:30
-
Don't expect to have Ku for the release.
-
#49
by
shaula1247
on 19 May, 2009 11:31
-
Unberth at 6:26 CT. Is at low hover position and have go to continue.
Video coverage of ungrapple is not expected at this stage
-
#50
by
shaula1247
on 19 May, 2009 11:34
-
Release time is now confirmed at 7:57 CT.
I notice that I'm being infected by NASA speak. Why use a perfectly good word like release when you can use ungrapple instead.... aaaarrrgghh
-
#51
by
Analyst
on 19 May, 2009 11:38
-
The latter is key.
Even without a reboost, HST's orbit is expected to be good through at least 2020, which is much longer than HST's systems are expected to last. So Goddard did not make reboost a requirement. If they thought that a reboost would add operational lifetime to HST, they would have.
I'm not sure who "expects" 2020 to be much longer than systems are expected to last, but with the upgraded gyros and new batteries what would surprise anybody by being operational in 15 years?
Exactly my thinking: It is said a reboost does not cost anything (no higher MMOD risk etc.), and Goddard (HST) opted not to do it.
There are only two alternatives:
1) It would have cost something in reality (less EVA time? ...).
2) It really does not cost anything but is not done for
2a) Lazyness or
2b) "Political reasons", aka let us assure we don't have to fund a (still working) telescope in 10 years, because ups, it is reentering. (CGRO was deorbited for doubtful safety reasons.)
Analyst
-
#52
by
shaula1247
on 19 May, 2009 11:40
-
It is a pity there is no visible horizon during telescope translation. With the shuttle in free drift I imagine the telescope is heavy enough to move the shuttle attitude quite significantly.
Telescope is now in the intermediate position.
EVA preps are on hold for now.
-
#53
by
shaula1247
on 19 May, 2009 11:40
-
-
#54
by
shaula1247
on 19 May, 2009 11:44
-
-
#55
by
Nomadd
on 19 May, 2009 11:46
-
This is the point where Van Hoften could have given it an extra few fps.
-
#56
by
kneecaps
on 19 May, 2009 11:46
-
It is a pity there is no visible horizon during telescope translation. With the shuttle in free drift I imagine the telescope is heavy enough to move the shuttle attitude quite significantly.
If rates were damped before going to free drift, the only attitude changes should be as a result of ventings and gravity gradients (which could be significant with HST on the end of a boom).
-
#57
by
shaula1247
on 19 May, 2009 11:50
-
There would also be a component due to the reaction of the arm pushing on the telescope mass. Telescope moves one way, shuttle the other.
-
#58
by
kneecaps
on 19 May, 2009 11:53
-
There would also be a component due to the reaction of the arm pushing on the telescope mass. Telescope moves one way, shuttle the other.
For some reason I assumed that the arm wasn't moving
-
#59
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 19 May, 2009 11:54
-
My lone contribution for today, new job
