Commercial Hubble Repair

[jongoff]

I guess a lot depends on how expensive a crew flight with Dragon actually ends up being. If it's closer to their current $130M for a cargo flight, then it could very well be possible to have some sort of an airlock module that you could bring up on the trunk,

Herein lies the rub.

An "airlock module" would have to mate with the Dragon via the nose docking adapter (as opposed to somehow attaching to the side hatch), and the nose docking adapter would be occupied by the Hubble docking system. 

The only way around this would be to stow the airlock module in the Dragon trunk, and then somehow re-position it to the front of Dragon, where it would then serve as the interface between Dragon and HST. The RMS required for all those maneuvers would be extremely expensive to develop.

It would be much cheaper to vacuum-rate the Dragon interior avionics.

Jongoff's firm makes RMS.

To move the docking module the RMS may have to act as a foot.  A pair could be needed.

Well, to be fair, we're *starting* to *develop* RMS systems...we've got a ways to go before we're actually making flight versions you could just buy.

~Jon

[simonbp]

Why would you need an airlock?

Also for reference for a large HST ORU, the Fine Guidance Sensor (re)installed on SM-4 was 478 pounds and dimensions 5.5 x 4 x 2 feet. That's the kind of thing that would require some mechanical assistance for the astronauts.

[Danderman]

The RMS required for all those maneuvers would be extremely expensive to develop.

It would be much cheaper to vacuum-rate the Dragon interior avionics.

I'm always impressed by the certainty levels expressed by people on this forum.

~Jon

I should have mentioned that RMS operations around HST would be extremely expensive to develop.

As for vacuum-rating the interior of Dragon, the Apollo Command Module gives us some experience.

[Jim]

As for vacuum-rating the interior of Dragon, the Apollo Command Module gives us some experience.

Experience is not the issue.  Apollo was designed from the beginning for vacuum operations.  It used purposed designed avionics and not COTS boxes.  It had cold plates and plumbing for heat removal. And you just don't take an existing box and stick it on a cold plate.

So you propose a complete redesign of the Dragon avionics for a one off mission?

[jongoff]

I should have mentioned that RMS operations around HST would be extremely expensive to develop.

Why?

~Jon

[Zed_Noir]

Can an airlock be install internally in the Dragon? Maybe like a column from the nose hatch to the floor of the internal pressure vessel with internal storage alcoves for EVA gear. This idea will of course reduce seats in the Dragon to 3 or 4. 

What would be the size of the crew require for a HST service mission in  the Dragon?

[Chandonn]

Bdtter idea: carry an airlock module or modified trunk airlock with NDS at both ends and a hatch for EVA on the side.  Just leave it docked to Hubble after the mission for future servicing ops.

[wolfpack]

Doesn't all of this talk presume that there is money on the ground for continued Hubble operation? Isn't JWST draining the budget for space telescopes?

Hubble has done its job. Shame we couldn't bring it back and put it in the NASM, but things are what they are.

[mduncan36]

Bdtter idea: carry an airlock module or modified trunk airlock with NDS at both ends and a hatch for EVA on the side.  Just leave it docked to Hubble after the mission for future servicing ops.

I can only imagine what that would do to the fine pointing on Hubble. It's a very precise scientific instrument and not a space station.

I'd love to keep Hubble in operation but all of these ideas involve using tools that aren't well suited for the purpose and would require a lot of work (= money) to do the job. When it gets to the point that the mission would cost a substantial portion of a Hubble replacement then why bother? This is especially the case when congress has barely avoided cutting the funds for the JWST. Noble effort but I don't see any way to make it happen.

[Danderman]

I should have mentioned that RMS operations around HST would be extremely expensive to develop.

Why?

~Jon

Developing translation paths for the RMS to operate around HST will be a major issue. NASA will not want the RMS to impinge on Hubble.

[jongoff]

I should have mentioned that RMS operations around HST would be extremely expensive to develop.

Why?

~Jon

Developing translation paths for the RMS to operate around HST will be a major issue. NASA will not want the RMS to impinge on Hubble.

This isn't the 1980s, robotic path planning isn't *that* hard...especially if you have a hyperdextrous RMS.

~Jon

[simonbp]

Doesn't all of this talk presume that there is money on the ground for continued Hubble operation? Isn't JWST draining the budget for space telescopes?

Sort of; it's more the case that the Space Telescope Science Institute (STSI) which operates HST and will operate JWST is so focused on JWST that they are not pursuing extra Hubble funding as vigorously as possible. Most of the money that's spent on Hubble these days is for Research & Analysis, i.e. support for those at Universities actually doing science with Hubble. Engineering ground costs are pretty minimal.

Hubble has done its job.

Hardly; Hubble is still massively oversubscribed and even the most experienced users have to really fight for time. Here is a list of the current observing programs:

http://www.stsci.edu/hst/proposing/exp_abstract-catalogs/Cycle20-Abstract-Catalog.pdf

Hubble will not have done its job until a genuine UV/VIS replacement is launched. That may or may not be cheaper than another servicing mission, but it has to happen eventually.

[Danderman]

I should have mentioned that RMS operations around HST would be extremely expensive to develop.

Why?

~Jon

Developing translation paths for the RMS to operate around HST will be a major issue. NASA will not want the RMS to impinge on Hubble.

This isn't the 1980s, robotic path planning isn't *that* hard...especially if you have a hyperdextrous RMS.

~Jon

I really wish that were true where NASA is concerned.

[Jim]

I really wish that were true where NASA is concerned.

And where your source of this claim?

[Star One]

Doesn't all of this talk presume that there is money on the ground for continued Hubble operation? Isn't JWST draining the budget for space telescopes?

Sort of; it's more the case that the Space Telescope Science Institute (STSI) which operates HST and will operate JWST is so focused on JWST that they are not pursuing extra Hubble funding as vigorously as possible. Most of the money that's spent on Hubble these days is for Research & Analysis, i.e. support for those at Universities actually doing science with Hubble. Engineering ground costs are pretty minimal.

Hubble has done its job.

Hardly; Hubble is still massively oversubscribed and even the most experienced users have to really fight for time. Here is a list of the current observing programs:

http://www.stsci.edu/hst/proposing/exp_abstract-catalogs/Cycle20-Abstract-Catalog.pdf

Hubble will not have done its job until a genuine UV/VIS replacement is launched. That may or may not be cheaper than another servicing mission, but it has to happen eventually.

What a sinkhole of time & money JWST is, just how many other projects has it caused to be cancelled or never to get off the ground because of how over budget and behind schedule this thing is.

I would rather see another service mission on Hubble and the use of these two former NRO telescopes, as even with all that it would not surprise me if it costed less than the remaining cost of JWST.

[Danderman]

I really wish that were true where NASA is concerned.

And where your source of this claim?

Experience.

[as58]

Most of the money that's spent on Hubble these days is for Research & Analysis, i.e. support for those at Universities actually doing science with Hubble. Engineering ground costs are pretty minimal.

Are you sure? That's not what I've heard, and it doesn't seem to agree with what was written in the latest Senior Review.

[Jim]

I really wish that were true where NASA is concerned.

And where your source of this claim?

Experience.

No, from your posts, you haven't dealt with payload bay type payloads or EVA ops for quite awhile

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

NASA is getting ~$98M to operate the HST.

http://www.govbudgets.com/program/Science/Astrophysics/Cosmic_Origins/