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.
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?
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
Orion was obviously designed to be a flying camper-van. Altair moved things like the rover and drill.
Just for reference:
No arm. No airlock. No mission module.
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.
. 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.
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.
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.
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.
