The batteries are too heavy to be hand carried.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Here is an image of an astronaut carrying a battery ORU at HST.
. 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.
. 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.
. 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.
"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.
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.
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
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
A Hubble Servicing Mission could provide a useful LEO test flight for the SLS and Orion.
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?