-
#120 by Danderman on 28 Sep, 2013 20:48
-
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.
-
#121 by LegendCJS on 28 Sep, 2013 21:07
-
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?
Why fix up the old scope? With the story going around that there are essentially two more Hubble class optical platforms sitting in surplus storage, who here thinks its a better investment to spend money on a super expensive Orion launch and custom mission module over flying two fresh Hubble class telescopes for probably much less total cost to outfit and fly both of them (assuming someone makes a cheap 53 ton launcher). -
#122 by veblen on 28 Sep, 2013 21:12
-
Getting greedy with an aging space telescope is the way to danger. Somebody some day may die during an EVA, I really hope not trying to fix the HST. Hubble has an amazing, unrivalled legacy, better to let it go to an elegant and well-deserved retirement.
-
#123 by Danderman on 28 Sep, 2013 21:21
-
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.
-
#124 by veblen on 28 Sep, 2013 21:30
-
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.
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 -
#125 by LegendCJS on 28 Sep, 2013 21:54
-
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.
Umm, don't know how this happened Danderman, but your quote box is attributing text to me that I never wrote. Only the first sentence was mine. I've struck out the other lines.
I'll nix this post if you and Veblen fix yours. -
#126 by MATTBLAK on 29 Sep, 2013 00:49
-
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 said in my own previous post (which you are selectively quoting from to try distort that post) that there are probably enough spares 'lying around' on Earth for a refurbishment or an upgrade of the similar telescopes. But also - an SLS, Orion, and the required training and preparations for a servicing mission wont come for free. There's the billions - why are you not seeing this?! Because you don't want to, that's why. 'Could I please provide a budget' etc. Don't be facetious - I don't work for the Hubble Telescope folk in Baltimore, nor NASA, nor ESA. If you do; then perhaps you can provide the budget figures for us?! We'd be delighted to see them - since this whole idea is one you just wont let go, no matter how much I and smarter folk than me patiently explain to you how unlikely it all is.
-
#127 by DMeader on 29 Sep, 2013 02:32
-
Here is an image of an astronaut carrying a battery ORU at HST.
You miss the point of the arm. The astro is simply HOLDING the ORU. The arm is what is maneuvering both of them.
Without the arm, think of the astro, with one hand holding that (massive) battery trying to maneuver along a handrail as you propose. Anyone familiar with EVA ops would probably tell you it isn't possible. -
#128 by pathfinder_01 on 29 Sep, 2013 03:04
-
Just to add certain moves in zero g are harder than on earth such as lifting an item. With nothing to push against you can’t get your leg muscles to help so you can't lift as much as you can on earth or at least not in the same way. ISS and Space Shuttle suits have hard torsos and so you can’t bend in the either. Orion suits are supposed to allow some bending due to being made to work in gravity, but that ability is going to be limited. The suit itself works against the person who is wear it making any sort of moving and bending a joint harder than on earth(air pressure differences). It just isn’t as simple as dock Orion to Hubble and you are ready to go.
-
#129 by HappyMartian on 29 Sep, 2013 03:21
-
. 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. -
#130 by LegendCJS on 29 Sep, 2013 03:27
-
. 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 action to take with this same amount of money with respect to science return, but use your imagination. And we have a place for decades long testing of space hardware already in orbit, no need to look for a new one. -
#131 by HappyMartian on 29 Sep, 2013 03:52
-
. 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.
Historically, launchers have been considered much cheaper than large payloads. Building a Hubble equivalent space telescope wouldn't be cheap nor would it be necessarily politically supported in Congress.
Long duration Lunar and deep space missions will require extensive and diverse skills and experience with EVA repairs and general maintenance. The importance and value of getting, maintaining, and expanding that skill base should not be minimized or ignored.
The SLS, Orion, and ESA Service Module will need to be tested in LEO. Hubble will most likely need a servicing mission that also adds eventual deorbit options at about that time.
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.
Edited. -
#132 by MATTBLAK on 29 Sep, 2013 05:27
-
"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. -
#133 by HappyMartian on 29 Sep, 2013 09:57
-
"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.
Yep!
"Such a module" could even be useful for Lunar surface mission scenarios, which under current American law, budgets, and political realities is the most likely next permanent destination for the SLS and international Orion missions during the 2020s and 2030s.
An Orion servicing mission for the Hubble Space Telescope could offer many real benefits. -
#134 by MATTBLAK on 29 Sep, 2013 10:57
-
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!? -
#135 by Jim on 29 Sep, 2013 11:46
-
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? -
#136 by HappyMartian on 29 Sep, 2013 12:55
-
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
The Hubble Space telescope is likely to still be operational when the SLS and Orion fly their first and second crews into orbit.
And as to "another mission, say to a NEA" the risks to the crew for such a mission are higher than a Lunar mission and the costs of such an SLS/Orion asteroid mission are around 120,000,000,000 dollars. Mars missions may cost 500,000,000,000 to one trillion dollars.
Congress has shown little interest in funding the President's human missions to an NEA and Mars "or even the Asteroid Heist mission."
Due to Congress's bipartisan supported National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010, also known as PUBLIC LAW 111–267—OCT. 11, 2010, it is unlikely that the carefully managed SLS, which launches the quite useful and versatile Orion into cislunar space, would be cancelled.
It is probably more likely that the funding for the private human carrying commercial spacecraft would be cut back or eliminated in a 'budget crunch' than would the funding for the Orion and SLS.
Why? Because Orion, with its ESA Service Module, is becoming an international spacecraft that is capable of both LEO and beyond LEO missions.
In considering the availability of the SLS and Orion for a Hubble Servicing Mission, it may also be quite useful to consider:
"(b) UNITED STATES HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT CAPABILITIES.—Congress reaffirms the policy stated in section 501(a) of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16761(a)), that the United States shall maintain an uninterrupted capability for human space flight and operations in low-Earth orbit, and beyond, as an essential instrument of national security and of the capacity to ensure continued United States participation and leadership in the exploration and utilization of space."
And, "SEC. 302. SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM AS FOLLOW-ON LAUNCH VEHICLE
TO THE SPACE SHUTTLE.
(a) UNITED STATES POLICY.—It is the policy of the United States that NASA develop a Space Launch System as a follow on to the Space Shuttle that can access cis-lunar space and the regions of space beyond low-Earth orbit in order to enable the United States to participate in global efforts to access and develop
this increasingly strategic region."
And, ""(3) CIS-LUNAR SPACE.—The term 'cis-lunar space' means the region of space from the Earth out to and including the region around the surface of the Moon."
From the: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010 also known as PUBLIC LAW 111–267—OCT. 11, 2010
Available at: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/649377main_PL_111-267.pdf
Assured access to LEO and other areas of cislunar space with the SLS and Orion form "an essential instrument of national security and of the capacity to ensure continued United States participation and leadership in the exploration and utilization of space" and also "enable the United States to participate in global efforts to access and develop this increasingly strategic region."
The strategic interests of the United States in having access to, and in developing, cislunar space are far more important to Congress than are the desires of some space cadets for America to cancel the cislunar mission capable SLS and Orion, and then head off to an NEA and Mars.
A Hubble Servicing Mission could provide a useful LEO test flight for the SLS and Orion.
Edited. -
#137 by Danderman on 29 Sep, 2013 14:33
-
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
I am happy to talk about the risks of using Orion for Hubble Servicing.
I am happy talk about HST servicing requirements that require an arm.
I am not happy to talk about how it is stupid to service HST. That requires its own thread.
-
#138 by Danderman on 29 Sep, 2013 14:35
-
A Hubble Servicing Mission could provide a useful LEO test flight for the SLS and Orion.
I am suggesting that a Delta IV Heavy could inject Orion into the HST orbit (or at least to a lower orbit, with enough prop for Orion to move itself into the HST orbit).
My belief is that requiring SLS for this mission makes the mission too expensive.
And yes, a "shakedown" of Orion in LEO prior to missions beyond LEO would be useful.
-
#139 by Danderman on 29 Sep, 2013 14:37
-
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?
The issue on the table is whether an astronaut can translate from Orion to the battery bay on HST while carrying a battery ORU.
As mention before, the battery ORU is something like 36 inches x 32 inches x 11 inches, and weighs some 400 pounds.
While I am at it, I should ask if anyone questions whether astronauts can change out the rate sensor units (gyros) using Orion.
