-
#160
by
HappyMartian
on 27 Dec, 2013 15:22
-
Could it be useful to have a dual mission with both the robot that remains attached to Hubble and Orion launched on the same SLS?
Could such a mission be seen as training for future missions to service space telescopes and important satellites?
Don't need SLS or Orion for this. Any one of the existing ELV's can do it
No "training" is needed. Already have done HST repair missions and there is the ISS.
And there are no "important" satellites that would need to be repaired
We haven't "done HST repair missions" with the international Orion and that possibility is the issue of this thread.
The James Webb Space Telescope, or JWST at $8.7 billion and eventually expected to orbit around the Earth-Sun L2 Lagrange point, about 1,500,000 kilometers or 930,000 miles beyond the Earth, might someday need a little help from an Orion mission. The JWST wasn't fully designed to be serviced but still one never knows. Mission extensions for the JWST may occur.
Maintaining and extending our skills with our new deep space capable human vehicle by doing a Hubble telescope mission in LEO with an Orion prior to doing a mission in a distant orbit for the JWST or some other costly telescope, satellite, or even a passing asteroid that gets gravitationally hung up in cis-lunar space for a year or two, or an asteroid that may get dragged into a high Lunar orbit by a robotic spacecraft, seems sensible.
Note:
"At such a great distance, the Webb telescope would be more difficult to service after launch than the Hubble telescope. Nevertheless, a docking ring was added to the design in 2007 to facilitate this possibility, either by a robot or future crewed spacecraft such as the Orion MPCV."
From:
James Webb Space Telescope Wikipedia
At:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope#Orbit Careful planning, preparation, and practice makes for real and useful extensions of our human capabilities in flying missions with the international Orion spacecraft.
Preparing for an Orion, or robot, or Orion and robot Hubble servicing mission is a good idea and could significantly extend the life of a valuable international astronomy asset that was designed to orbit and be serviced in LEO.
Edited.
-
#161
by
Danderman
on 27 Dec, 2013 16:37
-
IF NASA decides that Orion needs a LEO check out mission with a crew prior to flying off into interplanetary space, a Hubble servicing mission could be a useful mission objective.
Certainly, the risk of flying in LEO without docking to a space station, which was considerable for Shuttle, could not really be a factor for Orion.
-
#162
by
Danderman
on 27 Dec, 2013 17:37
-
-
#163
by
Jim
on 27 Dec, 2013 19:55
-
-
#164
by
Danderman
on 27 Dec, 2013 23:08
-
Concerning translation of 400 kg batteries from Orion to HST, an "arm" is not necessarily a hard requirement, other methods may be possible. One solution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strela_%28crane%29
Strela is an arm
Whether you call it a "boom" or an "arm", the point is that developing and deploying a rig that can translate 400 kg objects the 10 meters or so from the Orion payload bay to HST would not be a show stopper for a "batteries and gyros" changeout servicing mission.
-
#165
by
Tea Party Space Czar
on 02 Jan, 2014 02:32
-
Simply Fascinating.
-
#166
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 02 Jan, 2014 11:24
-
Purely FWIW, one of the things I liked in the DIRECT proposals was the 'Space Shuttle Payload Module', a barge-like frame in which Space Shuttle payload components like an EVA airlock and the Hubble docking and servicing structure could be fixed and towed around by an Orion.
Yes, that would be expensive but it made the Orion a lot more useful in LEO in the event that BEO ran onto a funding sand-bank. It also prevented "ISS Access Back-up" from being a bad joke.
-
#167
by
Danderman
on 08 Dec, 2014 21:26
-
If Orion is not going to have any useful missions for 10 years or so, this would be a great opportunity for Orion to fly on a relatively cheap mission that probably needs humans to accomplish, a "batteries and gyros" replacement mission.
On the other hand, replacing entire instruments would be very expensive.
-
#168
by
Jim
on 08 Dec, 2014 21:34
-
If Orion is not going to have any useful missions for 10 years or so, this would be a great opportunity for Orion to fly on a relatively cheap mission that probably needs humans to accomplish, a "batteries and gyros" replacement mission.
Got one thing right, it will be "a relatively cheap mission" because is can't be done and hence will cost nothing.
And repeating it over and over does not make it true. The previous posts show why it won't happen.
-
#169
by
Bob Shaw
on 08 Dec, 2014 21:35
-
While not being too enamoured of an Orion mission to Hubble in itself, seeing such as a mission as preparatory for a flight to sort out/service Webb is another matter. Webb's deployment mechanism is awfully complex, and if it doesn't go as advertised then having an astronaut in close proximity might be a good bit of insurance. However, going to an L-point to do major EVA work with Orion *without* any form of practice seems a bit foolhardy!
In short, the best reason for a manned service mission to Hubble is to prepare for a manned mission to Webb.
-
#170
by
Jim
on 08 Dec, 2014 21:36
-
While not being too enamoured of an Orion mission to Hubble in itself, seeing such as a mission as preparatory for a flight to sort out/service Webb is another matter. Webb's deployment mechanism is awfully complex, and if it doesn't go as advertised then having an astronaut in close proximity might be a good bit of insurance. However, going to an L-point to do major EVA work with Orion *without* any form of practice seems a bit foolhardy!
In short, the best reason for a manned service mission to Hubble is to prepare for a manned mission to Webb.
both are bad ideas
-
#171
by
Prober
on 08 Dec, 2014 22:22
-
If Orion is not going to have any useful missions for 10 years or so, this would be a great opportunity for Orion to fly on a relatively cheap mission that probably needs humans to accomplish, a "batteries and gyros" replacement mission.
On the other hand, replacing entire instruments would be very expensive.
Orion is written into the law as a backup for the ISS. That's been signed off on. Time to fund and make it work.
Hubble is done when it fails, the replacement is the JWST.
-
#172
by
Danderman
on 08 Dec, 2014 23:32
-
Hubble is done when it fails, the replacement is the JWST.
Actually, it isn't, due to different wavelengths.
Once HST batteries and gyros start to fail, you will hear more about this as the scientists demand that Hubble be serviced.
-
#173
by
ChrisWilson68
on 08 Dec, 2014 23:42
-
Orion is written into the law as a backup for the ISS. That's been signed off on. Time to fund and make it work.
Congress has passed laws that say all sorts of dumb things, many of them contradicting other things in other laws Congress has passed. Just because it was in a bill that passed doesn't mean we should never question it.
Using Orion as a backup for crew access to the ISS was a terrible idea when the law mentioning it passed. It's an even worse idea now, given that commercial crew has been progressing so well and we have signed commitments from two different companies to do crew missions much more cheaply than they could be done by Orion.
-
#174
by
llanitedave
on 09 Dec, 2014 02:13
-
Hubble is done when it fails, the replacement is the JWST.
Actually, it isn't, due to different wavelengths.
Once HST batteries and gyros start to fail, you will hear more about this as the scientists demand that Hubble be serviced.
More likely the demand will be for a new and larger instrument.
-
#175
by
Prober
on 09 Dec, 2014 12:02
-
Hubble is done when it fails, the replacement is the JWST.
Actually, it isn't, due to different wavelengths.
Once HST batteries and gyros start to fail, you will hear more about this as the scientists demand that Hubble be serviced.
More likely the demand will be for a new and larger instrument.
knew this was coming.....NASA has those two old spy sats they could rework and launch. A lot cheaper than another Hubble servicing. However in light of JWST costs its going to be a hard sell.
-
#176
by
gospacex
on 09 Dec, 2014 12:30
-
What's up with this Hubble fandom?
Do you want to continue to use this thing until its mirror cracks from a debris impact?
If we wouldn't bother repairing Hubble and instead kept making and launching new ones, by now we'd have about half a dozen of functioning 2-4 meter telescopes up there, and an assembly line which churns out a new telescope every ~2 years. We'd avoid JWST trainwreck.
-
#177
by
Bob Shaw
on 09 Dec, 2014 12:36
-
What's up with this Hubble fandom?
Do you want to continue to use this thing until its mirror cracks from a debris impact?
If we wouldn't bother repairing Hubble and instead kept making and launching new ones, by now we'd have about half a dozen of functioning 2-4 meter telescopes up there, and an assembly line which churns out a new telescope every ~2 years. We'd avoid JWST trainwreck.
I agree. Especially with those stubby-Hubble mirrors in storage, and an established industrial base building spy satellites.
My big fear re Webb is that after NASA has finished selling the farm to pay for it, the thing fizzles for one reason or another. Webb is a one-off, and one-offs always cost more and are more risky (hence the added costs in an attempt to mitigate the risks).
Throwaway Hubble-lite missions on a regular drumbeat are the way to go, nice though it is to see astronauts doing that spaceman stuff.
-
#178
by
newpylong
on 09 Dec, 2014 14:04
-
While not being too enamoured of an Orion mission to Hubble in itself, seeing such as a mission as preparatory for a flight to sort out/service Webb is another matter. Webb's deployment mechanism is awfully complex, and if it doesn't go as advertised then having an astronaut in close proximity might be a good bit of insurance. However, going to an L-point to do major EVA work with Orion *without* any form of practice seems a bit foolhardy!
In short, the best reason for a manned service mission to Hubble is to prepare for a manned mission to Webb.
both are bad ideas
In your opinion perhaps - but servicing our brand new $8 Billion telescope may someday become a necessity and a true test.
-
#179
by
pagheca
on 09 Dec, 2014 14:15
-
In your opinion perhaps - but servicing our brand new $8 Billion telescope may someday become a necessity and a true test.
The JWST, unlike the HST, is not serviceable by design.