Orion for Hubble Service Mission?

• #40 by HappyMartian on 11 Sep, 2013 11:00
• Quote from: Hernalt on 10 Sep, 2013 03:29

  Quote from: Danderman on 09 Sep, 2013 14:56

  Hubble will be killed off shortly
  

  Are there any references to this?
  

  
  "By the time of the final repair mission, during which all six gyros were replaced (with two new pairs and one refurbished pair), only three gyros were still working. Engineers are confident that they have identified the root causes of the gyro failures,[147] and the new models should be much more reliable."
  
  And, "If it is not re-boosted by a shuttle or other means, it will re-enter the Earth's atmosphere sometime between 2019 and 2032, with the exact date depending on how active the Sun is and its impact on the upper atmosphere."
  
  From: Hubble Space Telescope    Wikipedia
  At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope
  
  
  An Orion Hubble servicing mission would be far more useful than a mission to a captured and moved asteroid.
  
  Edited.
  
• #41 by HappyMartian on 11 Sep, 2013 11:11
• "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
• #42 by MATTBLAK on 11 Sep, 2013 11:24
• It is unlikely that an Orion mission to service Hubble will ever be approved or funded - such a mission would cost a couple billion. The money spent would be better off going towards a true Hubble replacement, such as a Large Aperture Telescope.  http://www.stsci.edu/institute/atlast
• #43 by Jim on 11 Sep, 2013 12:08
• Quote from: HappyMartian on 11 Sep, 2013 11:00

  
  An Orion Hubble servicing mission would be far more useful than a mission to a captured and moved asteroid.
  
  

  
  Both are still better than a lunar mission.
• #44 by MATTBLAK on 11 Sep, 2013 12:23
• ...Unless it were a Lunar landing mission - say, two whole weeks at a geologically rich site, or even the Lunar South Pole. But don't anyone hold their breath for that...
• #45 by HappyMartian on 11 Sep, 2013 13:22
• Quote from: Jim on 11 Sep, 2013 12:08

  Quote from: HappyMartian on 11 Sep, 2013 11:00

  
  An Orion Hubble servicing mission would be far more useful than a mission to a captured and moved asteroid.
  
  

  
  Both are still better than a lunar mission.
  

  
  That is not quite right. Of course we should do the Hubble servicing mission, but comparing the renewed international interest in the robotic and human exploration of the Moon to do ISRU with a singular mission to visit a hauled space rock is a bit silly. It would be like comparing a visit to a random boulder to regular trips to permanent mining camps on an enormous mountain range. They cannot really be compared.
  
  Astronauts will someday visit a minimoon when an interesting one comes wandering into cislunar space, but Orion was designed for Lunar missions and the law says NASA should put astronauts on the Moon. In any case, Congress doesn't seem eager to fund the President's asteroid mission.   
  
  
  "Many objective measures show the positive impact of Hubble data on astronomy. Over 9,000 papers based on Hubble data have been published in peer-reviewed journals,[108] and countless more have appeared in conference proceedings."
  
  And, "Of the 200 papers published each year that receive the most citations, about 10% are based on Hubble data.[109]"
  
  From: Hubble Space Telescope    Wikipedia
  At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope
  
  
  
  "Apollo stimulated many areas of technology. The flight computer design used in both the lunar and command modules was, along with the Minuteman Missile System, the driving force behind early research into integrated circuits. Computer-controlled machining was first used in the fabrication of Apollo structural components."
  
  And, "An estimated one-fifth of the population of the world watched the live transmission of the Apollo 11 moonwalk."
  
  And, "The Apollo program returned 838.2 pounds (380.2 kg) of lunar rocks and soil to the Lunar Receiving Laboratory in Houston."
  
  And, "According to The Economist, Apollo succeeded in accomplishing President Kennedy's goal of taking on the Soviet Union in the Space Race, and beat it by accomplishing a singular and significant achievement, and thereby showcased the superiority of the capitalistic, free-market system as represented by the US."
  
  From: Apollo program  Wikipedia
  At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Samples_returned
  
  
  An international servicing mission to Hubble might be a useful precursor mission for international human Lunar surface missions.
  
  Edited.
• #46 by JohnFornaro on 11 Sep, 2013 15:47
• Quote from: Jim on 09 Sep, 2013 17:27

  Quote from: Danderman on 09 Sep, 2013 17:22

  Quote from: Jim on 09 Sep, 2013 15:23

  
  Where are the "batteries and gyros" going to be carried?
  
  

  
  These won't fit inside the Orion command module?
  

  
  What?  The astro won't fit into the CM?
  
  No, those aren't gyros and  especially not the astronaut.
  
• #47 by TomH on 21 Sep, 2013 05:39
• I have to wonder what would be lower risk and more cost efficient, try a Hubble refurbishment or just let it die and replace it with one of those telescopes NRO donated to NASA.
• #48 by Danderman on 21 Sep, 2013 05:50
• Quote from: MATTBLAK on 11 Sep, 2013 11:24

  It is unlikely that an Orion mission to service Hubble will ever be approved or funded - such a mission would cost a couple billion. The money spent would be better off going towards a true Hubble replacement, such as a Large Aperture Telescope.  http://www.stsci.edu/institute/atlast
  

  
  What requirements would drive mission costs into the billions of dollars?
• #49 by HappyMartian on 21 Sep, 2013 14:54
• Quote from: Danderman on 21 Sep, 2013 05:50

  Quote from: MATTBLAK on 11 Sep, 2013 11:24

  It is unlikely that an Orion mission to service Hubble will ever be approved or funded - such a mission would cost a couple billion. The money spent would be better off going towards a true Hubble replacement, such as a Large Aperture Telescope.  http://www.stsci.edu/institute/atlast
  

  
  What requirements would drive mission costs into the billions of dollars?
  

  
  
  An Orion Hubble LEO servicing mission side by side cost comparison with all the combined costs of the beyond LEO robotic vehicle that captures and hauls a small asteroid and the Orion mission that would be involved with visiting and sampling the asteroid would be interesting.
  
  Directly comparing the real risks through Loss of Mission and Loss of Crew numbers would also be useful.
  
  The likely scientific output of frequently cited research papers that could be enabled by these two different types of missions should also be carefully compared.
• #50 by Danderman on 21 Sep, 2013 16:49
• Quote from: HappyMartian on 21 Sep, 2013 14:54

  Quote from: Danderman on 21 Sep, 2013 05:50

  Quote from: MATTBLAK on 11 Sep, 2013 11:24

  It is unlikely that an Orion mission to service Hubble will ever be approved or funded - such a mission would cost a couple billion. The money spent would be better off going towards a true Hubble replacement, such as a Large Aperture Telescope.  http://www.stsci.edu/institute/atlast
  

  
  What requirements would drive mission costs into the billions of dollars?
  

  
  
  An Orion Hubble LEO servicing mission side by side cost comparison with all the combined costs of the beyond LEO robotic vehicle that captures and hauls a small asteroid and the Orion mission that would be involved with visiting and sampling the asteroid would be interesting.
  
  Directly comparing the real risks through Loss of Mission and Loss of Crew numbers would also be useful.
  
  The likely scientific output of frequently cited research papers that could be enabled by these two different types of missions should also be carefully compared.
  

  
  Since the HST servicing mission (presumably) could be launched on Delta IV Heavy, whereas an asteroid mission requires SLS, the cost comparison falls apart at that point. There are no billions of dollars in cost for an Orion HST servicing mission.
  
• #51 by Sesquipedalian on 25 Sep, 2013 16:27
• Has everyone forgotten about the Space Shuttle Payload Delivery Module proposed by the DIRECT team?  You wouldn't need to modify the Orion at all, since the SSPDM would include both an airlock and a robot arm, as well as docking ports at both ends.
  
  Heck, I'd be interested to know whether a single Falcon Heavy could launch both the SSPDM and a crewed Dragon.  Might be cheaper than the equivalent Orion mission.
• #52 by Danderman on 25 Sep, 2013 17:03
• I should note that as a policy, I would much prefer that NASA issue a commercial RFP for private spacecraft and crew to perform this mission.
  
  However, this thread is about whether Orion is technical able to perform the mission without significant modifications. I am assuming that the designs NASA is proposing for the asteroid mission would be available for a Hubble Servicing Mission. IF NASA is proposing a variant of Orion for the asteroid mission that, for example, could support EVA, but which cannot be done for an HST servicing mission, I give up.
  
  On the same note, if Orion cannot carry HST batteries and gyros, the NASA has a bigger problem that Hubble falling into the ocean some day.
  
  
• #53 by Jim on 25 Sep, 2013 17:57
• Quote from: Danderman on 25 Sep, 2013 17:03

  
  On the same note, if Orion cannot carry HST batteries and gyros, the NASA has a bigger problem that Hubble falling into the ocean some day.
  
  

  
  Why?  That isn't a problem.  Orion was never designed for it. 
• #54 by Jim on 25 Sep, 2013 18:01
• Quote from: Danderman on 25 Sep, 2013 17:03

  I am assuming that the designs NASA is proposing for the asteroid mission would be available for a Hubble Servicing Mission. IF NASA is proposing a variant of Orion for the asteroid mission that, for example, could support EVA, but which cannot be done for an HST servicing mission, I give up.
  
  

  
  There is no comparison.
  
  The EVA for asteroid mission is short and only two crew and only involves obtaining some samples.   It is nothing like an HST repair which took multiple shifts of two crewmembers and an IVA crewmember to operate the arm.
  
  
• #55 by Danderman on 25 Sep, 2013 19:54
• Quote from: Jim on 25 Sep, 2013 18:01

  Quote from: Danderman on 25 Sep, 2013 17:03

  I am assuming that the designs NASA is proposing for the asteroid mission would be available for a Hubble Servicing Mission. IF NASA is proposing a variant of Orion for the asteroid mission that, for example, could support EVA, but which cannot be done for an HST servicing mission, I give up.
  
  

  
  There is no comparison.
  
  The EVA for asteroid mission is short and only two crew and only involves obtaining some samples.   It is nothing like an HST repair which took multiple shifts of two crewmembers and an IVA crewmember to operate the arm.
  
  
  

  
  Please explain why a gyro and battery replacement operation from a docked Orion requires an arm, or extended EVAs.
  
• #56 by Jim on 25 Sep, 2013 20:27
• Quote from: Danderman on 25 Sep, 2013 19:54

  
  Please explain why a gyro and battery replacement operation from a docked Orion requires an arm, or extended EVAs.
  

  
  You're the expert, explain how it is done without the arm and not multiple EVA's and even with the arm explain how it is not done with multiple EVAs?
• #57 by Danderman on 25 Sep, 2013 20:38
• Quote from: Jim on 25 Sep, 2013 20:27

  Quote from: Danderman on 25 Sep, 2013 19:54

  
  Please explain why a gyro and battery replacement operation from a docked Orion requires an arm, or extended EVAs.
  

  
  You're the expert, explain how it is done without the arm and not multiple EVA's and even with the arm explain how it is not done with multiple EVAs?
  

  
  I didn't say there would not be multiple EVAs, but that without the requirement to replace instruments on Hubble, replacing the gyros and batteries would not require "extended" EVAs.
  
  I suspect that you are going to argue that replacing the gyros and batteries using a robot servicer would be easy, but having astronauts do it would be hard.
  
• #58 by simonbp on 25 Sep, 2013 21:06
• Even replacing the instruments could be relatively easy with a special-purpose derrick (Russian-style) rather than a complex and expensive arm.
  
  But then, IMHO, the whole thing would easier with a Dragon simply because it can carry external cargo without any modifications.
• #59 by Danderman on 25 Sep, 2013 21:31
• Quote from: simonbp on 25 Sep, 2013 21:06

  Even replacing the instruments could be relatively easy with a special-purpose derrick (Russian-style) rather than a complex and expensive arm.
  
  But then, IMHO, the whole thing would easier with a Dragon simply because it can carry external cargo without any modifications.
  

  
  You are assuming you know the mass and dimensions of the batteries and gyros, and that it would be easier to translate back to the Dragon trunk and then over to HST, as opposed to directly from Orion WITH the ORUs over to HST.
  
  Also, you are assuming that Dragon can support EVA without an airlock, whereas we know that it is NASA's intention to perform EVAs from Orion without an airlock.