-
#60 by Jim on 25 Sep, 2013 21:57
-
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.
Extended as in longer than asteroid mission EVA. You still haven't addressed the arm. -
#61 by Jim on 25 Sep, 2013 21:59
-
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.
Yes, because there is no need for EVA's, on't need to replace, just add on. It doesn't have to be a servicer, just a spacecraft that takes over attitude control and provides power through an existing umbilical connector. -
#62 by Jim on 25 Sep, 2013 22:07
-
whereas we know that it is NASA's intention to perform EVAs from Orion without an airlock.
Only an idea for a stunt on a mission that is not going to happen and it is one short EVA. It doesn't mean it will be a capability available. -
#63 by newpylong on 26 Sep, 2013 11:12
-
Yes a capability built for contingencies, nonetheless, available in mission scope as I've posted multiple links. I don't believe we will see the mission but it is highly speculative to claim it won't happen.
Also, every DRM I have seen for the Heist portrays more than 1 EVA. For example: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/756678main_20130619-NRC_Tech_Panel_Stich.pdfwhereas we know that it is NASA's intention to perform EVAs from Orion without an airlock.
Only an idea for a stunt on a mission that is not going to happen and it is one short EVA. It doesn't mean it will be a capability available. -
#64 by HappyMartian on 26 Sep, 2013 15:02
-
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.
Hubble orbital reboost delta-v requirement most likely means servicing would be an Orion mission. The orbital reboost might be the most critical servicing issue. -
#65 by Robotbeat on 26 Sep, 2013 16:49
-
If it needs an Orion, then the mission will never happen guaranteed.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.
Hubble orbital reboost delta-v requirement most likely means servicing would be an Orion mission. The orbital reboost might be the most critical servicing issue. -
#66 by Danderman on 26 Sep, 2013 17:50
-
Hubble orbital reboost delta-v requirement most likely means servicing would be an Orion mission. The orbital reboost might be the most critical servicing issue.
Why do you presume that no other vehicle can provide additional delta-V for HST?
-
#67 by veblen on 26 Sep, 2013 18:04
-
Orion mission to service Hubble is like spending several thousands in repair costs to fix car that is worth few thousands, plus risking human lives to boot. Scientists thought risking astro's lives was worth it when Hubble was the only game in town. And what Admin Goldin thought (the "you are not saving Hubble you are saving NASA" speech to astros). After Ariane delivers JWST to L2, Hubble will be the equivalent of your old car in the driveway that you can't get rid of for sentimental reasons.
Similar thing will happen to ISS eventually. -
#68 by mheney on 26 Sep, 2013 18:35
-
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. -
#69 by Robotbeat on 26 Sep, 2013 19:03
-
An new optical telescope based on this would be cheaper than spending an Orion mission on fixing Hubble: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29081.0
Cheapest option would be to simply, again, farm it out to the private sector to bid on. They either propose a robotic craft like Jim is proposing, a robotic craft with arms that can do a similar job as astronauts, or a trip in a Dragon, Dreamchaser, CST-100 or that Blue Origin capsule. Lots of options, all cheaper than using an Orion. ESPECIALLY if you use both an Orion and an SLS launch. -
#70 by Danderman on 26 Sep, 2013 22:29
-
An new optical telescope based on this would be cheaper than spending an Orion mission on fixing Hubble: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29081.0
Cheapest option would be to simply, again, farm it out to the private sector to bid on. They either propose a robotic craft like Jim is proposing, a robotic craft with arms that can do a similar job as astronauts, or a trip in a Dragon, Dreamchaser, CST-100 or that Blue Origin capsule. Lots of options, all cheaper than using an Orion. ESPECIALLY if you use both an Orion and an SLS launch.
This thread is not about the policy option of NASA issuing a commercial RFP.
This thread is not about whether Hubble should be serviced.
This thread is about whether Orion can do the job without major modifications. Extra credit if someone can explain if Orion can do the servicing mission launched on Delta IV Heavy.
-
#71 by jg on 26 Sep, 2013 22:32
-
Some of the Hubble bays for instruments, gyros and the like are physically quite large, and to change out/access them you need to use tools.
The good news: Hubble was designed to be serviced by astronauts. The bad news is it was designed presuming you had a shuttle, its arm, these bulky replacement modules that could presume to fit in the shuttle cargo bay and astronauts.
Go look at video from the servicing missions.... Then figure out how to get what you need. Orion is almost the least of your problems. -
#72 by Sesquipedalian on 26 Sep, 2013 22:59
-
This thread is about whether Orion can do the job without major modifications. Extra credit if someone can explain if Orion can do the servicing mission launched on Delta IV Heavy.
This seems like a good opportunity to repeat my last post, which apparently got run over by the arguments already in progress...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.
In regards to my second paragraph, I would be just as interested to know whether Orion and the SSPDM could both be launched on the Delta IV Heavy. (Or the Atlas V, considering that there are no plans to man-rate the Delta.) -
#73 by Danderman on 27 Sep, 2013 00:57
-
Some of the Hubble bays for instruments, gyros and the like are physically quite large, and to change out/access them you need to use tools.
The good news: Hubble was designed to be serviced by astronauts. The bad news is it was designed presuming you had a shuttle, its arm, these bulky replacement modules that could presume to fit in the shuttle cargo bay and astronauts.
Go look at video from the servicing missions.... Then figure out how to get what you need. Orion is almost the least of your problems.
I think you are confusing the requirements for changing out Hubble instruments with the requirements for changing out gyros and batteries. Why would "physically large bays for instruments" be a problem for servicing HST gyros and batteries using Orion?
-
#74 by Danderman on 27 Sep, 2013 01:00
-
This thread is about whether Orion can do the job without major modifications. Extra credit if someone can explain if Orion can do the servicing mission launched on Delta IV Heavy.
This seems like a good opportunity to repeat my last post, which apparently got run over by the arguments already in progress...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.
In regards to my second paragraph, I would be just as interested to know whether Orion and the SSPDM could both be launched on the Delta IV Heavy. (Or the Atlas V, considering that there are no plans to man-rate the Delta.)
I didn't ignore your post.
In Engineering, you first try to reduce the requirements, so start off with the minimum necessary to do the job and then you can add requirements, desirements and the rest later. In this case, assuming Orion can support a "gyros and batteries" class servicing mission, what are the requirements for an additional module?
BTW, docking with Hubble with a module on the nose of Orion may prove to be unworkable.
-
#75 by Jim on 27 Sep, 2013 11:17
-
In Engineering, you first try to reduce the requirements, so start off with the minimum necessary to do the job and then you can add requirements, desirements and the rest later. In this case, assuming Orion can support a "gyros and batteries" class servicing mission, what are the requirements for an additional module?
BTW, docking with Hubble with a module on the nose of Orion may prove to be unworkable.
Assuming that "Orion can support a "gyros and batteries" class servicing mission" isn't engineering. Please provide the analysis to prove your assumptions. -
#76 by Jim on 27 Sep, 2013 11:31
-
Here is your first wrong assumption. The batteries are the white squares which are too large for inside Orion.
And there still your assumption that an arm is not needed.
-
#77 by DMeader on 27 Sep, 2013 11:34
-
BTW, docking with Hubble with a module on the nose of Orion may prove to be unworkable.
How would that be different than ASTP? -
#78 by HappyMartian on 27 Sep, 2013 14:13
-
An new optical telescope based on this would be cheaper than spending an Orion mission on fixing Hubble: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29081.0
Cheapest option would be to simply, again, farm it out to the private sector to bid on. They either propose a robotic craft like Jim is proposing, a robotic craft with arms that can do a similar job as astronauts, or a trip in a Dragon, Dreamchaser, CST-100 or that Blue Origin capsule. Lots of options, all cheaper than using an Orion. ESPECIALLY if you use both an Orion and an SLS launch.
Hubble orbital reboost delta-v requirement most likely means servicing would be an Orion mission. The orbital reboost might be the most critical servicing issue.
Why do you presume that no other vehicle can provide additional delta-V for HST?
For vehicles that can carry a crew, the Orion with its Service Module offer a total delta-v of 1,595 m/s and both have some useful designed-in long-term mission capabilities.
After doing the servicing mission, and with an Orion no longer attached to the SM, a modified ESA Service Module could offer some significant delta-v possibilities for the Hubble Space Telescope. Other mission profiles could be used.
Orion's origins included some possible useful Orion Service Module payloads and diverse capabilities for LEO missions:
INPUT TO THE REVIEW OF U.S. HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT PLANS COMMITTEE LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION ORION STATUS AND MULTI-MISSION CAPABILITIES
"Currently, the program baseline is to qualify Orion for both a two propellant tank and a four propellant tank version. By flying only two of its four propellant tanks, Orion can use the additional volume to perform ISS resupply missions for un-pressurized cargo. Additionally, the Crew Module can deliver and return pressurized cargo depending on the number of crew aboard Orion. This cargo concept can deliver approximately 1,800 lbs of pressurized and unpressurized cargo every crewed mission (four crew), or approximately 3,600 lbs of cargo per year at little or no additional cost."
And, "Orion could also provide 100% of ISS annual cargo requirements at a cost equal to or less than the current commercial approaches to sup-plement planned commercial systems. This concept employs an upgraded autono-mous Orion Service Module as a tug once the primary ISS mission is complete and after the Crew Module has been delivered to its de-orbit target."
And, "In addition to providing cargo services in conjunction with Orion’s nominal ISS missions, the upgraded autonomous Service Module as described above could be launched to deliver 30,000 lbs of unpressurized cargo including additional nodes, large spares and Orbital Replacement Units (ORUs) if the ISS continues to operate beyond 2016."
And, "Orion can support NASA’s Science Mission Directorate by hosting payloads and delivering or servicing spacecraft. A remote manipulator system can be in-stalled in one of the cargo compartments and on-orbit servicing for the ISS and other spacecraft can be performed."
Using the ESA Service Module as a tug might eventually offer several interesting options for capturing cargo vehicles the are not ISS-qualified and taking those vehicles to the ISS or to another space station, but the main issue of this thread is using the Orion and, or, its ESA Service Module to do maintenance and reboost on the Hubble Space Telescope.
The important questions in terms of a crewed Hubble servicing option revolve around what will be the real capabilities and options that will be available with the Orion and ESA Service Module.
If reboost, electrical power, and three axis control of the Hubble Space Telescope are the main issues for a Hubble servicing mission, then perhaps only launching a suitably modified ESA Service Module that semi-permanently docks to the Hubble would be a suitable answer. No Orion would need to be flown.
If a "remote manipulator system can be in-stalled in one of the cargo compartments and on-orbit servicing for the ISS and other spacecraft can be performed" without the presence of a crew, then depending on what is needed, that option may be the best way to accomplish a Hubble servicing mission.
Perhaps if an appropriately modified Orion and ESA Service Module have some robots and a "remote manipulator system" they would be quite capable and could return the captured asteroid samples from a Lunar orbit without needing a crew on board.
Obviously, there might be no real need for a crew and Orion to travel to the Hubble if the ESA Service Module and some robots could do the servicing mission.
Edited. -
#79 by Danderman on 27 Sep, 2013 15:20
-
Assuming that "Orion can support a "gyros and batteries" class servicing mission" isn't engineering. Please provide the analysis to prove your assumptions.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/servicing/series/battery_story.html
"Hubble’s batteries are much larger and heavier. Collectively they weigh 460 pounds and measure 36 inches long, 32 inches wide, and 11 inches high."
That works out to 7.3 cubic feet of volume for the batteries.
According to NASA (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/510449main_SLS_MPCV_90-day_Report.pdf), Orion has 316 cubic feet NET habitable volume (total pressurized volume is 690 cubic feet).
Jim is suggesting that an Orion capsule with 316 cubic feet of habitable volume cannot accommodate hardware with a volume of 7.3 cubic feet.
A better question is whether the battery module can fit through the Orion hatch.