Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 321

Thread: MANY (good and bad) news and info about the 4th (and LAST) Hubble Servicing Mission

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834

    Arrow MANY (good and bad) news and info about the 4th (and LAST) Hubble Servicing Mission

    .

    now that (finally) I've opened the official Hubble site's pages, I've found MANY (good and bad) news and info about the 4th (and LAST) Hubble Servicing Mission:

    this is the list of the operations: http://hubble.nasa.gov/missions/sm4.php

    these are the seven astronauts of the mission: http://sm4.gsfc.nasa.gov/overview/shuttlecrew.php

    and this is SM4 fact sheet: http://sm4.gsfc.nasa.gov/multimedia/...Fact_Sheet.pdf

    the list of operations has a very interesting point... "Install Soft Capture Mechanism: Install the Soft Capture Mechanism on the aft end of Hubble to aid autonomous rendezvous and capture of Hubble of a future mission."

    since it hasn't a "read more" link, that point seems be added recently... maybe... to move the Hubble... since it works very close to the "Hubble moving adapter" I've suggested in these Hubble moving threads:

    http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=50793

    http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=52801

    unfortunately, the text of the SM4 fact sheet shows us that... "The SCM is a compact device that, when attached to the Hubble aft bulkhead, will enable and assist in the safe de-orbit of the Hubble Space Telescope at the end of its useful life. This circular mechanism has structures and targets that will allow a de-orbit vehicle more easily to capture and guide the telescope into a safe controlled re-entry."

    then, they've planned to leave the Shuttle's Soft Capture Mechanism joined to the Hubble in the last servicing mission NOT to move/save it (with Orion, Parom, Progress or other space-tugs) but to (safely...) KILL it at the end of its last life-cycle! (around 2013)

    from the code at the end of the document (FS-2006-10-085-GSFC) it seems be published in October 2006 (1.5/2 months before my first post on my "move the Hubble near the ISS" thread here)

    the only positive point is that NASA admits that Hubble (with its Soft Capture Mechanism) can have an "autonomous rendezvous" with a "de-orbit vehicle" ...then... just change the word "de-orbit" with "move" ...

    .
    Last edited by gaetanomarano; 2007-Mar-13 at 01:00 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,547
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    30,046
    The SCM has been part of the servicing mission for a long time. If it has been added to the fact sheet recently, then that's a problem with the fact sheet, not anything to do with what's really been planned.
    Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,417
    Hum,
    i sense the 4th is strong in this one

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Another badly needed "if I ran the railroad" thread...
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by ToSeek View Post
    The SCM has been part of the servicing mission for a long time. If it has been added to the fact sheet recently, then that's a problem with the fact sheet, not anything to do with what's really been planned.
    it's not important to know when this option was planned or added to the fact sheet ...the very important point is that, from 2008, Hubble will have a device good to rendezvous a vehicle able to MOVE it... that means it can be moved everywhere from the end of 2008 (without a Shuttle) for reboost, de-orbit, etc... unfortunately, join the device still needs the very risky 2008 servicing mission, but, if the mission will happen and succeed, EVERYTHING will be possible... also "move the Hubble near the ISS" as I've suggested in my Hubble thread!
    .

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,132
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    if the mission will happen and succeed, EVERYTHING will be possible... also "move the Hubble near the ISS" as I've suggested in my Hubble thread!
    .
    Nothing about the SCM makes moving the Hubble near the ISS anymore realistic or desireable. All of the drawbacks and impracticalities that were enumerated in the other thread still hold. The SCM solves one small problem out of dozens.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Gaetanomarano...I really don't understand just why you post this "type" of stuff to this board.

    I know you understand that NASA policy regarding the disposition of Hubble (or any NASA policy, for that matter) will not be changed because of something you post here...

    I know you're not seeking advice, because so far you have IGNORED all ideas other than your own...

    So why are you posting this stuff here??? What do you hope to accomplish??
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    21,881
    Concerning the issue of eventually de-orbiting Hubble, I'm pleased that we are slowly getting to the point of doing things to reduce the increase in orbiting debris. When Hubble eventually stops being worth operating, it should not remain a target for micrometeoroids to turn into a high-speed orbiting sandstorm.
    Forming opinions as we speak

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,332
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    Gaetanomarano...I really don't understand just why you post this "type" of stuff to this board.

    I know you understand that NASA policy regarding the disposition of Hubble (or any NASA policy, for that matter) will not be changed because of something you post here...

    I know you're not seeking advice, because so far you have IGNORED all ideas other than your own...

    So why are you posting this stuff here??? What do you hope to accomplish??
    The purpose of boards like this is not to directly influence NASA policy, but to create "buzz". The ideas will then float on their own and then settle where they belong. At the least, some staffer working for a congressional committee member might read it, and the idea will then get translated into some tough questions the next time a NASA adminstrator gets called to testify.

    Why IS the HST being retired?

    I remember watching Mr. Webb on CSPAN a while back--he couldn't get his powerpoint presentation to work off of his laptop. He just kept pounding on the same key hoping to get it to work! You want to talk about running a railroad!

    I vote for Gaetanomarano to be the next NASA administrator!

    Gaetanomarano, I like your style--keep on posting!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Hamlet View Post
    Nothing about the SCM makes moving the Hubble near the ISS anymore realistic or desireable. All of the drawbacks and impracticalities that were enumerated in the other thread still hold. The SCM solves one small problem out of dozens.
    absolutely not true
    first of all, move (and save) the Hubble IS desireable if we consider (both) its scientific and economic value
    second, move the Hubble IS realistic just having the money to launch the vehicles to do that
    I agree that move the Hubble is not simple and has some problems to solve (like EVERY space project!) but the SCM don't solve one "small" problem ...the SCM will solve a BIG problem!
    if we want to move the object "A" with the vehicle "B" we need an "adapter" that docks "A" with "B"
    now we know that Hubble will have this "adapter" joined in the 2008 mission, so, 50% (I think 90%) of the problems are solved!
    in this thread about the Parom on Transterrestrial Musings I suggest to move the Hubble with this russian space-tug when it will be available (around 2009) ...the Parom con fly in space up to 15 years having over 60 refuels for single or multiple trips per refuel... the Parom can move a payload of 12 mT (Hubble is 11 mT) and its tanks can store SEVEN times the fuel of a Progress... then, about SIX Parom's refuels/trips will be sufficient to move the Hubble near the ISS !!!
    and, since the ($100M) price of the Parom must be shared on 60 trips, move the Hubble may cost $10M (1/10th the Parom's price) + $68M (one Proton to launch the Parom and its first refuel) + $100M (five refuels, each launched with a Soyuz rocket) = $178M ...less than 1/12th of the Hubble price (or 1/30th adding 17 years of costs) to save the HST and repair/upgrade/use it for the next 20 years!
    also, when the moving mission will end, the Parom will be in the same ISS orbit, so, it can be used for HUNDREDS trips saving the price to launch a new Parom!
    in the same Transterrestrial's thread, one users claims that NASA will connnect a LIDS docking port (the same of the Orion) to the Hubble (with or without the SCM?) but he doesn't give any link to official sources/documents that confirms his claim
    if that news is true, also an remote-controlled (unmanned) Orion will be able to move the Hubble near the ISS with (about) 4-5 missions (since it will have 20% more fuel than a Parom) ...unfortunately, the price to move the Hubble with 4-5 Orions will be VERY HIGH
    .

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    I really don't understand just why you post this "type" of stuff to this board.
    maybe... because this is a forum about astronomy? ...that is a matter of astronomers ...that ( IIRC... ) use the telescopes to watch the universe...

    also, I think that all space forums don't exist to talk ONLY of real projects/plans, but, also, of future and/or alternative ideas (after all, many space forums have also a RICH cospiracy-theories' section...)

    I know you understand that NASA policy regarding the disposition of Hubble (or any NASA policy, for that matter) will not be changed because of something you post here...
    probably it's true ..or not... NASA is a public agency, so, it's very much influenced by political decisions and PUBLIC OPINION ...not my opinion, of course, but SURELY the american public opinion, since they are the same peoples that VOTE the politics and PAY all space projects with their TAXES...
    .

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    ...probably it's true ..or not...
    I'm sorry, but there is no "or not" about it. Warren's idea that someone posting here will create a "buzz" which will end up changing NASA policy is a unrealistic pipe dream...

    No matter how much you "want" it, NASA will NOT be moving Hubble to the ISS.

    Once again, I'm sorry, but that's the way it is...
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    Once again, I'm sorry, but that's the way it is...
    ok, but can you allow us to (at least) discuss of this argument? ...thank you...
    .

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Sure...knock yourself out....but be aware that you're only fooling yourself...
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,174
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    ok, but can you allow us to (at least) discuss of this argument? ...thank you... .
    Your history seems to indicated that you really don't want a discussion; you just want people to agree with you.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,332
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyalAirForce
    I'm sorry, but there is no "or not" about it. Warren's idea that someone posting here will create a "buzz" which will end up changing NASA policy is a unrealistic pipe dream...
    Gaetano is right. NASA is a public agency beholden to public opinion. If the Bureau of Land Management can't get anything done without having to deal with hundreds and hundreds of public comments, then why shouldn't NASA have to go through the same process?

    Actually, I don't think NASA does in fact go through the same formal public input process that other agencies like the Forest Service or the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service have to go through.

    Correct me if I'm wrong.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,448
    Quote Originally Posted by antoniseb View Post
    Concerning the issue of eventually de-orbiting Hubble, I'm pleased that we are slowly getting to the point of doing things to reduce the increase in orbiting debris. When Hubble eventually stops being worth operating, it should not remain a target for micrometeoroids to turn into a high-speed orbiting sandstorm.
    rAmen. The only redeeming characteristic about the Hubble is the relative lack of volatiles in its make up. Other than that, its one of the largest hunks of junk in LEO. Leaving it there is asking for heartbreak. Even if the structure remains intact, just the paint flecks could be lethal in the wrong place.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob B. View Post
    you just want people to agree with you
    if (in your opinion) this is my goal, I've completely missed it...
    .

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    ...but be aware that you're only fooling yourself...
    it's nothing more than a proposal... however, I'm happy if it will happen
    .

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Warren Platts View Post
    NASA is a public agency beholden to public opinion.
    that's true ...the only problem is that (I fear) great part of the public opinon don't know (so far) that Hubble (after $6Bn of costs for its launch and servicing) will be soon burned in the atmosphere instead of SAVED (at a modest price) ...after all, I think that everyone can agree with me that Hubble is not like Mir
    .

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,332
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    that's true ...the only problem is that (I fear) great part of the public opinon don't know (so far) that Hubble (after $6Bn of costs for its launch and servicing) will be soon burned in the atmosphere instead of SAVED (at a modest price) ...after all, I think that everyone can agree with me that Hubble is not like Mir
    .
    YES!!!!!!

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    114
    Griffin said in response to a question posed during a hearing of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science Hubble could last until 2010 without shuttle visit
    But every month the mission is delayed, costs NASA $10 million to keep the servicing mission together,

    A report from the Government Accountability Office, citing NASA estimates, set the cost of the Hubble servicing mission at between $1.7 billion and $2.4 billion.
    So the real question comes for the what if Nasa waits and shuttle gets retire before a mission happens?
    Also waiting means the equipment that has been build will need to be tested before it goes up.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Doodler View Post
    rAmen.

    [pirate voice]Yarr! Be that a Pastafarian I spy there? [/pirate voice]

    ps. sorry, off topic I know.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,448
    Quote Originally Posted by Warren Platts View Post
    Gaetano is right. NASA is a public agency beholden to public opinion. If the Bureau of Land Management can't get anything done without having to deal with hundreds and hundreds of public comments, then why shouldn't NASA have to go through the same process?
    Render unto the salt of the Earth that which is Earth. Leave the techie stuff to the geeks. Besides, you open it up to a public circus, and you'll never hear the end of the "feed the hungry" morons.

    Quote Originally Posted by Warren Platts View Post
    Actually, I don't think NASA does in fact go through the same formal public input process that other agencies like the Forest Service or the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service have to go through.

    Correct me if I'm wrong.
    You're not wrong. NASA is overseen by people who actually know what they're talking about.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by SpaceNutNewmars View Post
    Griffin said in response to a question posed during a hearing of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science.
    despite I'm a clear supporter of saving Hubble, the LAST servicing mission make sense ONLY if (after the SM4) Hubble will be moved near the ISS to repair/upgrade/use it in the next 20+ years OR if it can be safely repaired/upgraded in its current position also after the Shuttle retirement

    but, if SM4 will be the LAST mission possible and Hubble will survive a mere 3 years more than expected to-day, I suggest to DELETE the SM4 and use the money saved for the ESAS plan (that has a lack of funds)

    two Shuttle, up to TEN astronauts that will seriously risk their life (since the Hubble is too away from ISS) and up to $2.4 billion spent to increase just 3 years the Hubble's life, seem TOO MUCH (in my opinion)

    however, please note that GAO confirms MY evaluation of the SM4 costs posted 2.5 months ago: http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=248

    .

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    .

    this is a good example of how to-day's and future new (sensors/computers/software/image-processing) technologies may improve very much the Hubble images quality: http://www.technologyreview.com/read...93&ch=infotech

    unfortunately, many new technologies are in a too early stage to be implemented in the 2008 mission's hardware ...but... if Hubble will be saved and moved near the ISS...

    .

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,547
    The perfect soundtrack for this thread...

    pic link
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    .this is a good example of how to-day's and future new (sensors/computers/software/image-processing) technologies may improve very much the Hubble images quality: http://www.technologyreview.com/read...93&ch=infotech
    .
    Although this is great for the average picture and view-person, this is not helpful in telescope technology.
    In a telescope technology, the camera captures 4megapixels(or whatever size) and stores or transmits them with no compression. At the very least, any compression is one that does not "throwing out most of those numbers." as the article says.
    If you throw out some of those numbers when capturing the image, you are throwing out some very important data to someone analyzing a scope picture. Although for somebody who just wants the picture for is beauty or casual viewing, it is sufficient.
    Last edited by NEOWatcher; 2007-Mar-15 at 01:38 PM. Reason: typo

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    Although this is great for the average picture and view-person, this is not helpful in telescope technology.
    research like this clearly shows that EVERY DAY the hardware/software technology give (and will give) us MUCH BETTER TOOLS ...then, just imagine how much better and advanced will the imaging technologies in 2015, 2020, etc. and which incredible results they can give us if applied to the (survived) Hubble!
    .

Similar Threads

  1. STS-125 Shuttle Mission: Hubble Servicing Mission 4
    By 01101001 in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 674
    Last Post: 2010-Jul-03, 11:25 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2008-Oct-31, 12:00 AM
  3. Hubble Servicing Mission a Go!
    By Kevn in forum Astronomy Cast
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2006-Dec-12, 04:35 PM
  4. Hubble Servicing Mission Canceled
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2005-Sep-11, 05:31 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •