Hubble to be abandoned
Michael Gallagher
Not good news; here's hoping Bush follows through with the replacement
telescope!
Scott Lowther
Simple answer: sell Hubble. Let whoever buys it sell the images/scope
time... and let *them* service it.
Hubble has been a hell of a success story. But it is rather old and
ailing; if NASA thinks the only way to service it is with
half-billion-dollar Shuttle missions, then perhaps owndership should go
to someone who could service it with, say, two Falcon V launches... one
with the parts, one with the Burt Rutan Spaceship 3 capsule for the
repair crew...
--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address
Matt Periolat
last forever, but it seems we're sacrificing something that can be of continued
use in the long term for a short-term gain. There is NO promise that CEV or
anything we need to get back to the Moon or to Mars will be ready in the near
term.
We can do better, guys. Let us not put all our eggs in this basket.
Scott Lowther
>
> Oh for... see, this is what I was afraid of. Granted, something like HST cannot
So, fly repair missions with something other than Shuttle.
Charles Buckley
> Michael Gallagher wrote:
>
>>http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/16/hubble.telescope.ap/index.html
>>
>>Not good news; here's hoping Bush follows through with the replacement
>>telescope!
>
>
> Simple answer: sell Hubble. Let whoever buys it sell the images/scope
> time... and let *them* service it.
>
> Hubble has been a hell of a success story. But it is rather old and
> ailing; if NASA thinks the only way to service it is with
> half-billion-dollar Shuttle missions, then perhaps owndership should go
> to someone who could service it with, say, two Falcon V launches... one
> with the parts, one with the Burt Rutan Spaceship 3 capsule for the
> repair crew...
>
You know, that's not a bad idea. NASA has already amortized out
most of it's costs associated with Hubble. Puts the onus on the
end user to maintain the system.
Scott Lowther
>
> Scott Lowther wrote:
> > Michael Gallagher wrote:
> >
> >>http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/16/hubble.telescope.ap/index.html
> >>
> >>Not good news; here's hoping Bush follows through with the replacement
> >>telescope!
> >
> >
> > Simple answer: sell Hubble. Let whoever buys it sell the images/scope
> > time... and let *them* service it.
> >
> > Hubble has been a hell of a success story. But it is rather old and
> > ailing; if NASA thinks the only way to service it is with
> > half-billion-dollar Shuttle missions, then perhaps owndership should go
> > to someone who could service it with, say, two Falcon V launches... one
> > with the parts, one with the Burt Rutan Spaceship 3 capsule for the
> > repair crew...
> >
>
> You know, that's not a bad idea.
[God] Of COURSE it's a good idea! [/God]
NASA has already amortized out
> most of it's costs associated with Hubble. Puts the onus on the
> end user to maintain the system.
Indeed. While I have been more than happy to download high-rez Hubble
images for free... I've also happily purchased Hubble image posters.
There is a market for scientific equipement and their products. Those
who want to use Hubble to look at, say, M-31 should be willing to pony
up the money to do so. If they can find a far cheaper way of doing so
than using the Shuttle, then more power to 'em. And it seems
unreasonable in the extreme to me that the *only* way to service the HST
is with a giant reusable payload shroud that costs a half-billion-plus
every time you pull the trigger on it. If you could get that servicing
mission down to twenty million dollars every five years, that's 4
million per year or about eleven grand per day. Get four hundred
thousand people (worldwide) to subscribe to the HST download service at,
say, ten dollars per year, then your servicing missions are paid for.
Charles Buckley
> Matt Periolat wrote:
>
>>Oh for... see, this is what I was afraid of. Granted, something like HST cannot
>>last forever, but it seems we're sacrificing something....
>
>
> So, fly repair missions with something other than Shuttle.
>
>
What? You mean like flying a Soyuz from Kourou? Timing looks
good for that. I think it would be able to make the Hubble orbit,
but I am guessing.
That looks pretty basic. Offer it to whoever can contract with
RSA for that. If they can do a salvo launch with an ATV, so much
the better.
Scott Lowther
>
> Scott Lowther wrote:
> > Matt Periolat wrote:
> >
> >>Oh for... see, this is what I was afraid of. Granted, something like HST cannot
> >>last forever, but it seems we're sacrificing something....
> >
> >
> > So, fly repair missions with something other than Shuttle.
> >
> >
>
> What? You mean like flying a Soyuz from Kourou?
Or D-IVs from Canaveral. Or Falcon V's from Texas. Or Pioneer
Trailblazers from Oklahoma.
It doesn't matter *how* the servicing is done or from where using what
launcher, just so's it's done economically. I mean, jeez. A Shuttle HST
mission costs $500M. Give $500M to a commercial concern, and they'll
probably be able to build and launch an entire HST-class scopesat for
that price.
Hallerb
>mission costs $500M. Give $500M to a commercial concern, and they'll
>probably be able to build and launch an entire HST-class
Just where does that prce keep coming from?
The last figures posted were shuttle cost about 4.5 BILLION per year for all
costs, and that was expected to rise to 5B after columbia for safety upgrades.
Now fly 4 missions per year thats 1.25 billion per flight.
no where near 500 million, what am I missing?
Beyond which whats it going to cost to build and launch the space tug to
deorbit hubble?
I think it would be better to fund one more service flight then decide hubbles
future after its replacement is up and working and the new manned launcher is
operational.
hack the new manned klauncher might make continued operations more affordabole.
we are about to see nasa gutted to fund a moon mars program that probably
wouldnt get off the ground.
If you ask me this is a cover to kill nasa:(
Charles Buckley
> Charles Buckley wrote:
>
>>Scott Lowther wrote:
>>
>>>Matt Periolat wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Oh for... see, this is what I was afraid of. Granted, something like HST cannot
>>>>last forever, but it seems we're sacrificing something....
>>>
>>>
>>>So, fly repair missions with something other than Shuttle.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>What? You mean like flying a Soyuz from Kourou?
>
>
> Or D-IVs from Canaveral. Or Falcon V's from Texas. Or Pioneer
> Trailblazers from Oklahoma.
>
> It doesn't matter *how* the servicing is done or from where using what
> launcher, just so's it's done economically. I mean, jeez. A Shuttle HST
> mission costs $500M. Give $500M to a commercial concern, and they'll
> probably be able to build and launch an entire HST-class scopesat for
> that price.
>
I was looking more at using existing hardware, for the most
point or items that are in the pipeline. The launch vehicles
are all developed for what I was describing. The new launch site
is already in development and is projected to be online
in 2007.
Consider is a baseline cost model and mission.
What would it really cost to use Soyuz to boost Hubble in
the 2008 timeframe? Can they service the gyro's with Soyuz,
or will it require an additional launch from another source?
Brian Thorn
>>I mean, jeez. A Shuttle HST
>>mission costs $500M. Give $500M to a commercial concern, and they'll
>>probably be able to build and launch an entire HST-class
>
>Just where does that prce keep coming from?
>
>The last figures posted were shuttle cost about 4.5 BILLION per year for all
>costs, and that was expected to rise to 5B after columbia for safety upgrades.
$4.5 billion is the Human Spaceflight budget, which includes the Space
Station costs, and that budget isn't going up anytime soon.
>Now fly 4 missions per year thats 1.25 billion per flight.
Then how did NASA fly 8 Shuttle missions in 1997 when they only had a
budget of $13 Billion? $3 Billion left for *everything else* NASA did
that year, including the outrageously expensive Space Station it was
building? I don't think so...
>If you ask me this is a cover to kill nasa:(
No one asked.
Brian
OM
<scottlowth...@ix.netcomARGH.com> wrote:
>Get four hundred thousand people (worldwide) to subscribe to the HST download service at,
>say, ten dollars per year, then your servicing missions are paid for.
...What's fucking ironic about this is that I read this while I'm
vampiring a clipart service website, snagging all their thumbnails and
small-sized samples, and along comes the first and only reason I'd
ever subscribe to an image service.
Not that it'll happen, mind you. It's too fucking logical...
OM
--
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
OM
<rijr...@frii.com> wrote:
>What would it really cost to use Soyuz to boost Hubble in
>the 2008 timeframe? Can they service the gyro's with Soyuz,
>or will it require an additional launch from another source?
...Here's a question: are the current Soyuz versions EVA-capable?
Henry Spencer
Scott Lowther <scottlowth...@ix.netcomARGH.com> wrote:
>It doesn't matter *how* the servicing is done or from where using what
>launcher, just so's it's done economically. I mean, jeez. A Shuttle HST
>mission costs $500M.
Remember that the shuttle cost is almost all fixed annual overhead. The
cost of *adding* one more flight to existing shuttle operations is nowhere
near $500M; last I heard, it was estimated at $50-100M, depending on how
much custom preparation is needed.
The Hubble-specific side of preparations, which isn't trivial, is the same
regardless. (If it can be streamlined with another vehicle, it can be
streamlined with the shuttle.) Except that lots of little bits of
existing support equipment and operations procedures are shuttle-specific,
and modifying or rebuilding them is an extra cost of using something else.
Pushing this off the shuttle and saying "use something else" is either
major false economy, or an attempt to kill the mission without actually
quite saying so. It actually doesn't cost that much to use the shuttle
for it; I doubt greatly that you can do it much more cheaply on something
else, all other things being equal.
The way I read it is that O'Keefe sees the safety argument as a great
excuse to head the astronomers off at the pass, firmly eliminating any
possibility that he will later be lobbied for extended Hubble operations,
more servicing flights, more improvements and extensions, etc. He might
have been inclined to go ahead with the one planned servicing flight...
but if he permits one visit, that ruins his silver-bullet argument that
reliably kills all later pleas for more money. So even that one flight
has got to go; the grief he'll take over canceling it will pay off in
avoiding later hassles.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | he...@spsystems.net
Scott Lowther
> Pushing this off the shuttle and saying "use something else" is either
> major false economy, or an attempt to kill the mission without actually
> quite saying so.
But then...
> The way I read it is that O'Keefe sees the safety argument as a great
> excuse to head the astronomers off at the pass,
Well, there ya go. If using the Shuttle for HST repair is an unsafe
thing to do, given how creaky the shuttle system is, then Use Something
Else.
Scott Lowther
The
> cost of *adding* one more flight to existing shuttle operations is nowhere
> near $500M; last I heard, it was estimated at $50-100M, depending on how
> much custom preparation is needed.
Keep in mind... this is *NASA* we're talkign about. They can take a $50M
mission and turn it into a billion dollars. That's what happens when you
have a government monopoly. Turn Hubble into a commercial concern, and
open up servicing to competition, and you're set.
> The Hubble-specific side of preparations, which isn't trivial, is the same
> regardless. (If it can be streamlined with another vehicle, it can be
> streamlined with the shuttle.)
If it could... would it? If somebody was watching pennies because their
bonus was absed on profit, then, yes. If not, then not.
Pat Flannery
Scott Lowther wrote:
>>Oh for... see, this is what I was afraid of. Granted, something like HST cannot
>>last forever, but it seems we're sacrificing something....
>>
>>
>
>So, fly repair missions with something other than Shuttle.
>
Okay.. what do you know that the Air Force has that _we_ don't know about?
Pat
Darren J Longhorn
wrote:
No, no, think Navy:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/spauiser.htm
;-)
Dave Michelson
>
> ...Here's a question: are the current Soyuz versions EVA-capable?
And can they even get up to Hubble's altitude?
IIRC, Hubble nominally orbits at 550+ km. Soyuz's ceiling is only 425 km,
which sets the maximum useful altitude for ISS.
--
Dave Michelson
da...@ece.ubc.ca
Chosp
"Michael Gallagher" <mike...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:100iq96...@corp.supernews.com...
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/16/hubble.telescope.ap/index.html
>
> Not good news; here's hoping Bush follows through with the replacement
> telescope!
There is no replacement telescope.
NGST (James Webb Telescope) will only improve
its vision in some of the infrared. It is an infrared
only instrument.
There is no replacement in visible light.
Most importantly there is no replacement in
the ultraviolet where earthbound telescopes
can't see at all.
They compliment each other. One does not
replace the other.
Charles Buckley
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 17:37:41 -0700, Charles Buckley
> <rijr...@frii.com> wrote:
>
>
>>What would it really cost to use Soyuz to boost Hubble in
>>the 2008 timeframe? Can they service the gyro's with Soyuz,
>>or will it require an additional launch from another source?
>
>
> ...Here's a question: are the current Soyuz versions EVA-capable?
>
> OM
>
Don't think so. But, this would be a known mod to the system.
They do have an airlock and if they use this in combination with
an ATV as a work platform, they might be able to manage something.
Charles Buckley
I am looking at using other platforms from the perspective of:
Shuttle isn't doing this. Is there anything else?
NASA is going to follow all the parts of the CAIB that they agree
with. After all the flack they have taken to date over following
procedures and best practice, cancelling Hubble is a good easy
way for them to show they are following as many of the recommendations
from the CAIB as possible. By spending nothing and freeing up the
incremental costs of another flight, they meet all the recommendations
about having an independant inspection and repair capbility for all
flights not going to ISS. Since this is the only one slated, all they
have to do is not fly it and comply with CAIB without spending anything.
Brian Thorn
I don't see this as feasible. Shuttle can support up to six spacewalks
per mission (not including contingency EVAs) and has historically
needed at least five to service Hubble. Soyuz will never have anything
close to that capability.
And where would nthey carry replacement instruments, gyros, batteries,
and other things Hubble needs?
Brian
Brian Thorn
wrote:
>The way I read it is that O'Keefe sees the safety argument as a great
>excuse to head the astronomers off at the pass, firmly eliminating any
>possibility that he will later be lobbied for extended Hubble operations,
>more servicing flights, more improvements and extensions, etc. He might
>have been inclined to go ahead with the one planned servicing flight...
>but if he permits one visit, that ruins his silver-bullet argument that
>reliably kills all later pleas for more money. So even that one flight
>has got to go; the grief he'll take over canceling it will pay off in
>avoiding later hassles.
Another possibility is that O'Keefe *wants* to fly two more missions
to Hubble, but knows that independent repair capability is not
feasible for the RCC.
Now, Congress and the President will have to say "don't even think of
abandoning Hubble -- our crown jewel -- we'll let you waive the RCC
repair capability, but only for Hubble."
O'Keefe wins either way.
Brian
Andrew Gray
>
> I don't see this as feasible. Shuttle can support up to six spacewalks
> per mission (not including contingency EVAs) and has historically
> needed at least five to service Hubble. Soyuz will never have anything
> close to that capability.
One HST mission involved planning for seven (!) spacewalks, and will
presumably have had consumables for eight (the door-close contingency)
That's pushing close to the on-orbit lifetime of a Soyuz in and of
itself, not counting anything else...
--
-Andrew Gray
shim...@bigfoot.com
Scott Lowther
>
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 02:32:35 -0600, Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Scott Lowther wrote:
> >
> >>>Oh for... see, this is what I was afraid of. Granted, something like HST cannot
> >>>last forever, but it seems we're sacrificing something....
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>So, fly repair missions with something other than Shuttle.
> >>
> >
> >Okay.. what do you know that the Air Force has that _we_ don't know about?
Wouldn't YOU like to know...
> No, no, think Navy:
> http://www.astronautix.com/craft/spauiser.htm
About that... I've got the layout drawings, and started cobbling
together a 1/18 scale model. Anybody interested?
Michael Gallagher
Periolat) wrote:
> .....There is NO promise that CEV or
>anything we need to get back to the Moon or to Mars will be ready in the near
>term.
Given that it was publicly proposed on Wednesday, probably not. We
will see how it goes when development begins.
Darren J Longhorn
<scottlowth...@ix.netcomARGH.com> wrote:
>Darren J Longhorn wrote:
>>
>> No, no, think Navy:
>> http://www.astronautix.com/craft/spauiser.htm
>
>About that... I've got the layout drawings, and started cobbling
>together a 1/18 scale model. Anybody interested?
Absolutely. I'm still working on my flying model. My current plan is
approximately 1/7.5 scale, though I've been considering boosting the
scale to 1/6 so I can include a pilot. Want to share anymore of the
material you have?
Incidentally, I recently got a drawing from Hamilton Sundstrand that's
similar to the low-res one you were good enough send me a while back.
You probably already have it, but if not you're welcome to a copy.
Jorge R. Frank
news:vxtOb.154295$JQ1.7310@pd7tw1no:
> OM wrote:
>>
>> ...Here's a question: are the current Soyuz versions EVA-capable?
>
> And can they even get up to Hubble's altitude?
>
> IIRC, Hubble nominally orbits at 550+ km. Soyuz's ceiling is only 425
> km, which sets the maximum useful altitude for ISS.
Inclination is a bigger barrier, but point well-taken.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Charles Buckley
That is why I mentioned ATV. It is a pressurized cargo carrier
that would provide all of the missing components you mentioned.
Charles Buckley
> Dave Michelson <da...@ece.ubc.ca> wrote in
> news:vxtOb.154295$JQ1.7310@pd7tw1no:
>
>
>>OM wrote:
>>
>>>...Here's a question: are the current Soyuz versions EVA-capable?
>>
>>And can they even get up to Hubble's altitude?
>>
>>IIRC, Hubble nominally orbits at 550+ km. Soyuz's ceiling is only 425
>>km, which sets the maximum useful altitude for ISS.
>
>
> Inclination is a bigger barrier, but point well-taken.
>
If they launch Soyuz from Kourou, it'll be only about 18 degrees
of inclination change and they also get the equitorial kick.
Jorge R. Frank
news:400ad1dc$0$70301$7586...@news.frii.net:
There are no plans currently for the Soyuz pad at Kourou to support manned
launches.
Jorge R. Frank
HST has no accommodations (docking mechanism, ATV retroreflectors, GPS) for
an ATV docking.
OM
wrote:
>There are no plans currently for the Soyuz pad at Kourou to support manned
>launches.
...Which brings up the next question: Just what exactly separates an
unmanned site from a manned-capable one? On-site toilets instead of
port-a-lets?
Brian Thorn
I doubt very much that you'd be able to squeeze WF/PC-3 or the Gyros
through the hatch of an ATV (which is the smaller Soyuz/Mir style
hatch, not the big US CBM hatch) and I'm certain the phone-booth sized
axial bay instruments won't fit through one. You'd need an
unpressurized carrier, and that's diverting quite a bit from a stock
ATV, nevermind and off-the-shelf Soyuz.
And how would you dock this thing to Hubble?
Brian
Brian Thorn
<om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research_facility.org>
wrote:
>...Which brings up the next question: Just what exactly separates an
>unmanned site from a manned-capable one? On-site toilets instead of
>port-a-lets?
We'll find out when CEV gets rolling.
Brian
Jorge R. Frank
wrote in news:68ml00pel1tev2nk3...@4ax.com:
> On 18 Jan 2004 19:02:59 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg>
> wrote:
>
>>There are no plans currently for the Soyuz pad at Kourou to support
>>manned launches.
>
> ...Which brings up the next question: Just what exactly separates an
> unmanned site from a manned-capable one? On-site toilets instead of
> port-a-lets?
As background, a lot of the confusion stems from the fact that the Soyuz
rocket and the Soyuz spacecraft share a name. The Kourou facility is for
the rocket. It has no handling facilities for the Soyuz spacecraft, most
importantly hypergolic loading. And as far as I know, there are no
provisions for crew ingress/egress on the pad.
Charles Buckley
That's the messy part. The only way I am seeing to start with
would be external assembly on the ATV to mount a robotic arm and
docking ring. Have the Soyuz in place in advance with GPS and
have it as the primary vehicle for the Soyuz/ATV meeting. Then,
not really dock the ATV so much as do a capture on Hubble with
the arm. I think the longeron trunnions are still on the Hubble
to provide additional mount points.
If worse comes to worse, you do the one flight to resupply the
core manuevering equipment and volatiles, then come back later.
At what point will it lose it ability to maintain orbit or
basic stability? My understanding is that the 2-gyro issue
everyone is speaking about is for the precision guidance of the
system, not the control of the overall system. If you can
keep the Hubble from tumbling and have sone degree of control, then
the possibility is open for return trips.
I'd look in the first flight to add the pieces to make later
flights possible. If it needs a GPS reciever, is there any
reason why one could not be brought up? While the initial docking
looks to be very tricky, the possibility of adding in a docking ring
based off the mount points used for the original launch is there.
Consequent flights would have a much easier time of it.
But, Jorge has pointed out the manned Soyuz issue in Kourou.
Such is life.
All I know is that shuttle is not going to go to Hubble. I don't
particularly *care* one way or another, but this looks to be an
interesting puzzle.
Matt Periolat
>anything we need to get back to the Moon or to Mars will be ready in the near
>term.
Given that it was publicly proposed on Wednesday, probably not. We
will see how it goes when development begins.
>><BR><BR>
And therein lies the pathetic part: we're not even in DEVELOPMENT of CEV. And
apparently the shuttle will be done in 2010. I'm worried we're headed into a
similar situation we had at the end of Apollo: retiring existing hardware when
the next thing in line could be years off.
Granted, the shuttle needs to go. But we should have been better prepared for
this eventuality.
But back to topic: the loss of Hubble. It still bothers me that, again,
existing PROVEN hardware being scrapped for something else that isn't even a
blip on the radar. Screams "mistake" to me. But hey, I just live in the asylum,
I don't run it.
Oh and trust me, Bush will be using a similar excuse when Congress kills his
Space plan. The inventor of the bomb doesn't drop it.
*sighs* It just frustrates me to no end that it's come to this.
Jon Berndt
> And therein lies the pathetic part: we're not even in DEVELOPMENT of CEV.
And
> apparently the shuttle will be done in 2010. I'm worried we're headed into
a
> similar situation we had at the end of Apollo: retiring existing hardware
when
> the next thing in line could be years off.
>
> Granted, the shuttle needs to go. But we should have been better prepared
for
> this eventuality.
Yes, but there is this (at least):
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp?id=news/con01164.xml
Jon
Brian Thorn
<rijr...@frii.com> wrote:
>All I know is that shuttle is not going to go to Hubble.
I'm not ready to write-off Hubble yet. This might be an O'Keefe ploy
to get the RCC on-orbit repair requirement relaxed or waived.
Brian
Tom Abbott
<mike...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/16/hubble.telescope.ap/index.html
>
>Not good news; here's hoping Bush follows through with the replacement
>telescope!
>
>
>
How about planning a shuttle mission to Hubble, with a
Soyuz or two standing by for rescue if the shuttle is
damaged during launch?
TA
Charles Buckley
Got the answer to that when I mentioned a Soyuz mission to
Hubble. The only facilities where manned soyuz vehicles can
be launched from can't reach Hubble's inclination. The only
facility being built in the next few years does not handle
manned soyuz..
Jorge R. Frank
> Tom Abbott wrote:
>>
>> How about planning a shuttle mission to Hubble, with a
>> Soyuz or two standing by for rescue if the shuttle is
>> damaged during launch?
>
> Got the answer to that when I mentioned a Soyuz mission to
> Hubble. The only facilities where manned soyuz vehicles can
> be launched from can't reach Hubble's inclination. The only
> facility being built in the next few years does not handle
> manned soyuz..
Someone on s.s.shuttle told me there were plans for manned Soyuz flights
from Kourou, but I've seen no independent verification of this.
The bigger problem with Tom's plan is that it would take 4 Soyuzes to
rescue a 7-member shuttle crew (and with all the EVAs that will be required
for the next HST servicing mission, it *will* take 7). There's also the
small matter of how the shuttle crew will ingress the Soyuz, since the
current Soyuz variations do not appear to have EVA capability.
Jorge R. Frank
news:Xns9474BEC7...@204.52.135.40:
> There's also the small matter of how the shuttle crew will ingress the
> Soyuz, since the current Soyuz variations do not appear to have EVA
> capability.
I take this part back; the three remaining shuttles are equipped with the
Orbiter Docking System, and the four Soyuz craft could be equipped with
APAS for compatibility.
Pat Flannery
Scott Lowther wrote:
>About that... I've got the layout drawings, and started cobbling
>together a 1/18 scale model. Anybody interested?
>
Where you going to get a 1/18 scale pilot? Something from a RC aircraft
supplier? I'd still like to know how they were going to explain to the
submarine crew what this guy in a space suit was doing on board.... as
one gets the impression that this whole thing was supposed to be done on
the sly.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Darren J Longhorn wrote:
>Absolutely. I'm still working on my flying model. My current plan is
>approximately 1/7.5 scale, though I've been considering boosting the
>scale to 1/6 so I can include a pilot. Want to share anymore of the
>material you have?
>
These should help: http://petespilots.mysite.freeserve.com/
...as they are designed for us with RC aircraft, they are light in
weight also- a benefit to model rocket design.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
>>IIRC, Hubble nominally orbits at 550+ km. Soyuz's ceiling is only 425
>>km, which sets the maximum useful altitude for ISS.
>>
>>
>
>Inclination is a bigger barrier, but point well-taken.
>
Then there is the problem of how to attach the Soyuz to the HST while
work goes on. We would be in the reverse situation from the Shuttle HST
missions...the repair ship would be far smaller than the Hubble.
Pat
Scott Lowther
>
> Scott Lowther wrote:
>
> >About that... I've got the layout drawings, and started cobbling
> >together a 1/18 scale model. Anybody interested?
> >
>
> Where you going to get a 1/18 scale pilot?
I'll probably wind up converting a 1/18 scale figure from 21st Century
Toys or BBL.
Pat Flannery
Brian Thorn wrote:
>And how would you dock this thing to Hubble?
>
You would have to mount some sort of compatible gear on the nose of the
Soyuz, that could lock on the aft end of the Hubble like the Shuttle
can...or rendezvous and spacewalk over to it... in the first case, this
is going to screw up how the Soyuz attaches to its escape rocket: in the
second, getting the tools and gear to the Hubble is a real problem...but
the whole thing is a non-starter anyway, as the Soyuz just isn't up to a
mission like this with both it's multiple spacewalks and equipment
weight and size requirments....but around the time Hubble gets ready to
reenter, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a unmanned Progress get
docked to it at the aft end, to makes sure it comes down over the ocean.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
>OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research_facility.org>
>wrote in news:68ml00pel1tev2nk3...@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>>On 18 Jan 2004 19:02:59 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>There are no plans currently for the Soyuz pad at Kourou to support
>>>manned launches.
>>>
>>>
>>...Which brings up the next question: Just what exactly separates an
>>unmanned site from a manned-capable one? On-site toilets instead of
>>port-a-lets?
>>
>>
>
>As background, a lot of the confusion stems from the fact that the Soyuz
>rocket and the Soyuz spacecraft share a name. The Kourou facility is for
>the rocket. It has no handling facilities for the Soyuz spacecraft, most
>importantly hypergolic loading.
>
I think that gets done at the assembly hall, not on the pad... and the
upper Fregat stage that goes on the Soyuz rocket in its comsat form use
hypergolics.
Pat
Jorge R. Frank
news:100mir3...@corp.supernews.com:
> Jorge R. Frank wrote:
>
>>OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research_facility.org>
>>wrote in news:68ml00pel1tev2nk3...@4ax.com:
>>
>>>...Which brings up the next question: Just what exactly separates an
>>>unmanned site from a manned-capable one? On-site toilets instead of
>>>port-a-lets?
>>
>>As background, a lot of the confusion stems from the fact that the Soyuz
>>rocket and the Soyuz spacecraft share a name. The Kourou facility is for
>>the rocket. It has no handling facilities for the Soyuz spacecraft, most
>>importantly hypergolic loading.
>
> I think that gets done at the assembly hall, not on the pad...
That's why I said "facility", not just "pad."
> and the
> upper Fregat stage that goes on the Soyuz rocket in its comsat form use
> hypergolics.
Thanks for the clarification. That still leaves the loading of the hydrogen
peroxide monopropellant in the Soyuz descent stage to account for.
Pat Flannery
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
>I take this part back; the three remaining shuttles are equipped with the
>Orbiter Docking System, and the four Soyuz craft could be equipped with
>APAS for compatibility.
>
Would those be within their weight limits? And there is still the
problem of altitude and orbital inclination. How about sticking three or
four Soyuz RVs in the cargo bay, and if the gets damaged, EVA to the
Soyuz RVs, fire the OMS pods by remote control for reentry deceleration
with the cargo bay doors open and then separate the RVs? But at some
point this becomes more trouble than it's worth.
I'm still waiting to see who gets to see the giant shiny glass frisbee
go by when the HST reenters.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Scott Lowther wrote:
>I'll probably wind up converting a 1/18 scale figure from 21st Century
>Toys or BBL.
>
This is a job for MAJOR MATT MASON!
http://www.fullyarticulated.com/MATTPAGE.html
Pat
Jorge R. Frank
> Jorge R. Frank wrote:
>
>>I take this part back; the three remaining shuttles are equipped with
>>the Orbiter Docking System, and the four Soyuz craft could be equipped
>>with APAS for compatibility.
>>
>
> Would those be within their weight limits?
I'm not sure what you're referring to; "those" could be either ODS or APAS;
"their" could be either shuttle or Soyuz. If the former, STS-103 carried an
ODS as the shuttle airlock for HST SM-03A. If the latter, Soyuz TM-16
carried an APAS mechanism at Mir in 1993.
> And there is still the
> problem of altitude and orbital inclination.
Agreed there.
> How about sticking three
> or four Soyuz RVs in the cargo bay, and if the gets damaged, EVA to
> the Soyuz RVs, fire the OMS pods by remote control for reentry
> deceleration with the cargo bay doors open and then separate the RVs?
> But at some point this becomes more trouble than it's worth.
Yeah, the schemes are beginning to sound pretty Rube Goldberg-ish.
> I'm still waiting to see who gets to see the giant shiny glass frisbee
> go by when the HST reenters.
Hopefully it won't come to that, unless you're on a chartered cruise in the
South Pacific.
Pat Flannery
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
>Thanks for the clarification. That still leaves the loading of the hydrogen
>peroxide monopropellant in the Soyuz descent stage to account for.
>
That shouldn't be too difficult compared to the other two, though-
according to this, the fueling gets done around ten days prior to
launch; and before it's integrated to the rocket booster:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/iss_soyuztma3.html
Pat
Jorge R. Frank
And it's the event that starts the clock ticking on the Soyuz operational
lifetime, so best to do it in Guiana, rather than in Russia...
Scott Hedrick
"Scott Lowther" <scottlowth...@ix.netcomARGH.com> wrote in message
news:400A2E...@ix.netcomARGH.com...
> If using the Shuttle for HST repair is an unsafe
> thing to do, given how creaky the shuttle system is, then Use Something
> Else.
WHile I agree with this, that wasn't Henry's point. Folks are talking about
*money*, and as Henry shows, it's highly unlikely that Using Something Else
will result in savings.
Scott Hedrick
"Hallerb" <hal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040117193037...@mb-m03.aol.com...
> what am I missing?
Your answer to my question. Duh!
Pat Flannery
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I take this part back; the three remaining shuttles are equipped with
>>>the Orbiter Docking System, and the four Soyuz craft could be equipped
>>>with APAS for compatibility.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Would those be within their weight limits?
>>
I was thinking APAS/Soyuz.
>
>I'm not sure what you're referring to; "those" could be either ODS or APAS;
>"their" could be either shuttle or Soyuz. If the former, STS-103 carried an
>ODS as the shuttle airlock for HST SM-03A. If the latter, Soyuz TM-16
>carried an APAS mechanism at Mir in 1993.
>
That solves that then. Is there any air pressure compatibility problem
between Shuttle/Soyuz?
>>How about sticking three
>>or four Soyuz RVs in the cargo bay, and if the gets damaged, EVA to
>>the Soyuz RVs, fire the OMS pods by remote control for reentry
>>deceleration with the cargo bay doors open and then separate the RVs?
>>But at some point this becomes more trouble than it's worth.
>>
>>
>
>Yeah, the schemes are beginning to sound pretty Rube Goldberg-ish.
>
Four Soyuz TM modules would weigh around 12,000 kg, which cuts
significantly into the Shuttle's payload size- but it does give it a
escape system usable on-orbit. You can do it with three if you can
figure out a way to get the crew to the RVs without bulky EVA suits
Cut the Shuttle crew to a max of six, and you can get by with two with
the above proviso... and at that point, it seems almost reasonable to
give the Shuttle this ability.
I think it would be worth the risk of flying a "one off" HST upgrade
mission with the Shuttle as is; but am concerned that this would set a
unfortunate precedent in regards to Shuttle flights, as the "we got away
with it once...therefore we can do this all the time" type of mentality
that both the Challenger and Columbia loss investigations found was a
problem at NASA might reassert itself.
Pat
Jorge R. Frank
> Jorge R. Frank wrote:
>
>>>>I take this part back; the three remaining shuttles are equipped
>>>>with the Orbiter Docking System, and the four Soyuz craft could be
>>>>equipped with APAS for compatibility.
>>>>
>>>Would those be within their weight limits?
>>>
> I was thinking APAS/Soyuz.
>
>>I'm not sure what you're referring to; "those" could be either ODS or
>>APAS; "their" could be either shuttle or Soyuz. If the former, STS-103
>>carried an ODS as the shuttle airlock for HST SM-03A. If the latter,
>>Soyuz TM-16 carried an APAS mechanism at Mir in 1993.
>>
> That solves that then. Is there any air pressure compatibility
> problem between Shuttle/Soyuz?
No problem; both are 14.7 psia. Both have been docked to Mir/ISS simo with
hatches open.
Pat Flannery
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
>And it's the event that starts the clock ticking on the Soyuz operational
>lifetime, so best to do it in Guiana, rather than in Russia...
>
Wait a second...we both forgot something (at least I did)- the
RD-107/108 motors of the booster use hydrogen peroxide to drive their
turbopumps- which means that this fueling capability also exists at the
space center in Guiana.
Pat
OM
wrote:
>This is a job for MAJOR MATT MASON!
>http://www.fullyarticulated.com/MATTPAGE.html
...God, I hate seeing pages like this. I had most of the MMM
collection when I was a kid, and bought my first MMM the day it hit
the dime store (*) next to my Pop's cafeteria. I got two more and
created my own "Sgt. Storm" before the Sarge got drafted with the help
of a big red Marks-A-Lot. I picked up most of the accessory packs
except for the "survival shelter" (which never did show up at the
store) and the "space sled" because it came with the figures anyway.
That Chrisnukkah, under the tree from various family friends were
presents that the "kid genius space nut". Since those families didn't
interact with one another, they had no way of knowing that all five of
them were buying the same Super Colossal All-Toys-In-One-Big-Box
Collector's Set.
So, on that fateful morning of Christmas Day 1966, I constructed a
Space Station as tall as the tree, with five Space Crawlers underneath
it. Somehow, the pictures of that feat disappeared to the ages...
...I picked up some of the other expansions after that, although I
never did buy the Captain Lazer oddity. The black figure never did
show up on the shelves down here in Texas, and the power lifter and
XRV-1 glider also somehow missed getting down here. I also added two
more stations when my Mom found them at a garage sale, although they
were missing several parts, natch. In the end I wound up with 11 MMM
figures, 2 actual Sgt. Storm figures, one Callisto, one Scorpio, and
one Doug Davis with both arms broken. Add to that essentially 12
stations, five crawlers, 8 jetpacks and space sleds, 8 CAT tracks,
five satellite launchers, five probe launchers, two reconojets, one
astrotrack convoy set, two star searchers, and a firebolt space cannon
that never did fire those "poke yer eye out" bolts worth a fuck.
There's a few others I've forgotten - some squirt gun accessory and
something called a "gamma ray guard", among others - but for your
average kid circa 1966-1969, that was an excessive amount of toys from
the same toy line in that day. Come the arrival of the GI Joe 3.5"
"Delta Force" relaunch/reimaging in the 80's, not having 20 or more
figures would be considered a sign that your parents were poor :-P
...As I grew older, I stupidly outgrew those MMM toys and tossed them
in a big box to collect dust in the garage. When I hit Junior High, I
sold all those toys to a local collector and bought my first CB Radio,
base antenna, and 50-watt linear amplifier. In retrospect, I probably
got the short end of that stick, even if the antenna was a 3/4 wave
:-(
...If anyone at Mattel had a clue, they'd jump on this new NASA
initiative like white on rice and do a new MMM line. Something more
updated, in the 4" poseable size, using those NASA concepts as a prime
source, and even including the Russian and Chinese designs as well.
But again, it would require the Mattel higher-ups having a clue.
(*) Yes, kids, there were things called "Dime Stores" back then, which
was a term that was shortened due to inflation from "Five & Dime",
which referred to the concept that everything in the store cost either
a nickel or a dime. Nowadays they're called "99-cent Stores".
OM
--
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
OM
wrote:
>Brian Thorn wrote:
>
>>And how would you dock this thing to Hubble?
>
>You would have to mount some sort of compatible gear on the nose of the
>Soyuz
...And here I was thinking just lassoing the damn thing, which would
require that the Cosmonauts go through rodeo training.
Dave Michelson
>
> So, on that fateful morning of Christmas Day 1966, I constructed a Space
> Station as tall as the tree, with five Space Crawlers underneath it.
Naturally (I hope), you explained to your assembled relatives that in practice
such a feat would be simple given the moon's lower gravity, then backed up the
assertion with some BoTE engineering calculations :-)
> ...If anyone at Mattel had a clue, they'd jump on this new NASA initiative
> like white on rice and do a new MMM line. Something more updated, in the 4"
> poseable size, using those NASA concepts as a prime source, and even
> including the Russian and Chinese designs as well.
After seeing a JFK "GI Joe" in the stores this Christmas (complete with
hollowed out coconut!), it became very obvious to me that toy manufacturers
pitch their products at parents, aunts, uncles, etc. as much as to the kids!
--
Dave Michelson
da...@ece.ubc.ca
Pat Flannery
OM wrote:
>...God, I hate seeing pages like this. I had most of the MMM
>collection when I was a kid, and bought my first MMM the day it hit
>the dime store
>
I had about 1 of each of the gizmos you mention; a couple of days ago I
was out at Walmart and saw the toy I really want- the radio control
1/6th scale Stuart tank! But I settled for a diecast 1/64th scale
1930's Batman's Batgyro due to budget concerns.
Pat
Brian Thorn
<om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research_facility.org>
wrote:
>>You would have to mount some sort of compatible gear on the nose of the
>>Soyuz
>
>...And here I was thinking just lassoing the damn thing, which would
>require that the Cosmonauts go through rodeo training.
If you see the cosmonaut on ISS start practicing zero-g lassoing,
you'll know something's up...
Brian
cyrille vanlerberghe
cyrille vanlerberghe
>
>
> There are no plans currently for the Soyuz pad at Kourou to support manned
> launches.
I'm not sure we'll ever see a Soyuz launched from Kourou (The final
decision is blocked by some ESA member states), but in any case, the
Soyuz launch pad studies done by ESA do take in account the possibility
of launching manned flights from French Guyana. There are some
difficulties, such as pad safety standards being very different in
Kourou compared to Baikonur or Plesetsk, but it's being done. There
isn't much publicity made about it because ESA is very shy when talking
about manned spaceflight in general.
Cyrille
Darren J Longhorn
wrote:
>
>
Actually, I was thinking of using the Revell Gemini astronaut. Or the
one that comes with the MMU, I think it's the same astronaut. Although
floating, it's pretty close to seated.
Matt Periolat
for
> this eventuality.
Yes, but there is this (at least):
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp?id=
news/con01164.xml
>><BR><BR>
Well, that's something at least. But one wonders if this Space Plane tech can
be force fitted into the CEV. And again, will the money be there to get this
thing done?
I still wish something could be done to save HST, but I guess that it's
destined to be my generation's Skylab. Look out, Sydney, we got another bomb
from the sky headed your way!
Pat Flannery
Darren J Longhorn wrote:
>Actually, I was thinking of using the Revell Gemini astronaut. Or the
>one that comes with the MMU, I think it's the same astronaut. Although
>floating, it's pretty close to seated.
>
Those are two different kits...and sizes- the MMU one is smaller. It was
also done by Aurora originally.
http://www.culttvman.com/bruce_bishop_s_astronaut.html
Given the time frame and mission of the vehicle, I would think that the
pilot might have worn one of those orange U-2/SR-71/Shuttle suits:
http://www.ninfinger.org/~sven/models/suits/suit72.html
Pat
Bruce Sterling Woodcock
"Brian Thorn" <btho...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:pofl00d5g0frek0q2...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 05:24:43 GMT, he...@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer)
> wrote:
>
> >The way I read it is that O'Keefe sees the safety argument as a great
> >excuse to head the astronomers off at the pass, firmly eliminating any
> >possibility that he will later be lobbied for extended Hubble operations,
> >more servicing flights, more improvements and extensions, etc. He might
> >have been inclined to go ahead with the one planned servicing flight...
> >but if he permits one visit, that ruins his silver-bullet argument that
> >reliably kills all later pleas for more money. So even that one flight
> >has got to go; the grief he'll take over canceling it will pay off in
> >avoiding later hassles.
>
> Another possibility is that O'Keefe *wants* to fly two more missions
> to Hubble, but knows that independent repair capability is not
> feasible for the RCC.
>
> Now, Congress and the President will have to say "don't even think of
> abandoning Hubble -- our crown jewel -- we'll let you waive the RCC
> repair capability, but only for Hubble."
>
> O'Keefe wins either way.
Unless Endeavour comes back from Hubble servicing and
disintegrates, costing us 7 more crew, another shuttle, more
months of delays...
Bruce
Charles Buckley
> "Jorge R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in
> news:Xns9474BEC7...@204.52.135.40:
>
>
>>There's also the small matter of how the shuttle crew will ingress the
>>Soyuz, since the current Soyuz variations do not appear to have EVA
>>capability.
>
> I take this part back; the three remaining shuttles are equipped with the
> Orbiter Docking System, and the four Soyuz craft could be equipped with
> APAS for compatibility.
>
>
As an aside away from the Hubble question entirely...
I am not that familiar with the ATV and it's docking
capability, but I am curious to know what sort of system
could be made between ATV and Soyuz.
Basically, I am curious as to whether the combination of these
could be used as the core of a man tended short duration space
station.
Jorge R. Frank
news:400d30b6$0$70308$7586...@news.frii.net:
> I am not that familiar with the ATV and it's docking
> capability, but I am curious to know what sort of system
> could be made between ATV and Soyuz.
>
> Basically, I am curious as to whether the combination of these
> could be used as the core of a man tended short duration space
> station.
Basically, swap out the active docking probe on ATV for a passive drogue,
and swap the active Kurs system for a passive one. Then a Soyuz could dock
to the front. The ATV would lose the capability to actively rendezvous/dock
with ISS, however.
(Actually, I think only the first - or first few - ATVs are slated to carry
Kurs at all; it's being used as a backup/validation for ESA's homegrown
rendezvous/docking sensors.)
Michael Gallagher
Periolat) wrote:
> ..... I'm worried we're headed into a
>similar situation we had at the end of Apollo: retiring existing hardware when
>the next thing in line could be years off.
>
Yes, that bothers me two, even with the guaruntees of rides on the
Soyuz.
And if the CEV/Booster we get harkins back to the Apollo/Saturn 1B,
then what was the point of the shuttle program?
> ...... It still bothers me that, again,
>existing PROVEN hardware being scrapped for something else that isn't even a
>blip on the radar. Screams "mistake" to me. But hey, I just live in the asylum,
>I don't run it.
>
From what I have read, there was only going to be one more servicing
mission up to Hubble anyway. And the new observatory will be too far
from Earth to be conveniently serviced. At least that's the plan.
Then again, since the CEV will be designed to go farther than the
shuttle orbiter, maybe it could be used to service things in
geosynchronis orbits and at LaGrange points in addition to other
missions?
A thought.
>Oh and trust me, Bush will be using a similar excuse when Congress kills his
>Space plan. The inventor of the bomb doesn't drop it.
>
On the plus side, the Congressional reaction to Bush's plan doesn't
sound as negative the reaction to his father's proposal, when Ted
Kennedy called his own press conference and coined the phrase "No free
launch!" almost immediately. Plus, IIRC, Congress was put off not
just by the budget but by the 90 Day Study calling for more shuttles,
more this, more that; that's what lead to the synthesis group. Bush
seems to be laying out more 'down to Earth steps' -- unmanned probes,
develop a new vehicle, and so forth. So the outlook may be a LITTLE
brighter for it.
>*sighs* It just frustrates me to no end that it's come to this.
Welcome to a democracy.
Michael Gallagher
<j...@at.hal-pc-dot.org> wrote:
>Yes, but there is this (at least):
>
>http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp?id=news/con01164.xml
>
Thanks.
Interesting that there's now a new office of Exploration systems.
OTOH, why the six year gap between the CEV's first demonstration
flight and its first manned flight!? That's bothersome. A program
delay leaves us without our own manned vehicle for a LONG time!
Andrew Gray
>
> I am not that familiar with the ATV and it's docking
> capability, but I am curious to know what sort of system
> could be made between ATV and Soyuz.
>
> Basically, I am curious as to whether the combination of these
> could be used as the core of a man tended short duration space
> station.
An ESA Salyut, as it were? It's an interesting thought; not sure how
well Soyuz can "hibernate", or ATV function, without using station
resources, though, and there might be power-supply issues. The hull
would work well, though, and no doubt putting an ECLSS together for a
couple of weeks wouldn't be a mission-killer...
ATV has much less living space, though; 14m^3 habitable volume - about
half again as much as a Soyuz. More than enough consumables, mind you
:-)
So, hmm. Soyuz-TMA, fourteen-day planned life; this would give you ten
days, reliably, in your mini-station; leaves a safety margin either
side. Interesting concept...
--
-Andrew Gray
shim...@bigfoot.com
Darren J Longhorn
wrote:
>
>
>Darren J Longhorn wrote:
>
>>Actually, I was thinking of using the Revell Gemini astronaut. Or the
>>one that comes with the MMU, I think it's the same astronaut. Although
>>floating, it's pretty close to seated.
>>
>
>Those are two different kits...and sizes- the MMU one is smaller. It was
>also done by Aurora originally.
>http://www.culttvman.com/bruce_bishop_s_astronaut.html
Sorry Pat, I didn't explain myself very well. I was talking about the
Revell _Shuttle_ MMU kit which, although it's the shuttle MMU,
actually has the Gemini astronaut!
http://www.airspacemodels.com/mmu.htm
>Given the time frame and mission of the vehicle, I would think that the
>pilot might have worn one of those orange U-2/SR-71/Shuttle suits:
>http://www.ninfinger.org/~sven/models/suits/suit72.html
I like that idea.
Charles Buckley
Was not really thinking of it being manned the whole time. Look
at SpaceHab. Those guys made a certain amount of revenue from flying
experiments for roughly that same period of time. On a lot of
experiments, the astronauts would just push a single button and their
role could have been handled by computer. Conceivably, they could
just launch to recover experiment results. Remove one of the seats
in the Soyuz and use that slot for recovery pallet.
Not sure if it would be economical though. They would have to go
over $300 million just to cover their launch costs. Commercially,
it is a bit of a wash, but it is the quickest way they could revive the
Free Flyer concept.
Pat Flannery
Darren J Longhorn wrote:
>Sorry Pat, I didn't explain myself very well. I was talking about the
>Revell _Shuttle_ MMU kit which, although it's the shuttle MMU,
>actually has the Gemini astronaut!
>http://www.airspacemodels.com/mmu.htm
>
I had forgotten about that little disaster area.
>
>
>
>>Given the time frame and mission of the vehicle, I would think that the
>>pilot might have worn one of those orange U-2/SR-71/Shuttle suits:
>>http://www.ninfinger.org/~sven/models/suits/suit72.html
>>
>>
>
>I like that idea.
>
Go Joe!
http://www.mastercollector.com/neat/gijoe/hasbro/shuttle.html
Pat
Darren J Longhorn
wrote:
<snip>
>Go Joe!
>
> http://www.mastercollector.com/neat/gijoe/hasbro/shuttle.html
>
I'd never get to use that, the kids would nab it first.
Brian Thorn
<sirb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> Now, Congress and the President will have to say "don't even think of
>> abandoning Hubble -- our crown jewel -- we'll let you waive the RCC
>> repair capability, but only for Hubble."
>>
>> O'Keefe wins either way.
>
>Unless Endeavour comes back from Hubble servicing and
>disintegrates, costing us 7 more crew, another shuttle, more
>months of delays...
The chances of that are remote once we eliminate the ET foam-shedding
problem. Launch is still the riskiest part of a Shuttle flight, and
ISS missions are just as vulnerable as HST SM-4.
Brian
Charles Buckley
Hmm. Actually, re-entry is the most dangerous.
The chances aren't that remote. There are several
hundred failure conditions related to potential
loss of vehicle still present.
Now, if the president wants to override the technical
recommendations of the people hired to do the job...
It's not a question of "let them waive.." O'Keefe is
going to be looking for a flat out order to do this.
Next time won't be months of delays. If they have Core Complete
when they run Hubble, it would likely not be cost effective to
make any major repairs to return the Shuttle to service. You
don't have an accident in 2008 with an 18 month fleet grounding, then
fly one flight, then retire the fleet.
Scott Hedrick
"Darren J Longhorn" <darrenl...@yahooo.com> wrote in message
news:pk2r00lf96rhva3ik...@4ax.com...
> I was talking about the
> Revell _Shuttle_ MMU kit which, although it's the shuttle MMU,
> actually has the Gemini astronaut!
That's precisely why I didn't buy it.
OM
wrote:
>OM wrote:
>>
>> So, on that fateful morning of Christmas Day 1966, I constructed a Space
>> Station as tall as the tree, with five Space Crawlers underneath it.
...I need to correct myself here. It was Christmas Day 1967. Gah.
>Naturally (I hope), you explained to your assembled relatives that in practice
>such a feat would be simple given the moon's lower gravity, then backed up the
>assertion with some BoTE engineering calculations :-)
...Pop couldn't figure out how I'd gotten the whole thing up that high
without using a chair. However, the trick was assembling it in half,
then putting one half on top of the other.
>After seeing a JFK "GI Joe" in the stores this Christmas (complete with
>hollowed out coconut!)
...Was the entry hole in the front or the back of the skull?
OM
wrote:
>Those are two different kits...and sizes- the MMU one is smaller. It was
>also done by Aurora originally.
...And Aurora took a bath on those kits, because they didn't sell
worth a fuck once Gene Cernan had to abandon the attempt to fly the
real thing. IIRC it didn't sell enough to warrant a second press run.
Jorge R. Frank
news:slrnc0quvc.21...@compsoc.dur.ac.uk:
> So, hmm. Soyuz-TMA, fourteen-day planned life; this would give you ten
> days, reliably, in your mini-station; leaves a safety margin either
> side. Interesting concept...
Hmm? Both the TM and the TMA only have a four day "free-flight" capability.
An extended mission at a mini-station would either require the station to
provide life support so that the Soyuz can power down like it does at ISS,
or upgrades need to be made to the Soyuz to allow it to fly longer.
Pat Flannery
Darren J Longhorn wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>
>I'd never get to use that, the kids would nab it first.
>
How about a small, yet cute and personality-filled MONKEY as its crew?
I want to see the thing's reaction after it gets out after the
flight...you'll be lucky to have a face left.
Pat
Andrew Gray
> Andrew Gray <andre...@dunelm.org.uk> wrote in
> news:slrnc0quvc.21...@compsoc.dur.ac.uk:
>
>> So, hmm. Soyuz-TMA, fourteen-day planned life; this would give you ten
>> days, reliably, in your mini-station; leaves a safety margin either
>> side. Interesting concept...
>
> Hmm? Both the TM and the TMA only have a four day "free-flight" capability.
> An extended mission at a mini-station would either require the station to
> provide life support so that the Soyuz can power down like it does at ISS,
> or upgrades need to be made to the Soyuz to allow it to fly longer.
Hmm. I think I may have falled victim to the fabled Extra Digit Typo In
Astronautix... it did seem quite long.
Incidentally, are those four days total, or four days after starting to
free-fly?
--
-Andrew Gray
shim...@bigfoot.com
Explorer8939
other than the container used for the toilet gets filled after 4 days
use. Other than the toilet, most other systems on TMA are similar to
those used for the multi-week missions back in Soviet times. As late
as Soyuz T-13, Soyuzes were used to support crews for more than a
week.
"Jorge R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message news:<Xns9476E519...@204.52.135.40>...
Andrew Gray
Explorer8939 wrote:
> i'm not entirely sure what supplies bound the Soyuz TMA lifetime,
> other than the container used for the toilet gets filled after 4 days
> use. Other than the toilet, most other systems on TMA are similar to
> those used for the multi-week missions back in Soviet times. As late
> as Soyuz T-13, Soyuzes were used to support crews for more than a
> week.
I'd assume it's a simple consumables issue, but I don't know. Jim?
(There is a hardware constraint to the total lifetime, which is why
Soyuz get exchanged by taxi flights - seals (in the fuel lines?)
degrade, and can't be totally trusted after about six to eight months -
but I'm not aware of any similar ones which would only be relevant when
powered on. The LEM had something similar; once it was fuelled, it had
to be used within a set timeframe lest the fuel lines corrode)
--
-Andrew Gray
shim...@bigfoot.com
Jorge R. Frank
4.2 days of free-flight, generally broken down as 2.2 days from launch to
docking, and 2 days from post-undocking to landing. Operationally, the
Russians don't use much of the latter; they deorbit within a couple of
hours after undocking. The rest of the two days is to protect against the
case where they have to make an emergency undocking, then wait for a better
landing opportunity.
I'm not sure exactly what factors are behind this limit, but I've seen it
in enough credible source material to know that it's not a typo, and that
the Russians take it seriously.
That is not to say that Soyuz TM/TMA couldn't be modified to do a long
free-flight like the older Soyuz models did back in the old USSR days. It
just means that you can't just pull a stock spacecraft off the shelf and
use it unless the ATV is modified to provide the facilities for the Soyuz
to power itself down, like it does at ISS.
Bruce Sterling Woodcock
There is no reason to believe ET foam-shedding
will be completely eliminated, nor will other
possible tile damage during ascent and orbit.
Thus, Shuttle still needs to go to the ISS, and
those missions will be less riskier, since ISS
will allow opportunities for on-orbit inspection,
repair, and/or retrieval. HST SM-4 won't
without spending lots more money and
developing an entirely different set of plans,
procedures, contingenices, and so on.
Bruce
Andrew Gray
>
> 4.2 days of free-flight, generally broken down as 2.2 days from launch to
> docking, and 2 days from post-undocking to landing. Operationally, the
> Russians don't use much of the latter; they deorbit within a couple of
> hours after undocking. The rest of the two days is to protect against the
> case where they have to make an emergency undocking, then wait for a better
> landing opportunity.
>
> I'm not sure exactly what factors are behind this limit, but I've seen it
> in enough credible source material to know that it's not a typo, and that
> the Russians take it seriously.
The number does seem familiar now you mention it, certainly. I'll have a
flick through Dragonfly, see if it mentions anything relevant.
> That is not to say that Soyuz TM/TMA couldn't be modified to do a long
> free-flight like the older Soyuz models did back in the old USSR days. It
> just means that you can't just pull a stock spacecraft off the shelf and
> use it unless the ATV is modified to provide the facilities for the Soyuz
> to power itself down, like it does at ISS.
Hmm. http://www.astronautix.com/craft/soyuztma.htm (with appropriate
NaCl levels) says it needs some 0.6kW "overall average".
Salyut 1 produced about a kW "overall average"; the later Salyuts 2kW -
the early one appears to have been pretty much a pair of Soyuz panels on
each end. (Early Soyuz ran on .5kW, later ones up to .85kW.)
The ATV can produce up to ~4kW, so that much looks good. Everything else
is plumbing, and I'm sure that can't be hard. ;-)
In terms of getting them together, both are able to be active; it's
presumably a matter of giving one the other's rendevous systems (is
ATV equipped for Kurs anyway?). Docking... hmm. I know >.< this much
about docking compatability. You'd probably have to build an adapter, or
refit your ATV hatch during construction.
Interesting thought experiment, though.
--
-Andrew Gray
shim...@bigfoot.com
Brian Thorn
<sirb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> The chances of that are remote once we eliminate the ET foam-shedding
>> problem. Launch is still the riskiest part of a Shuttle flight, and
>> ISS missions are just as vulnerable as HST SM-4.
>
>There is no reason to believe ET foam-shedding
>will be completely eliminated,
No, but all the foam shedding problems came from the Bipod Ramp area,
and the new design eliminates the foam there.
>nor will other
>possible tile damage during ascent and orbit.
>Thus, Shuttle still needs to go to the ISS, and
>those missions will be less riskier, since ISS
>will allow opportunities for on-orbit inspection,
>repair, and/or retrieval. HST SM-4 won't
>without spending lots more money and
>developing an entirely different set of plans,
>procedures, contingenices, and so on.
So what will they do if they have to Abort to Orbit on an ISS mission
and can't reach ISS?
Brian
Hallerb
>So what will they do if they have to Abort to Orbit on an ISS mission
>and can't reach ISS?
>
>Brian
Thats the 7 plus one question:( 7 lives and one lost orbiter:(
Scott Hedrick
"Hallerb" <hal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040123221845...@mb-m02.aol.com...
> Thats the 7 plus one question:( 7 lives and one lost orbiter:(
What would Khruschev say?
Ami Silberman
> So what will they do if they have to Abort to Orbit on an ISS mission
> and can't reach ISS?
>
Or, if you had both an Abort to Orbit, and something seriously wrong, a
*very bad day*. Seriously though, the modes that cause Abort-to-Orbit and
the modes that cause "Abort to ISS and get a replacement shuttle up" are
fairly disjoint.
Hallerb
>Or, if you had both an Abort to Orbit, and something seriously wrong, a
>*very bad day*. Seriously though, the modes that cause Abort-to-Orbit and
>the modes that cause "Abort to ISS and get a replacement shuttle up" are
>fairly disjoint.
How about a thrustre explosion? that takes out the control system.
your n orbit low and screwed.
I STILL cant figure out why they dont build a fast cargo to orbit system. Have
a booster with a capsule in a silo at the cape. Ready to fill with whatever
emergency supplies are needed.
ICBMs havebeen kept on stations for years for launch at a moments notice.
This pod sould carry emergency parts, a power pod, lithium scrubbers, or
whatever else is needed.
Might save ISS someday...