Re: Bush cancels Hubble telescope rescue mission

From: Jorge R. Frank (jrfrank_at_ibm-pc.borg)
Date: 01/23/05 

Date: 23 Jan 2005 18:08:34 GMT

richard schumacher <no-spam@invalid.com> wrote in
news:no-spam-760519.10463123012005@news.isp.giganews.com:

> In article <7f36v0lgu7rde6h02aeb8sf2bf79t8efnh@4ax.com>,
> OrionCA <OrionCA@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 09:27:57 -0600, richard schumacher
>> <no-spam@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.space.com/news/hubble_budget_050121.html
>> >
>> >"The White House has eliminated funding for a mission to service the
>> >Hubble Space Telescope from its 2006 budget request and directed
>> >NASA to focus solely on de-orbiting the popular spacecraft at the
>> >end of its life, according to government and industry sources."
>> >
>> >
>> >No surprise here. Bush gets all his science from the christian
>> >bible.
>> >
>> >Time to write our congresspeople to direct NASA to save Hubble.
>>
>> All future Shuttle missions must include the capability to reach the
>> ISS in case of a major emergency that precludes re-entry. Hubble is
>> in an orbit that the three remaining Shuttles can't attain and still
>> reach the ISS. Ergo, no Hubble resupply missions are planned.
>
> That is an arbitrary choice. A Shuttle mission to Hubble is not
> significantly more dangerous than to ISS; true, there's no "safe
> haven" at Hubble (and as we see repeatedly ISS is not all that
> reliable itself), but the Shuttle's engines have to fire longer to
> reach ISS.

This is not true. Powered ascent for the space shuttle lasts about 8.5
minutes regardless of whether it's going to HST or ISS; the only difference
is that the abort boundaries are later on ISS flights due to the high
inclination. This *is* a benefit; while a main engine failure at some point
in an ISS ascent might result in a risky TAL, for the HST ascent an ATO
might be possible. On the other hand, ISS ascent is more survivable with
multiple engine failures due to higher availability of ECAL.

Furthermore, the shuttle has to burn considerably more OMS propellant to
reach HST than ISS due to the higher altitude, so an OMS failure on an HST
flight is a bigger deal than it would be on an ISS flight.

> A "safe haven" is useless if a failure leaves the Shuttle
> unable to reach it. Regardless of destination the safest approach is
> to keep a rescue Shuttle or Soyuz ready to fly within a week.

Soyuz cannot reach HST's inclination from Baikonur, and the pad at Kourou
is not planned to have capability for the manned Soyuz spacecraft (as
opposed to the Soyuz launcher). Such capability probably could not be made
ready in time to save HST, even if it were allowed by law (and it isn't).

> The
> real reason to limit Shuttle flights is to maximize the chances of
> completing US contributions to the astronaut hotel called ISS.

True. 

-- 
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bush cancels Hubble telescope rescue mission
    ... The point is that Hubble will continue to get used if repaired. ... you tell me why ISS is more important than Hubble? ... The closest thing is a shuttle. ... :>: Where did the money the Hubble repair mission was going to ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Bush cancels Hubble telescope rescue mission
    ... This is impossible, given the locations of HST and ISS, and Shuttle ... Are you saying that the shuttle is capable ... the inclinations of HST and ISS are very different (28.45 and 51.6 ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Bush cancels Hubble telescope rescue mission
    ... >But none compete with Hubble. ... Where did the money the Hubble repair mission was going to ... >To ISS, as I understand it. ... the new general purpose Shuttle bucket. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Shuttle launch delayed until July
    ... It might even be the end of NASA itself, as Bush would really like to give "space exploration" over to the hands of the military anyway, rather than that pansy-ass organization that is trying to put up satellites to monitor the Earth's ecology rather than seizing the military high ground of space (did you read that Space Command "High Frontier Journal" BTW?: ... I can see why the astronauts like the idea of staying on the ISS until they can be rescued. ... the astronauts stated their concerns regarding trusting an in-flight repair during reentry rather than seeking refuge on the ISS until a rescue Shuttle could arrive. ... Contact NASA and tell them that you were all ready to get up in the morning and fly the repaired Shuttle back home...but aliens stole it in the night, and now you are stuck on the ISS and your only hope is that somebody sends up a rescue Shuttle to get you. ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: What else could you do with the Stick?
    ... >>I fail to see the relevence to launch costs and ISS life support. ... based on a few launches of a brand new rocket. ... > (88 Shuttle flights, each with 2 SRBs since Challenger.) ...
    (sci.space.policy)
Quantcast