After Shuttle is retired; will missions like the current Hubble mission be possible?

[gedaliah_atl]

Hi all,

I'm watching the coverage thinking to myself: after the shuttle is retired; will missions like the current Hubble mission be possible? I know the next US vehicle is going to be the Crew Exploration Vehicle, which doesn't sound suited for such a mission. I know there's likely other proposals and prototypes that I have not kept up with in the last few years, so maybe I'm missing something.

 

[Urwumpe]

Short and painful: No.

 

[garyw]

Short and painful: No.

There were some thoughts about Orion being able to do some sort of servicing on hubble but without a payload bay to accomodate the equipped necessary Urwumpe's answer is spot on.

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

*Post originally by me, taken from the HST SM5 thread HERE*

With all the buzz lately about STS-125 being the "last ever opportunity" for humans to visit Hubble to make repairs/upgrades, I was just wondering: It is Really?

Hubble was originally designed to be returned to Earth in 2009 in the payload bay of Shuttle Columbia, on what would have been STS-144, but that mission was scrubbed after the Columbia disaster. The reasoning being: Why launch an empty shuttle to retrieve a useless payload? It would be impossible to have an ISS mission launch a payload to the ISS, then retrieve Hubble, as Hubble & the ISS are on different orbits (ISS = 51.6° / HST = 28.4°).
So, instead of having a useless telescope stuck in orbit (currently, all Hubble's gyroscopes are slated to fail by 2010), NASA decided to launch STS-125 to extend Hubble's life until at least 2014, whereupon the current plan is to have an unmanned vehicle meet with it in orbit & de-orbit it to burn up in the atmosphere.

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) will be the successor to Hubble, however that will only be an infrared telescope, although it will be able to observe more distant objects than Hubble. That is currently planned to be launched around June 2013 on an Ariane 5 rocket, into MEO (Medium Earth Orbit).
Below = the JWST - just not as grand as Hubble, is it

So, back to the idea: I read an interesting article the other day HERE that got me thinking. Is STS-125 really the last chance for humans to go to Hubble? It will definitely be the last chance for the Shuttle to go to Hubble, but STS-125 will install the SCM (Soft Capture Mechanism), so any future vehicle that uses the LIDS interface will be able to rendezvous with Hubble & berth itself to it. I saw this picture of a possible scenario, and to me it seems ingenious:

As the Orion spacecraft will probably be tasked with de-orbiting Hubble anyway, as it will be cheaper then developing a robotic craft, why not have Orion service the HST? Obviously, Orion has no payload carrying capability, but why not develop a system depicted in the above picture? Just a payload carrier to the same dimensions as the existing Shuttle payload bay, with a docking mechanism at each end. That way all current Hubble science instrument carriers & other payloads that use the Shuttle TPAS (Trunnion Pin Attachment System) could fly in the future. Ideally, this payload carrier would be better launched on the Jupiter 120 rocket as detailed in the DIRECT proposal (which I fully support, as it brings this kind of capability to NASA). Below is an example of how the Jupiter 120 could carry the payload carrier (see rocket third from left).

However, I guess this payload carrier could be launched on a separate rocket such as the Delta II, then Orion could rendezvous with it on orbit & take it to Hubble. The Orion could dock to one end of the carrier, and the other end could berth to Hubble. The payload carrier also features an airlock. Also, the SpaceX Dragon capsule could maybe be used instead of Orion. Of course, a fully robotic mission to service the HST could be a possibility, but I doubt that a robot will be able to get anywhere near the dexterity & precision of humans, which is required to service the HST. Just look at STS-125: To repair the STIS instrument, astronauts will have to remove 111 tiny screws to gain access to a circuit board they need to replace. I'm no robotics expert, but I just can't see a robot doing that - not yet anyway.

So it would seem there are many opportunities to return to Hubble if we really wanted to, but the question is, do we really need to? Given Hubble’s achievements already, some would say it would certainly be beneficial to keep it going for as long as possible. But other may not agree – Hubble has been in orbit since 1990 – in 2 month’s time (Apr 2009), it will have had 19 years in orbit. Is it worth pursuing plans to keep Hubble alive?


My opinion: If it is possible, then do it. However, if another telescope can be built with the same capabilities as Hubble (but obviously more advanced) then I would say there is little point in repairing Hubble.

 

[ar81]

Why launch an empty shuttle to retrieve a useless payload?

It would be a big piece of junk that could cause Kessler syndrome.

 

[gedaliah_atl]

Thank you everybody for your replies. I can't believe that when JFK committed America in 1961 to going to the Moon that decade, it was only seven years until Apollo 7 (1968) was launched, wheres President Bush announcing the Crew Exploration Vehicle in 2004 will take a minimum of ten years before it's first manned flight (according to the current time table). Ten years! C'mon, it's not rocket science..... uh oh wait, yeah it is. But that's besides the point.

 

[Chupacabra]

It may also have provided insight into the durability of materials used on-orbit after 20-years of wear. Something which I believe is still unexplored.

 

[wmh829386]

The Ares I is a terrible disign, It cannot do any thing beside putting Orion in orbit.

 

[tblaxland]

My opinion: If it is possible, then do it. However, if another telescope can be built with the same capabilities as Hubble (but obviously more advanced) then I would say there is little point in repairing Hubble.

Yes, I already responded to that in your other thread - I stand by those statements:

1. Ground based telescopes with adaptive optics and interferometry have already exceeded Hubble's capabilities in the visible region. Just think how much further they will have come by the time SM5 came around in 2014.

2. JWST will easily trump Hubble's IR capabilities.

So what would be the point? IMHO, SM5 would fit better in a romantic novel than in real life...

The Ares I is a terrible disign, It cannot do any thing beside putting Orion in orbit.

That's all it needs to do, given the rest of the program that it belongs to. Are you sure your criticism is not meant to be directed at the Vision for Space Exploration?

 

[insane_alien]

The Ares I is a terrible disign, It cannot do any thing beside putting Orion in orbit.

considering that putting orion in orbit is the sole design objective of that rocket, the only thing terrible about it is that it is terribly good.

its like saying cars are a terrible design because it cannot do anything besides drive around on dry land.

 

[garyw]

Thank you everybody for your replies. I can't believe that when JFK committed America in 1961 to going to the Moon that decade, it was only seven years until Apollo 7 (1968) was launched, wheres President Bush announcing the Crew Exploration Vehicle in 2004 will take a minimum of ten years before it's first manned flight (according to the current time table). Ten years! C'mon, it's not rocket science..... uh oh wait, yeah it is. But that's besides the point.

In 1961 NASA's budget was 5% of the total expenditure of the USA.

Today is is 0.5%

You do the math on that one.

 

[tblaxland]

...it is terribly good.

That remains to be seen. We have already seen a lot of weight shaved of Orion to meet the performance shortcomings of Ares I.