Gotta love them perfect early shuttles shedding off half of their tiles (so to speak).

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

I think that had less to do with orbital compatability between the station and the telescope than it did pure convenience for launches purely from Kennedy/Canaveral. The shuttles require quite a bit of extra effort to get to the station where it is now.

I'm sorry, but you're just pulling this "stuff" out of your "hat". The "foam risk" has been inherient in shuttle launches for quite a while...we were just unaware of it until it caused the loss of a shuttle.

Precisely what are these "new" problems that you speak of??

As the risk is assessed, (and contingencies are put into place to "counter" those risks) then overall risk for each flight becomes smaller. Why is it you seem to be ignoring that fact?

Speculation is fine, but making "stuff" up to conform to your own ideas of how you "think" things are is not a reasonable way of approching this problem.

after your note, I think I've made a mistake in one of my previous posts, since (probably) not even a few astronauts sent to the Hubble can be saved with some Soyuz if the russian rescue ships aren't launched from KSC (to reach the right orbit with their own propellent)

.

__________________
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com

IIRC, the environment around ISS is too contaminated with regular outgassing (from thrusters and whatnot) to be a good environment for a space telescope. It would have to keep its distance, and the farther the better. Eventually, the best distance would be too far to easily service. And juggling both orbits would only complicate a situation that's already a bear.

__________________
"Call me old-fashioned, but I think fire is magic. And it scares me a lot."

--The State

I can't calculate it, but, as I've explained in my previous posts, the distance between the Hubble and the ISS is a minor problem (compared with the change of orbit and altitude!) since the Hubble don't need to be reboosted every day but only when it goes too away from ISS or needs some maintenance 8and that can be done with a Progress)

I don't know, but this is not important, since, before a Shuttle/Hubble repair mission, the Hubble can be reboosted with a Progress to be at a reasonable/right distance from ISS

.

__________________
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com

IIRC the Shuttles was designed for a safe reentry without part of the tiles

.

__________________
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com

to give a rational answer/evaluation we must "split" the problem:

1. risks of the hubble mission

2. advantages of have the Hubble near the ISS

well... we can discuss years about the % of risks of a Shuttle mission to the Hubble but (clearly) and unmanned missions to move the Hubble near the ISS has ZERO RISKS

why do NASA will use two Shuttles (mission + rescue) for the Hubble repair if the mission has no risks???

you know, the reason is that, without an ISS near the Hubble, the risk of the mission is higher than all standard missions to ISS

we can also "split" the Hubble repair mission in:

1. main mission with 6-7 astronauts

2. rescue mission with 2-3 astronauts

the first point/launch has an "n" % of risk (that we can't know now) but the main risk for the astronauts in orbit comes from the 2nd point/launch!

the Shuttle in orbit has only 16 days of life support, so, it has severe problems (like a too damaged wing or shield) the second Shuttle has two weeks max to fly for rescue ...and we have experienced Shuttles' delays MUCH LONGER than two weeks!!!

the first Discovery launch this year has delayed six months (two of them to change a simple tank's sensor!) then...

.

__________________
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com

that may be true, but it's not important that Hubble is too near the ISS, it can be 100-200 km. away but in the same orbit where, one or more Shuttles, one or more Soyuz, one or more Progress, one or more ATV, one or more COTS vehicles, can easy go for repair/maintenance/upgrade/rescue missions
in other words, if a Shuttle will go 200 km. away from ISS to repair the Hubble and has some problems to come back to the ISS, a Soyuz docked to the ISS can rescue the Shuttle's crew in a few, brief, travels, while, with the Shuttle in another orbit/altitide, the ISS/Soyuz duo can't save them (and that risk will happen everytime the Hubble will need a repair mission!)

.

__________________
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com

You speak much of just building things and putting them to use...do you realize/appreciate the design work that goes into spacecraft? How will you attach things to the Hubble? It was designed to use the shuttle's cradel to hold it firm for maintenence and reboost. You need to incorporate this cradel into the Progress or whatever for the missions (again, lengthy design and fab work). Then (I need a space math guy here) you need something that will impart many thousands of feet per second Dv to get the Hubble to the ISS inclination, nevermind the altitude change Dv (minimal by comparison).

You make your proposals sound simple...they're not.

if we are scared by "problems" we must STOP NOW to fly in space...

however, I think that, to keep the Hubble and move it to the ISS, a smart, but temporary, solution must be developed, while, when the Hubble will be near the ISS, that hardware must be changed with a fixed device/adaptor (sent with the first Shuttle/Hubble-near-ISS mission) ready to dock with a standard Progress port for reboost (for servicing and maintenace it's sufficient the canadarm or a similar device)

about Dv... move the Hubble may need many Progress' missions, it doesn't matter, compared with the BIG advandages...

.

__________________
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com

Outgassing is nothing. If the Hubble is anywhere near the station, then the risks from dropped screws, tools, and other detrius is increased substantially.

Think they'd do the golf shot with the Hubble in a parallel orbit? Don't think so.

but it's small, since they will fly at similar relative speeds
it's best to avoid to do so stupid things... however a golf ball is very little, while the space is infinite... so, the probability to hit the hubble is near zero

last... the Hubble-near-ISS will be easy to repair if damaged by a micrometeorite (or a golf ball...)

.

__________________
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com

Your concept of easy repair is fascinating. Even if the impact damage is minimal, a screw resting on the mirror represents quite a serious problem. Scratch that bad boy, and you ARE buying a new telescope for the cost of replacing the optics.

not easy as repaoir a car, of course... but much easier than use (everytime) two Shuttles for a very risky mission...
we can throw in the space-trash-can the Hubble and all new telescopes everytime they have a small damage... the only problem is to find the MONEY to do that...

.

__________________
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com

The Hubble orbits at about 566 km at an orbital inclination of 28.5 degrees. ISS is at about 340 km at an orbital inclination of 51.6 degrees. Plugging these values into this calculator, shows the required delta-V to move Hubble from its current orbit to that of the ISS is a little more than 3000 m/s.

According to this source, the total delta-V for a Progress is 200 m/s. We would need more than 15 Progress rockets to do the job. There is no way this makes any type of logistical or economic sense.

The Shuttle mission is the only one that makes sense, even with a bit of additional risk.

__________________
"A mystic is a person who is puzzled before the obvious but who understands the nonexistent." -- Elbert Hubbard

Thanks Hamlet....and that calculator is now in my favorites section.

thank you very very much for your calculation that is very close to my evaluation of "a dozen of Progress" and (clearly) demonstrates that Hubble can be moved near the ISS at reasonable costs!

in fact, move the Hubble near the ISS costs only: 15 (unmanned!) Progress x $22M each = $330M ...that is (about) HALF the price of a single (manned and risky!) Shuttle launch!

.

__________________
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com