[extropy-chat] Soyuz Hubble Repair Mission

[Bret Kulakovich]

Greetings,

Not too sure on the launch profile/ops of the Soyuz - is it meant to be 
de- and re-pressurized on orbit? It lacks an airlock. If there is a 
problem, we have three *nauts without a way home.

Additionally, a Soyuz may not be "clean" enough to get near Hubble - 
what does it oxidize/use for reaction control and maneuvering?  
Whatever drops off near Hubble, stays with Hubble.

I don't know if there is a lot of prejudice on the idea of what vehicle 
to use (Soyuz or not) - if there is a predisposition I would say it was 
due to the success of the previous Hubble mission. I'm sure someone, 
somewhere, is also waving the Progress/MIR data around looking dismayed 
as well. I also seem to remember something about Columbia being built 
to a spec that had Hubble specifically in mind. More than just a robot 
arm. Might have been more to do with the original plan of bringing 
Hubble back.

Personally, with the moneys on the way for Crew Exploration Vehicle and 
Terrestrial Planet Finder (running out of fingers to cross) I don't 
mind the expense - we have a pile of instruments already built that 
would have been installed by now, that are just sitting Earthside.


Bret Kulakovich

On Jan 25, 2005, at 8:12 PM, Technotranscendence wrote:

> I just posted this to
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/howtobuildaspacehabitat/ and thought some
> of you might want to comment on it.
>
> Dan
>
> From: "Technotranscendence" neptune at superlink.net
> To: howtobuildaspacehabitat at yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 8:05 PM
> Subject: Soyuz Hubble Repair Mission/was Re: [How to build a Space
> Habitat] Astronomers Shocked by White House Plan not t
>
> On Tuesday, January 25, 2005 4:40 PM bestonnet_00 
> bestonnet_00 at yahoo.com
> wrote:
>>>> also don't know why I haven't heard talk of using a
>>>> Soyuz if it must be a manned repair mission...)
>>>
>>> i think a soyuz would be something that NASA would
>>> never  consider.  the Russians are already charging
>>> them to get to the ISS, and this IS an american baby,
>>> not Russian.  in terms of sheer "we need a manned
>>> spacecraft that can do it", however, a soyuz fits the
>>> bill.
>>
>> Another problem I see with using Soyuz for this is
>> getting the payload up to the telescope.
>
> True.  It depends on what the payload is, but the Soyuz can carry some
> cargo, you can use more than one for the mission, and Progress cargo
> ships could be used as well.  Imagine this kind of mission: one Soyuz
> with a crew of three and a Progress with whatever's needed.  The
> Progress might be sent up first so that they can be sure it gets there
> before sending any people up.  The Soyuz can then meet it and one (or
> two) people can work outside while two (or one) stay on board the Soyuz
> for backup, rescue, and monitoring.  (Of course, they might work in
> shifts, depending on the amount of work.)
>
> A few problems with this mission profile:
>
> 1.  What kind of EVA suits can be used?  Will STS ones fit in the 
> Soyuz?
>
> 2.  Can the Progress carry what's needed and can the crew in EVA suits
> get at cargo in one?  (On the ISS, they transfer cargo in 
> shirtsleeves.)
>
> 3.  Can the Progress be stored on orbit near the Hubble without any
> problems, such as a collision or it drifting off before the Soyuz
> arrives?
>
> 4.  What would the total cost of the mission be?  I guess with the 
> Soyuz
> at around $40 million, the Progress would be a little less, but what
> about the costs of the other equipment, training, etc.?
>
> Cheers!
>
> Dan
>     See "Ust Contra Tebye" at:
> http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/Tebye1.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>