[extropy-chat] Soyuz Hubble Repair Mission

[Technotranscendence]

On Wednesday, January 26, 2005 1:51 PM Bret Kulakovich
bret at bonfireproductions.com wrote:
> 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.

Unknown to me as well.:)

> If there is a problem, we have three *nauts
> without a way home.

True.  I don't know and I don't know the risks.  Actually, imagine they
can't repressurize.  They might still be able to get home -- they'll
just have to remain suited.

> 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.

Good question, but I don't think your concern is completely valid.
Sunlight and the atmosphere would work wonders on that.  I'd be more
afraid of tools or large particulate matter than propulsion products.
Of course, that doesn't mean short term exposure would be good -- just
that it's unlikely that a cloud of the stuff will be following Hubble
around for days or weeks afterward.

BTW, I believe the Soyuz uses liquid oxygen and kerosene.  Since the
thing docks with the ISS, maybe it's not all that bad.  (Of course, the
Hubble might be more sensitive and my guess is, even if not, you
wouldn't want anything near it that might mean another repair mission is
necessary.  On the latter is meant that any corrosive damage caused at
the ISS can be easily monitored and repaired.)

> I don't know if there is a lot of prejudice on
> the idea of what vehicle to use (Soyuz or not)

My guess is there is and that Soyuz is not being considered at all by
the major players in this area.  NASA vendors wouldn't want to lose part
or all of that funding to a cheaper RSA mission.  People in NASA, too,
might see using a foreign spacecraft for a repair mission as a loss of
face.  So, yes, I believe there'll be cultural resistance.  Whether it's
strong enough to keep such a proposal off the table is another matter.
I posted the plan to two lists in hopes that more people might consider
it and, ergo, it might find a place on the table.

> - if there is a predisposition I would say it was
> due to the success of the previous Hubble
> mission.

Well, there're three problems with repeating that.  One, the Columbia
disaster kind of put a damper on the STS program.  It's even unknown at
this point if and when any Shuttle will fly again.  Two, the overall
costs of an STS mission are very high: around $500 million.  Three, the
major repair missions now under consideration seem to be tilted toward
using robotic or remote repair.  (An STS mission and the robotic/remote
repair missions actually are more expensive than the original Hubble.
It'd be cheaper to just replace the Hubble with a clone or a mild
revision, then any of the current repair missions under consideration by
NASA.)

> I'm sure someone, somewhere, is also waving
> the Progress/MIR data around looking dismayed
> as well.

If so, where?  I have yet to see it.:)

> 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.

That may be, but an STS repair mission is unlikely and not cheap.

> Personally, with the moneys on the way for
> Crew Exploration Vehicle and Terrestrial Planet
> Finder (running out of fingers to cross)

CEV probably won't fly for a few years.  TPF is still just a proposal.

> 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.

That's typical of many space enthusiasts: no concern with costs.  I
think such an attitude partly causes so little to get done.

Cheers!

Dan
     See "Ust Contra Tebye" at:
http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/Tebye1.html