The Hubble Space Telescope could get an new repair mission.

[Aethon]

"According to a report from The Wall Street Journal, the Trump Administration is considering a proposal to launch a crewed mission to Hubble to replace sensors, navigation hardware and other aging components. NASA extended Hubble's science operations for an additional five years in 2016, but whether the HST will make it through the 2020s is unclear. A mission such as the one proposed would likely extend the space telescope's operations well into the future. "

Exciting.  The Wall street journal article is unfortunately behind a paywall.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/telescopes/a25211/mission-to-service-hubble-space-telescope/

[Spaceception]

Cool! But, what about JWST? I mean, that's going to be so much better than Hubble, why not just give more funding to that?

On the other hand, It'll be cool to have Hubble continuing its mission.

Although, after reading the article, I do think that a backup would be good, considering if something breaks on JWST, we likely won't be able to repair it.

And hey! Dream Chaser has a potential mission! 

[Shpaget]

Is it Christmass already?

[tater]

I think they should demonstrate that they have a functioning spacecraft first.

[monstah]

1 minute ago, tater said:

I think they should demonstrate that they have a functioning spacecraft first.

What's wrong with the shuttles? /sarcasm

[DerekL1963]

As usual when you read the article, the truth is at least a little bit at odds with the headline.  This isn't a Trump administration proposal, or even a NASA plan - rather, it appears to be an unsolicited proposal from Sierra Nevada  for using the Dream Chaser.  I suspect "considering" means "ya, ya, we got a copy of your proposal, don't call us, we'll call you".

That being said...  0.o  Dream Chaser, AFAIK, doesn't have the cargo space or the ability to dock/berth with Hubble.  (Hubble never docked with the Shuttle - it was held by the Canadarm.)  Sounds like Sierra Nevada is saying "look at this cool thing we bet we can do - if you pony up the cash for a new version".    Which is a *very* old song-and-dance.

[Spaceception]

4 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

As usual when you read the article, the truth is at least a little bit at odds with the headline.  This isn't a Trump administration proposal, or even a NASA plan - rather, it appears to be an unsolicited proposal from Sierra Nevada  for using the Dream Chaser.  I suspect "considering" means "ya, ya, we got a copy of your proposal, don't call us, we'll call you".

That being said...  0.o  Dream Chaser, AFAIK, doesn't have the cargo space or the ability to dock/berth with Hubble.  (Hubble never docked with the Shuttle - it was held by the Canadarm.)  Sounds like Sierra Nevada is saying "look at this cool thing we bet we can do - if you pony up the cash for a new version".    Which is a *very* old song-and-dance.

 

Could they just co-orbit with it?

[monstah]

2 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

As usual when you read the article, the truth is at least a little bit at odds with the headline.

*sigh*

Why do they even do this?

Besides, does the Dream Chaser have the autonomy for such a high/inclined orbit? Is it even functional yet? Seriously, the hell?

[tater]

Yeah, SN doesn't actually have a real spacecraft yet (they won't until they fly one), and they don't have the ability to do the mission. That said, a small remote manipulator arm capable of grappling the HST should not be terribly difficult, the only real requirement is to secure the 2 vehicles together to allow EVA---does the Dream Chaser design even include an airlock, actually?

Edited February 16, 2017 by tater

[tater]

So, as I suspected, Dream Chaser has the docking ring at the rear, so any such mission would require an airlock "trunk" being built and added to the back, and that airlock would presumably also require a robot arm. Pretty fanciful mission proposal for a company without a spacecraft in flight yet. Maybe they should build the bloody thing, including the airlock/arm trunk (with their own money), then fly it, and sell it as a service to NASA.

Edited February 16, 2017 by tater

[DerekL1963]

14 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

Could they just co-orbit with it?

In theory, yes.  In reality it's a horribly stupid idea and extraordinarily risky.

[tater]

1 minute ago, DerekL1963 said:

In theory, yes.  In reality it's a horribly stupid idea and extraordinarily risky.

Yeah, it seems unlikely, since the EVA would have to be tethered, and any such repair EVA would also likely be a few orbits at the very least. Too many issues for safety if the vehicles are not attached. Also, station keeping near HST is not what you want to be doing from a contamination standpoint of the optics.

And the spacecraft doesn't have an airlock that I know of, just a docking system.

[monstah]

Well, the more you learn.

Just found out the HST's docking mechanism is compatible with the NASA Docking System that's used on ISS. So, I guess, yes, the DS could dock with it.

Also, found out HST's orbit is less inclined than ISS's (I presume due to ISS's Kazakhstan launch sites?), and although considerably higher it's still "low Earth regime", so there's that, too.

It's still not a functional spacecraft, tho.

[Canopus]

I think that money would be better spent on something like the WFIRST which seems to be comparable to the Hubble. 

[monstah]

The airlock thing is still a deal, tho. I mean, for the ISS, the plan is to go through the docking port, but on the Hubble the port doesn't go anywhere, it's just to attach the ships together. So there'd have to be and external airlock beside the docking port. I am not sure there is even room for one.

 

All in all, I think this is just a wild idea.

[tater]

1 hour ago, monstah said:

Well, the more you learn.

Just found out the HST's docking mechanism is compatible with the NASA Docking System that's used on ISS. So, I guess, yes, the DS could dock with it.

Also, found out HST's orbit is less inclined than ISS's (I presume due to ISS's Kazakhstan launch sites?), and although considerably higher it's still "low Earth regime", so there's that, too.

It's still not a functional spacecraft, tho.

Wow, I did not know that!

I found better info at NSF, so it looks like they can actually dock via a ring that is sort of where it would be on Shuttle, just behind the cockpit (as per a Chris Bergen post on the subject, so legit). He posted about such a servicing mission 2 years ago,

[Ten Key]

This was a good read. . .

Spaceman: An Astronaut's Unlikely Journey to Unlock the Secrets of the Universe

Mike Massimino did EVA work on the last two Hubble servicing missions, and the book does a good job of giving the details without being too dry or technical. It mentions the docking adapter (intended to allow an unmanned probe to dock with and then deorbit the telescope) as well as the considerable political maneuvering involved in getting that final servicing mission approved. 

I want to dismiss this out of hand, but NASA has a lot of pride invested in that telescope and it would not surprise me at all if they found a way to push this back on to the agenda. 

[Nibb31]

• DreamChaser doesn't exist.
• It doesn't have an airlock or any kind of EVA capability
• It doesn't have an unpressurized cargo bay
• It doesn't have a grappling arm.

The whole idea is a non-starter. The same is true for Orion by the way. It does have EVA capability (by depressurizing the whole cabin), but no unpressurized cargo, no hand rails, and no arm.

[Bill Phil]

16 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

• DreamChaser doesn't exist.
• It doesn't have an airlock or any kind of EVA capability
• It doesn't have an unpressurized cargo bay
• It doesn't have a grappling arm.

The whole idea is a non-starter. The same is true for Orion by the way. It does have EVA capability (by depressurizing the whole cabin), but no unpressurized cargo, no hand rails, and no arm.

Orion could solve the unpressurized cargo and lack of a canadarm issue in the same way that ASTP solved the lack of a Russian docking port... It'd be a mission module, basically. Not to say it's likely to happen at all, of course.

Still unlikely, for a host of reasons.

[tater]

Bergen's article at NSF about proposed DC repair missions shows a mission module on the back as well---which is fine to show, since if the spacecraft can be assumed to exist for real (when it isn't a thing yet), then why not added modules   .

[_Augustus_]

3 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Orion could solve the unpressurized cargo and lack of a canadarm issue in the same way that ASTP solved the lack of a Russian docking port... It'd be a mission module, basically. Not to say it's likely to happen at all, of course.

Still unlikely, for a host of reasons.

There are Shuttle airlocks in storage that could be used as Mission Modules/airlocks.

[YNM]

This is bordering on fake news so far. No one from the govt have made the move.

Whether the idea would be there or not... Let's say they can really make something like this (the resupply probe thing) XD Even so, support from the government would really be needed before anyone can put some flames into the air.

[SgtSomeone]

8 hours ago, monstah said:

Well, the more you learn.

Just found out the HST's docking mechanism is compatible with the NASA Docking System that's used on ISS. So, I guess, yes, the DS could dock with it.

I was really hoping you would suggest servicing Hubble by flying and docking ISS to it...

Still seems more realistic.

Edited February 17, 2017 by SgtSomeone

[Bill Phil]

1 minute ago, SgtSomeone said:

I was really hoping you would suggest servicing Hubble by flying and docking ISS...

Still seems more realistic.

Good lucking moving it.

[insert_name]

Wonder if the tech developed for this would be usable in manned servicing missions to other satilites, and if so which ones. Probably not gso, any idea about SSO and other polar orbits