Hubble Servicing Mission 5?

[Kyle]

I've been looking around for some info for an orbiter scenario I'm creating for a HST-SM5 and I'd like some information.

- What would cause another Hubble mission?
- Who would likely be the crew?
- What orbiter would likely fly it?
- What about LON? Bring back LC39B or process it in the VAB?
- Would an ORUC, MULE, and a SLIC fly?
- What could possibly be brought up for the mission? WFC4? New Gyros? Solar Pannels?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

I started a thread on this a while back, some good stuff was discussed:

www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=7047

 

[Ghostrider]

The only thing at this point that could cause another Hubble mission would be a situation where we absolutely, immediately need Hubble's capabilities. Either a rare astronomical event or something of the utmost importance. This must happen then before 2014 when the JWST is launched, or later if the JWST is delayed for any reason.

The crew - should the mission need to be launched ASAP - and the orbiter would be the ones scheduled now for STS-133 LON, maybe with some variations if they have Hubble specialists around. So it will be Atlantis. Probably there won't be a LON for it unless they can cycle Discovery fast enough.

As for the rest... Maybe they could need another on-board computer?

 

[Kyle]

Thanks for the link Pete! But I was more looking at an extra-Shuttle mission instead of orion to Hubble.

Here's what I hypothesis, might help. In June 2011 only 5 months before Hubble would have to look at Alpha Centauri go Super Nova (far fetched I know) that might cause a terrible disaster to Earth, Hubble lost attitude control, WFC3 completely malfunctioned, and One of the Solar Arrays were damaged causing Hubble to loose power. It appears a micrometeorite hit Hubble, but it is repairable. Congress then immediately took action, launch STS-135 with Endeavour to the Hubble Space Telescope in September, with LON-401 with Discovery on a de-modified LC39B.

Thoughts?

 

[Donamy]

...Congress then immediately took action, ...
Thoughts?

Think about what you are saying !! :huh:

 

[Kyle]

Think about what you are saying !! :huh:

ROFL

''... Congress eventually took action..''

 

[T.Neo]

Far fetched, but could be pulled off if a natural disaster of that magnitude was at stake.

I think a 39 de-modification would be a waste of time: I'd just launch the one shuttle and risk losing the crew.

 

[jinglesassy]

Far fetched, but could be pulled off if a natural disaster of that magnitude was at stake.

I think a 39 de-modification would be a waste of time: I'd just launch the one shuttle and risk losing the crew.

yeah theres a 2 in 129 chance of losing the crew the odds are in there favor

 

[garyw]

5 months to make replacement kit? Couldn't happen as I doubt the tooling would exist. Also, they have a lot of UV/IR telescopes up there so why not use those?

 

[T.Neo]

Indeed. Perhaps some lesser catastrophe, such as I dunno... a loose bolt or something?

Loose bolts still don't get fixed without human intervention.

Also, they have a lot of UV/IR telescopes up there so why not use those?

Because we want to observe an exploding star in the coolest way possible.

EDIT:

Alpha Centauri exploding huh? That'd be a pretty bad day for all the cute blue cat-people...

 

[zerofay32]

As far as using 39B. The OAA and the GOV have been completly removed. So unless they're sitting somewere in one piece then using B would be out of the question.

 

[garyw]

So you use 39A twice. Put a shuttle on one crawler and wheel it to the pad, put another shuttle on a different crawler and wheel it halfway there. The second shuttle won't have a payload so it'll need much less time to prepare for launch.
The two issues here are damage to 39A from the first launch and fixing whatever caused the first shuttles issues so they don't happen on the second shuttle.

 

[DaveS]

As far as using 39B. The OAA and the GOV have been completly removed. So unless they're sitting somewere in one piece then using B would be out of the question.

Last I heard about them, was that they were going to the KSC Visitor Complex for display. So I don't think they have been dismantled.

---------- Post added at 11:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 PM ----------

So you use 39A twice. Put a shuttle on one crawler and wheel it to the pad, put another shuttle on a different crawler and wheel it halfway there. The second shuttle won't have a payload so it'll need much less time to prepare for launch.
The two issues here are damage to 39A from the first launch and fixing whatever caused the first shuttles issues so they don't happen on the second shuttle.

The Crawler and MLPs are separate items. They would never leave a stack unprotected on the Crawlerway. They prefer to have the vehicles shielded either out at the pads or inside the VAB. Both offer good lightning and weather protection.

Prior to STS-125 becoming a dual-pad LON scenario, they evaluated using just pad A for LON which would have seen the LON vehicle being rolled out first to pad A and processed right up until it was about a week from T0 after which it would have been rolled back to the VAB.

After the LON vehicle rollback from pad A, the STS-125 vehicle would have been rolled out to pad A, processed and launched. Once the pad had been safed and cleaned, the LON vehicle would have been rolled out and processed right up to the T-27 hour built in hold and awaited word on whether to proceed with the countdown or back out of it.

If the STS-125 vehicle had been deemed fit for entry after the late inspections, they would back out of launch countdown and readied the vehicle for its ordinary mission and installed the mission payload(s).