Thorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (4 years 10 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 22436 times:
Flight: STS-125 (124th flight of the Space Shuttle)
Mission: Hubble Space Telescope Servicing Mission 4
Orbiter: OV-104 Atlantis (30th flight of Atlantis)
Scott Altman, Commander (STS-90, STS-106, STS-109)
Gregory Johnson, Pilot (first flight)
Andrew Feustel, Mission Specialist (first flight)
Michael Good, Mission Specialist (first flight)
John Grunsfeld, Mission Specialist (STS-67, STS-81, STS-103, STS-109)
Michael Massamino, Mission Specialist (STS-109)
Megan McArthur, Mission Specialist (first flight)
Saturday, October 5, 2008, 3:02am EDT (GMT -4 hrs)
Launch Pad 39A, Kennedy Space Center, Florida
Thursday, October 16, 2008. 12:04am EDT
Shuttle Landing Facility, Kennedy Space Center, Florida
STS-125 marks the fifth Space Shuttle mission to the Hubble Space Telescope, a mission re-instated following public and political pressure in the wake of former NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe’s 2004 decision to cancel the flight due to concerns that Columbia-like damage would be irreparable and that the Space Shuttle could not sustain a crew in orbit long enough for a rescue mission to be mounted.
Hubble was launched on April 24, 1990 with one instrument in each of its four large, axial bays: the Goddard High Resolution Spectrograph, Faint Object Spectrograph, Faint Object Camera, and the Goddard High Speed Photometer. Three Fine Guidance Sensors and the Wide Field/Planetary Camera occupied the four smaller radial bays.
The previous Hubble Space Telescope servicing missions were:
SM-1 (STS-61 Endeavour, December 2, 1993)
Installed Corrective Optics Space Telescope Axial Replacement (COSTAR), Wide Field/Planetary Camera 2, and new solar arrays, gyroscopes, a computer co-processor, and various electronics upgrades. COSTAR replaced the Goddard High Speed Photometer and gave Hubble clear vision for the first time since its spherical aberration problem was identified in 1990.
SM-2 (STS-82 Discovery, February 11, 1997)
Installed NICMOS, STIS, a refurbished Fine Guidance Sensor, and a solid state data recorder. NICMOS (Near Infrared Camera/Multi-Object Spectrograph) replaced the Goddard High Resolution Spectrograph and STIS (Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph) replaced the Faint Object Spectrograph.
SM-3A (STS-103 Discovery, December 19, 1999)
When problems with Hubble’s gyroscopes crippled the spacecraft in late 1999, NASA split the planned SM-3 into two parts. The first mission (3A) would replace Hubble’s problem-plagued gyroscopes and perform other critical repairs, while the second mission (3B) would complete the instrument upgrades originally planned for the mission. SM-3A replaced all six gyroscopes and a Fine Guidance Sensor, and installed a more powerful computer.
SM-3B (STS-109 Columbia, March 1, 2002)
Installed the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS), new rigid solar panels, and added a regenerative cooling system for NICMOS’s infrared camera, along with other electronics and power system upgrades. ACS replaced the Faint Object Camera.
SM-4, planned for launch in early October, will be a mix of repairs and new instrument installation. The Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) will replace WF/PC-2, which has been Hubble’s workhorse instrument since 1993. The Cosmic Origins Spectrograph (COS) will replace COSTAR, which is no longer needed because all of Hubble’s current instruments, including COS, have built-in corrective optics.
Two of Hubble’s existing instruments are crippled or not currently functioning: the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS) failed in 2004 and the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) failed in 2007. Spacewalking astronauts will attempt to repair both instruments. The astronauts will also install a new Fine Guidance Sensor, replacing one which is in a degraded condition, and again replace all six gyroscopes. Finally, the astronauts will install new batteries, add improved thermal insulation, and install a docking target to Hubble for future spacecraft.
Five spacewalks (EVAs) on consecutive days are currently planned. Grunsfeld and Feustel will perform EVAs 1, 3, and 5. Massamino and Good will perform EVAs 2 and 4.
EVA-1: Install gyros and battery
EVA-2: Install COS and second battery
EVA-3: Install WFC-3 and insulation
EVA-4: Repair STIS
EVA-5: Install Fine Guidance Sensor and repair ACS
A sixth EVA, to complete repairs of ACS if they are not finished on EVA-5, is currently being debated within NASA.
STS-125 is the only remaining Space Shuttle mission not planned to dock at the International Space Station, and Hubble’s orbit is incompatible with that of the Space Station, so the “Safe Haven” option is not available in the event Atlantis is damaged in flight and cannot make a safe landing. Without the luxury of the Station’s power and life support reserves, the Atlantis can only support a crew for about 23 days. This is not long enough to roll out a rescue Shuttle and launch it. Therefore, NASA will simultaneously prepare both Atlantis and Endeavour for launch, Atlantis at Pad 39A and Endeavour at Pad 39B. Endeavour is to be ready to launch on a rescue mission within 10 days of call-up.
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 1, posted (4 years 10 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 22436 times:
I'm not sure if people agree with me, but this is a waste of a flight that could be carrying the Centrifuge Accommodations Module and the AMS-02.
Its going to take years before an Orion capsule can reach the machine again, and despite the requirement that Orion be able to service Hubble and satellites near the Earth/Moon and Earth/Sun Lagrange points I am not confident that it will be very feasible to do so. The Hubble was designed with servicing in mind, and it's needed it 4 times in less than 20 years.
My $.2 (inflation, you know). It served its purpose, which was to give NASA new life after Challenger. Now let it die.They should let it fail now, and launch 3 less complicated ones in its place, up to altitudes that are beyond the Shuttle's ceiling where they are more useful at any rate.
Nomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1561 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 22397 times:
Is the ACS going to be that important anymore? Looking at the specs, it seems like WFC-3 can do almost everything ACS can do plus a lot more over a lot wider spectrum.
They claim to have the breaking wire problem in the gyros fixed, and with new batteries, there's a good chance the old girl could last considerably longer than 5 more years. 10 years of science with WPC-3 and COS would be so far beyond what the original Hubble could do, the original designers must think they're dreaming.
Hubble will go down as the most successful, productive mission in Nasa's history by a huge factor. I'm in favor of calling Griffin in to explain to him that it's his job to find AMS a ride and he needs to remember who he works for, but saying that it's more important than getting these new instruments to Hubble and keeping it going is absurd.
Hubble was ready to launch before Challenger, and Orion has never had a requirement to service Hubble or any other satellite. You might not want to get your science history from Weekly world news.
Thorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 22387 times:
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 1): I'm not sure if people agree with me, but this is a waste of a flight that could be carrying the Centrifuge Accommodations Module and the AMS-02.
The CAM was canceled in 2005 and SM-4 was reinstated in 2006. CAM has been sitting outside a building at a Japanese space center for two years now and It isn't flightworthy, and the centrifuge itself was never completed. Also, one flight couldn't carry both the CAM and AMS.
Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 4): I'm in favor of calling Griffin in to explain to him that it's his job to find AMS a ride and he needs to remember who he works for,
He does, that's why he reinstated Hubble SM-4. O'Keefe cancelled it to focus on Space Station, and public opinion was something like 80% against that decision. Something had to give, and it was AMS, which wasn't essential to ISS or which NASA wasn't obligated to launch to ISS for the international partners. Congress belatedly realized that was a mistake and is trying to add an AMS flight, but it might be too late now.
Nomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1561 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 22374 times:
I'm looking at a space.com article from June 26 that says the Senate and House have both passed bills with different wording requiring and funding AMS launch. It also states that Griffin says all the needed hardware for launch is in the pipeline, and Nasa just needs another 300 to 400 million dollars to do add the mission. All contingent on not being too picky about the end of fiscal 2010 retirement date not slipping, I imagine. http://www.space.com/news/080626-senate-extra-shuttle-mission.html
Thorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 22372 times:
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 1): The Hubble was designed with servicing in mind, and it's needed it 4 times in less than 20 years.
Note that all but one of these missions added new, state-of-the-art instruments, allowing Hubble to use modern electronics, etc., as they became available (WFC-3 is a 16 megapixel camera system, for example.) This was a design feature dating back to the Large Space Telescope proposal in the late 1960s. Hubble also now has an order of magnitude more data storage capabilty than it did at launch, and has much faster computers, allowing it to do more work in less time.
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 1): It served its purpose, which was to give NASA new life after Challenger.
No, Hubble was the culmination of the Large Space Telescope project that succeeded the small Orbiting Astronomical Observatories of the 1960s. It was approved in 1978 and was scheduled for launch in September, 1986, but the Challenger accident delayed it until 1990.
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 1): They should let it fail now, and launch 3 less complicated ones in its place, up to altitudes that are beyond the Shuttle's ceiling where they are more useful at any rate.
They already launches many other astronomy satellites in service...
Chandra X-Ray Observatory (1999)
Cosmic Hot Interstellar Plasma Spectrometer (2003)
Galaxy Evolution Explorer (2003)
Gamma-Ray Large Area Space Telescope (2008)
High Energy Transient Explorer (2000)
Rossi X-Ray Timing Explorer (1995)
Spitzer Space Telescope (2003)
Submillimeter Wave Astronomy Satellite (1998)
Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (2001)
NASA also participates in international missions such as INTEGRAL and XMM-Newton.
Thorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 22361 times:
Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 7): I'm looking at a space.com article from June 26 that says the Senate and House have both passed bills with different wording requiring and funding AMS launch. It also states that Griffin says all the needed hardware for launch is in the pipeline, and Nasa just needs another 300 to 400 million dollars to do add the mission. All contingent on not being too picky about the end of fiscal 2010 retirement date not slipping, I imagine.
If there are no more schedule hits (say 60 days or more) they should be able to get off one more flight before the end of FY2010. The last flight is presently scheduled for May 31, 2010, leaving four months for one more flight. So everyone hope for no more hail storms or ECO sensor fiascoes.
My understanding is that they're going to refurbish the External Tank that was damaged during Hurricane Katrina (ET-122, I think) and written off. It will serve as a rescue launch's ET, if necessary. The new-build current rescue launch ET will instead fly STS-134 (AMS and probably some more spares or maybe the Spacehab module) if approved.
Nomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1561 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 22283 times:
Spacehab is a company. Found at the unlikely web address of spacehab.com. They supplied the pressurized modules the shuttle used for research and cargo, and unpressurized cargo carriers along with a slew of other services across all sectors of space based industries.
The Transhab inflatable module that Nasa was working on was cancelled partly at the behest of a congressman who had an interest in the Lockheed rigid habitation module, which was also never completed. Nasa sold all the rights and patents to Bigelow aerospace, who's developing the concept into hotels and research modules. He's already launched two subscale models.
The much maligned Wikipedia has a good summary of the project. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhab
TheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3347 posts, RR: 30 Reply 12, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 22282 times:
Quoting Thorny (Reply 9): If there are no more schedule hits (say 60 days or more) they should be able to get off one more flight before the end of FY2010.
But would they really want to do that? My impression was that they wanted to get the Shuttle program over with the least amount of flights needed to get the ISS construction finished and Hubble repaired (the only exemtion of that rule). Or did this approach towards the shuttle change recently?
Thorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 22280 times:
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 10): Is the Spacehab module the inflatable one, or a fixed habitation module?
Spacehab is a small module that stays in the Shuttle's payload bay and can be used for delivering pressurized cargo to the Station when there isn't enough room in the payload bay for an MPLM. It last flew on STS-118.
Columbia was lost with the Spacehab Double Module, which is twice as long.
I think AMS will only take up about 1/3 of the payload bay, which means NASA will have a little over another third of the payload bay to fill. Spacehab could do it, or perhaps NASA will add a fifth Express Logistics Carrier.
Nomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1561 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 22274 times:
I believe that the AMS is about 7 tons plus whatever the carrier would be, so there would be plenty of payload mass left over.
I was about to ask something about Node 3, but I guess we've drifted off the STS-125 topic enough for the thread.
Thorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 21950 times:
NASA has elected not to advance the launch of STS-125 a few days, staying with the original launch date.
Liftoff of STS-125 is now scheduled for 1:34 am EDT, Wednesday, October 8, 2008.
Landing will be at 10:30pm EDT, Saturday, October 18.
The few days' advance had been intended to give more time to launch the subsequent flight, STS-126, before sun angles on the combined Shuttle/Station stack prevent launches from late November to late December. STS-126 is scheduled for launch on November 10, 2008.
Thorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (4 years 9 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 21768 times:
Delayed nearly a week by Tropical Storm Fay, Space Shuttle Atlantis rolled into the Vehicle Assembly Building late this evening. Atlantis will be attached to its External Tank, with rollout to Launch Pad 39A expected late next week.
Launch is still on schedule for October 8, but Fay ate up a big chunk of margin in the processing schedule.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19714 posts, RR: 56 Reply 18, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 21530 times:
Rollout is scheduled for tomorrow, but with Hurricane Hanna due to at least pass by the coast if not make landfall this week, they might decide to wait until after it passes to send Atlantis to the pad.
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Thorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 21520 times:
Rollout is now officially no earlier than 12:00 am Wednesday. But that's vanishingly unlikely as long as Hanna's course still has a fair chance of making landfall near Cape Canaveral. By the time we know it won't, it will be getting too close to roll out the Shuttle.
Personally, I don't expect rollout until next Saturday at the earliest unless Hanna makes a major course-change to the east. Hanna is forecast to pass Cape Canaveral on Thursday night as a Category 1 or 2. It will likely be far enough offshore that there won't be any significant damage to KSC, but it will cause weather problems for another two days beyond close approach, at least, and they need 8 hours of clear skies for rollout. Sunday or Monday rollout isn't out of the question.
This will push launch out to October 13 or 14, I think, which narrows the window for the subsequent Endeavour launch (Nov 10 currently, but slipping one-for-one with Atlantis launch delays which kick in starting around the middle of this week.) I think the odds of Endeavour flying STS-126 this year are fading fast, unless NASA changes its collective mind and decides to launch 126 from 39B (saving one week of processing time currently planned for the move from 39B to 39A.)
Thorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 21442 times:
Rollout to Pad 39A is now officially no earlier than Saturday. October 11 launch is still do-able, assuming Tropical Storm Hanna does not interfere with other preparations at KSC and Tropical Storm Ike does not follow the same path.