Hubble 2 (was Space Shuttle Grounding....depressing....

Iain Rae wrote: 
Andrew Swallow wrote:

Iain Rae wrote:


Andrew Swallow wrote:


Josh Hill wrote: 

[smip]


The Hubble can still do good work. I take it that it would be less
expensive to fix it with a shuttle mission than to replace it with
another unit . . .


Almost certainly the other way round.  Shuttle launches
are very, very expensive.  Hubble is also wearing out.



The average shuttle mission costs a little over $1 billion. 


The above price assumes that there are 5 launches in Financial
Year 2006.  If there are 2 launches the price is $4,531m /2
= $2.2665 billion.  Even more if there is only 1 launch.



But you're assuming that the budget for the shuttles is all overheads,
if there's only one shuttle launch in a year then you've saved money on
consumables, staff time etc.
I based my figure on

total cost of program (~$145  billion)/no of flights (113).


Where the cost of consumables drops below 10% of the cost
approximations can ignore them.


Since shuttle launches are restricted they are now heavily
rationed.  Finding an empty one before the shuttle is retired
in 2010 could be difficult.


That's a political decision not a cost related one.


It is both.  Money for Hubble not spent on one thing can
be spent on something else for the telescope, (subject
to Congressional approval).  If the manual repair option
is chosen then further problems for the Scuttle are major
project risks for Hubble.


http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/107495main_FY06_AOK_pres.pdf






Hubble cost
$2 billion to build in 1980's $. I think the remote control service


For this discussion build costs and launch costs need separating. 


well, the options are:

1. Fix hubble with a shuttle mission.

2. Fix hubble with a robot mission.

3. Replace it with a new telescope launched with something (delta IV?).


1. is going to cost the price of a shuttle launch, the replacment parts
have been built and paid for.

AFAICR 2 will cost $2billion, given they've got the bits to fix it
already the $2billion is going to be the development and construction
costs of the robot, you can throw in an Atlas 5 for free (or include it
in the price) and it's still going to cost more than the shuttle fixing it.


3. is the big unknown, hubble cost $2billion to build new, you could
presumably use the kodak backup mirror and the repair parts to cut costs
 but you'd have to rework the various systems that have been used over
the last 25 years or so which is going to add to the costs. Again
assuming that you'd get a free Atlas 5 to launch it you're going to have
to construct it for <$1.3 billion for it to be cheaper than the shuttle
repair. If this was possible then I would expect NASA to have considered
it as an option rather than going ahead with a feasibility study for the
robotic repair which would be more risky and cost more.


A space repair robot is useful in its own right.  It does
need an excuse and a project to carry the development cost.

Building a "son of hubble" brings us to the technologies used in the
James Webb telescope. This is curently running $1 billion over budget so
I don't think it's likely to be a cheap option for replacing hubble in
the near future.


mission was initially costed at $2 billion and Hubble's "kind of"
successor (JWT) is planned to cost $3.5 billion and I'm sure I've seen
it described as "costing about 1/3 to 1/4 as much in real terms as
hubble".

In terms of Hubble wearing out it needs the batteries and gyroscopes
replaced.


The batteries and gyroscopes are just the start. 


no, they're the end, the batteries are the last components to be
replaced in hubbles power system and the gyroscopes need one more
replacement before hubble hits it's extended design life.


Only because Hubble is due to die in 5 years time.

Its facilities are already wearing out.  For instance
the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS) was
fitted in 1997 and failed last August.


Electronics lasts 10 to 15 years. (See the lifetime of
communications satellites.) 

Gyroscopes and large satellites in LEO last less (see the lifetime of
surveillance satellites or skylab)

That is why the previous set of gyroscopes were replaced
in 1999.  Hubble is now so old that we are replacing
the replacements.

Any replacement telescope may need longer lasting gyroscopes.

Andrew Swallow

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Space Shuttle Grounding....depressing....
    ... >>> The average shuttle mission costs a little over $1 billion. ... >> For this discussion build costs and launch costs need separating. ... >>> In terms of Hubble wearing out it needs the batteries and gyroscopes ...
    (rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated)
  • Re: Bush cancels Hubble telescope rescue mission
    ... The point is that Hubble will continue to get used if repaired. ... you tell me why ISS is more important than Hubble? ... The closest thing is a shuttle. ... :>: Where did the money the Hubble repair mission was going to ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Bush cancels Hubble telescope rescue mission
    ... >But none compete with Hubble. ... Where did the money the Hubble repair mission was going to ... >To ISS, as I understand it. ... the new general purpose Shuttle bucket. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Hubble Repair Mission ON - But Is It a Good IDEA ?
    ... Florida -- NASA Administrator Michael Griffin on ... "We are going to add a shuttle servicing mission to the Hubble Space ... Telescope to the shuttle's manifest to be flown before it retires," ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: How do we keep Hubble up there?
    ... Might as well be Hubble since the administration can use the ... :>:than to ditch ISS. ... We have a plan for discontinuing the Shuttle. ... :underscores the point that the shuttle's only purpose in life is to visit ...
    (sci.space.policy)