My point exactly, Chuck. During earlier mission to repair/upgrade Hubble it was some how OK to put crew members at risk, but now it is not...What a shame to be running a Space Program and be afraid to send up astronauts. Plus it will be many orders more dangerous to send men back to the moon and beyond. How are they going to justify that and not repair/maintain the Hubble. This whole thing is about money and politics. Science is no longer the driving force. Barney ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Hards" <chuckhards@yahoo.com> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 1:06 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Hubble (Again)
Hi Brent:
Respectfully, I don't think this has anything to do with it.
Risking hardware is not the point. There is no "lifeboat" for Hubble missions, whereas space station missions provide a haven for the crew if the shuttle is no longer flyable due to a launch or other problem.
I'd hate to think that a new safety program is primarily concerned with not risking the "fleet"; crew safety is the driving force.
C.
--- Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com> wrote:
My numbers are wrong. I think NASA only has three orbiters left. That would mean they risk 33% of their fleet on any mission, not 25%
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com