I'm not entirely sure that "safety" is referring just to the astronauts themselves. NASA only has the 3 shuttles left and a huge commitment to the international community to finish building the ISS. We must have shuttles in working order to be able to meet this commitment. If all of our shuttles go out of service before we can finish ISS then NASA ends up with egg on their faces. They look even worse if they use a shuttle to service Hubble and something happens to it. I think NASA wants to play it safe with the shuttles at least as much as they do with the people (like everyone is saying on the list). The bottom line is that the ISS is going be the ONLY priority for our shuttle resources since the fleet isn't getting any younger. I don't believe that the decision to axe Hubble has any thing to do with the budget of the new space initiative but a mere coincidence. Heck, maybe NASA just thought it would be easier to accept a world without Hubble while we all dreamt about going to the Moon. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+pjohnson=xmission.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+pjohnson=xmission.com@mailman.xmission.co m] On Behalf Of B. Bettilyon Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 3:45 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Hubble (Again) 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
_______________________________________________ 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