Remember, NASA is now missing two of its original fleet of space shuttles. The dangers have increased. -----Original Message----- From: B. Bettilyon [mailto:aaah@sisna.com] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 11:21 AM To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Hubble (Again) IMHO, this is a bunch crap! NASA has become impotent. They already serviced the Hubble once.(or is it twice?). Does this mean it was too dangerous to do last time around, but they said "What the hell, let's risk some lives just for fun?" Or are they just looking for a way to kill the program so as to have more money to dump down the Moon Base rat hole? Barney B. FROM PATRICK'S NEWS: The verdict seems final: NASA says it is just too risky for shuttle astronauts to fix the Hubble Space Telescope, which means an early death for the world's premier astronomical eye in the sky. http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20040208_145.html <http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20040208_145.html>
Kim, I'm not sure what you mean. What do missing ships have to do with safety? NASA always claimed that even in an emergency, there would be nearly a two week turn around (at best) between shuttle launches. Even if they had 10 ships the danger would be (has been) the same. Barney ----- Original Message ----- From: Kim Hyatt To: 'Utah Astronomy' Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 11:29 AM Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Hubble (Again) Remember, NASA is now missing two of its original fleet of space shuttles. The dangers have increased. -----Original Message----- From: B. Bettilyon [mailto:aaah@sisna.com] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 11:21 AM To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Hubble (Again) IMHO, this is a bunch crap! NASA has become impotent. They already serviced the Hubble once.(or is it twice?). Does this mean it was too dangerous to do last time around, but they said "What the hell, let's risk some lives just for fun?" Or are they just looking for a way to kill the program so as to have more money to dump down the Moon Base rat hole? Barney B. FROM PATRICK'S NEWS: The verdict seems final: NASA says it is just too risky for shuttle astronauts to fix the Hubble Space Telescope, which means an early death for the world's premier astronomical eye in the sky. http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20040208_145.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
The danger is the same, but the relative risk is greater. --- "B. Bettilyon" <aaah@sisna.com> wrote:
Kim, I'm not sure what you mean. What do missing ships have to do with safety? NASA always claimed that even in an emergency, there would be nearly a two week turn around (at best) between shuttle launches.
Even if they had 10 ships the danger would be (has been) the same.
Barney ----- Original Message ----- From: Kim Hyatt To: 'Utah Astronomy' Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 11:29 AM Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Hubble (Again)
Remember, NASA is now missing two of its original fleet of space shuttles. The dangers have increased. -----Original Message----- From: B. Bettilyon [mailto:aaah@sisna.com] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 11:21 AM To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Hubble (Again)
IMHO, this is a bunch crap! NASA has become impotent. They already serviced the Hubble once.(or is it twice?). Does this mean it was too dangerous to do last time around, but they said "What the hell, let's risk some lives just for fun?" Or are they just looking for a way to kill the program so as to have more money to dump down the Moon Base rat hole?
Barney B.
FROM PATRICK'S NEWS: The verdict seems final: NASA says it is just too risky for shuttle astronauts to fix the Hubble Space Telescope, which means an early death for the world's premier astronomical eye in the sky.
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20040208_145.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
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
Please explain. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brent Watson" <brentjwatson@yahoo.com> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 11:58 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Hubble (Again)
The danger is the same, but the relative risk is greater.
So essentially, NASA is losing it's marbles? You said it, I didn't! --- Patrick Wiggins <paw@trilobyte.net> wrote:
"B. Bettilyon" wrote:
Please explain.
Kind of like when playing marbles. The more marbles you loose the more protective you are of the ones you still have. : http://www.utahastronomy.com
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
The loss of one more ship represents a greater loss, proportionately, to the whole fleet. If you lose one out of six it is only a 17% loss. One of four is a 25% loss. They are now risking 25% of the fleet rather than 17%. Thus the relative risk is greater. --- "B. Bettilyon" <aaah@sisna.com> wrote:
Please explain.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Brent Watson" <brentjwatson@yahoo.com> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 11:58 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Hubble (Again)
The danger is the same, but the relative risk is greater.
_______________________________________________ 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
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
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% --- Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com> wrote:
The loss of one more ship represents a greater loss, proportionately, to the whole fleet. If you lose one out of six it is only a 17% loss. One of four is a 25% loss. They are now risking 25% of the fleet rather than 17%. Thus the relative risk is greater.
--- "B. Bettilyon" <aaah@sisna.com> wrote:
Please explain.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Brent Watson" <brentjwatson@yahoo.com> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 11:58 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Hubble (Again)
The danger is the same, but the relative risk is greater.
_______________________________________________ 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
__________________________________ 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
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
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
Chuck Hards wrote:
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.
There are two STS launch pads. Could not a 2nd orbiter be put on standby "just in case"? Patrick
--- Patrick Wiggins <paw@trilobyte.net> wrote:
There are two STS launch pads. Could not a 2nd orbiter be put on standby "just in case"?
I believe that the personnel requirements become huge for 2 shuttles on-operations at the same time. Payroll would mushroom, budgets would have to be altered. Also long-established protocols & procedures would have to be altered & accellerated. But the short story, that I got out of the briefings, is that a 2nd shuttle on stand-by is just too darned expensive. C. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
I thought I heard somewhere that the recommendation was to have a backup on the pad anytime a shuttle was in orbit. Is the whole fleet not able to achieve the higher orbit that Hubble is in? The newer orbiters are the only ones left, are all within 1,000 lb. of each other, and lighter than the first orbiters by about 8,000-9,000 lb. The higher orbit also represents more of a risk. I am sure there are many things that go into the decision. I was merely translating Kim's comment. Brent --- Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> wrote:
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
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
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
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
You're right of course, contractual obligations must be met. But remember that we're astronomy enthusiasts & educators; ISS has virtually nothing to do with astronomy and Hubble has pracitcally defined it since it's first repair mission. It's hard to let a good thing go. --- Paul C Johnson <pjohnson@xmission.com> wrote:
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.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 20:38:09 -0800 (PST), Chuck Hards wrote:
You're right of course, contractual obligations must be met. But remember that we're astronomy enthusiasts & educators; ISS has virtually nothing to do with astronomy and Hubble has pracitcally defined it since it's first repair mission.
It's hard to let a good thing go.
Isn't the Hubble nearing the end of its usefulness anyway? I thought I heard that in the very near future it would only be used as a spotting scope for finding interesting targets for the Paranal array. Maybe that was an exageration though, I can't remember where I heard that. Would the servicing mission have added any extra usefulness to the Hubble, or was it meant to be just a maintenance mission? Rich Allen
Rich Allen wrote:
Isn't the Hubble nearing the end of its usefulness anyway?
Without new guidance parts to keep the thing pointing right it's usefulness could end within a couple of years.
Would the servicing mission have added any extra usefulness to the Hubble, or was it meant to be just a maintenance mission? With new guidance parts and all the new hardware that has already been fabricated and is sitting in storage waiting for a ride to Hubble it's useful life could be extended until after NGST ( http://ngst.gsfc.nasa.gov:80/News ) can be launched early in the next decade. In fact, one of the things the folks at STScI were looking forward to was using HST and NGST in tandem.
Here's what STScI has to say on the subject: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/future Patrick
I suppose this is pretty naive of me as to how these things work, but couldn't NASA plan a service trip to ISS that would also include servicing Hubble while they are already in orbit, or are the distances between the two craft prohibitively far apart? Or is it more a matter of supply weights? (though I'm guessing a new Pentium-1 processor [has to be 5-year-old technology at least] and a few new gyros, a couple of propellant canisters and a new CCD chip wouldn't weigh THAT much, or...)? -Rich --- Patrick Wiggins <paw@trilobyte.net> wrote:
With new guidance parts and all the new hardware that has already been fabricated and is sitting in storage waiting for a ride to Hubble it's useful life could be extended until after NGST ( http://ngst.gsfc.nasa.gov:80/News ) can be launched early in the next decade. In fact, one of the things the folks at STScI were looking forward to was using HST and NGST in tandem.
Here's what STScI has to say on the subject: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/future
Patrick
_______________________________________________ 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
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
I'm sure ISS and Hubble are in different orbital planes. It would take a lot of thrust to change from one to the next–probably too much. Jim ---- Jim Cobb james@cobb.name On Feb 10, 2004, at 9:35 AM, Richard Tenney wrote:
I suppose this is pretty naive of me as to how these things work, but couldn't NASA plan a service trip to ISS that would also include servicing Hubble while they are already in orbit, or are the distances between the two craft prohibitively far apart? Or is it more a matter of supply weights? (though I'm guessing a new Pentium-1 processor [has to be 5-year-old technology at least] and a few new gyros, a couple of propellant canisters and a new CCD chip wouldn't weigh THAT much, or...)?
-Rich
Jim is right. HST is in a ~370 km, ~28.5 degree (in relationship to the Earth's equator) orbit while ISS's orbit is ~570 km, ~51.6 degree. The shuttle's orbital maneuvering system does allow some change in orbital plane and altitude but not that much. I still like the idea of having a second shuttle prep'd and ready just in case but, as was mentioned before, that would probably cost too much. Patrick Jim Cobb wrote:
I'm sure ISS and Hubble are in different orbital planes. It would take a lot of thrust to change from one to the nextprobably too much.
On Feb 10, 2004, at 9:35 AM, Richard Tenney wrote:
I suppose this is pretty naive of me as to how these things work, but couldn't NASA plan a service trip to ISS that would also include servicing Hubble while they are already in orbit, or are the distances between the two craft prohibitively far apart? Or is it more a matter of supply weights? (though I'm guessing a new Pentium-1 processor [has to be 5-year-old technology at least] and a few new gyros, a couple of propellant canisters and a new CCD chip wouldn't weigh THAT much, or...)?ð
participants (9)
-
B. Bettilyon -
Brent Watson -
Chuck Hards -
Jim Cobb -
Kim Hyatt -
Patrick Wiggins -
Paul C Johnson -
Rich Allen -
Richard Tenney