Hubble plug to be pulled

60 minutes had a piece on Sean O'Keefe's decision to no longer support the
Hubble Space Telescope. His reasoning: it's too risky. Supporting the
space station is okay because if the shuttle is damaged and cannot reenter,
they can always board the ISS and wait for a rescue mission. The Hubble
mission would not have a rescue option. So the current effort to put
together an upgrade package to keep the telescope and its research alive for
another decade may not come to pass.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't ANY form of exploration
accompanied by risk? If we accept the President's challenge to go to Mars,
will we only do so if we have a solid, low risk, plan B? (Did Armstrong,
Aldrin, and Collins even contemplate a plan B?)

NASA's chief scientist John Grunsfeld (two Hubble missions) seems to
equivocate:

From 60 minutes transcript
"I still think that Hubble is a tremendous resource and was worth risking my
life for," says Grunsfeld. "But Columbia changed all of that in a very
fundamental way. We now know more about the risks of the space shuttle than
we ever knew before."

Does he think that flying to Hubble is more dangerous than flying to the
space station?

"If everything goes perfectly on a mission, I would say it's comparable
risk," says Grunsfeld. "But we've seen from Columbia that things don't
always go perfectly. And it's that fundamental difference that on a Hubble
flight if something goes wrong you run out of options very quickly. And on
these space station flights we have lots of options."
Snip

Was worth it, but evidently no longer? We've all been there ... lose a
wingman, watch a friend hit the ramp ... when the risks suddenly seem very
real, very personal, and quite possible. Then you shake it off, put your
gear on, strap in and do it.

But not NASA.

R / John

"John Carrier" wrote in message
...

Was worth it, but evidently no longer? We've all been there ... lose a
wingman, watch a friend hit the ramp ... when the risks suddenly seem very
real, very personal, and quite possible. Then you shake it off, put your
gear on, strap in and do it.

NASA has to develop a vehicle to go to the Moon before the Chinese get
there. The use of Mars as a destination is only a metaphor for wherever.
NASA has been given their priorities from the Executive and no new money.
How else can NASA continue to visit planets on less money than to use
robots?

The 2% loss rate for shuttles was acceptable when they were to build large
space structures for military applications as a stopgap measure. The
militarization of space race pretty well ended with Reagan's bluff in the
80's and so there was no follow on vehicle. The fact is, without a new
vehicle NASA may as well cease to exist as a manned flight program shortly
after 2010.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"John Carrier" wrote in message
...

Was worth it, but evidently no longer? We've all been there ... lose a
wingman, watch a friend hit the ramp ... when the risks suddenly seem very
real, very personal, and quite possible. Then you shake it off, put your
gear on, strap in and do it.

NASA has to develop a vehicle to go to the Moon before the Chinese get
there. The use of Mars as a destination is only a metaphor for wherever.
NASA has been given their priorities from the Executive and no new money.
How else can NASA continue to visit planets on less money than to use
robots?

The 2% loss rate for shuttles was acceptable when they were to build large
space structures for military applications as a stopgap measure. The
militarization of space race pretty well ended with Reagan's bluff in the
80's and so there was no follow on vehicle. The fact is, without a new
vehicle NASA may as well cease to exist as a manned flight program shortly
after 2010.

Cherie Mills responds:

Militarization of space race "did not end" with Reagan's bluff in the
80s.

Cherie Mills
*********************
U.S. Space Warriors:
(Quotations from article below):

"According to James Roche, the U.S.A.F. Secretary, America's allies
would have "no veto power" over projects like the military space plane
that are designed to give the U.S. military control of space."

"The NRO, the super secret spy agency that is responsible for U.S.
satellites, has been given the job to develop the strategy to ensure
American allies or enemies never gain access to space without U.S.
permission. European efforts to build the multi-billion dollar Galileo
satellite navigational system is seen as a direct threat to U.S.
plans for space dominance."

"NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe, who claims everything NASA does from
now on will be ‘dual use' (meaning it will serve both military and
civilian purposes) has said, ‘propulsion power generation advances
that are so critical to the purposes of achieving our exploration and
discovery objectives are the same technologies that national security
seeks to utilize.' It has long been claimed by the Pentagon that they
will require nuclear reactors in space to power space-based weapons."
-------------------------------

SPACE WARRIORS - IRAQ WAR EMBOLDENS BUSH SPACE PLANS
Bruce Gagnon, NPRI (Nuclear Power Research Institute) Board of
Advisors, Counterpunch 08/08/2003

http://www.counterpunch.org/gagnon08082003.html

Military victory in the Iraq war has emboldened the Pentagon in their
claims that space technology gives the U.S. total advantage in time of
war. According to Peter Teets, undersecretary of the Air Force and
director of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), American
capability in space, "must remain ahead of our adversaries'
capabilities, and our doctrine and capabilities must keep pace to meet
that challenge."

"I think the recent military conflict has shown us, without a doubt,
how important the use of space is to national security and military
operations," Teets, a former Lockheed Martin executive recently said.

In order to accomplish the goal of technologically leapfrogging the
space program to the point of global "control and domination" a new
agreement has been signed by NASA, U.S. strategic Command, the NRO and
the Air Force Space Command to fully mesh all their research and
development efforts together. Thus, we witness the takeover of the
U.S. space program by the military and the weapons corporations.

One such example of this new emphasis on technology sharing is the
Bush administration announcement of Project Prometheus, a
multi-billion dollar program to create a nuclear rocket.

NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe, who claims everything NASA does from
now on will be "dual use" (meaning it will serve both military and
civilian purposes) has said, "propulsion power generation advances
that are so critical to the purposes of achieving our exploration and
discovery objectives are the same technologies that national security
seeks to utilize." It has long been claimed by the Pentagon that they
will require nuclear reactors in space to power space-based weapons.

Another example of this new dual use relationship is the effort to
replace the unstable space shuttle fleet. A $4.8 billion development
program is now focusing on the "military space plane," with the Air
Force playing a larger role in calling the shots.

A fleet of space planes will be designed to attack and destroy future
satellites of enemies and rivals. A prototype is expected by 2005 with
deployment envisioned around 2014.

According to James Roche, the U.S.A.F. Secretary, America's allies
would have "no veto power" over projects like the military space plane
that are designed to give the U.S. military control of space.

The NRO, the super secret spy agency that is responsible for U.S.
satellites, has been given the job to develop the strategy to ensure
American allies or enemies never gain access to space without U.S.
permission. European efforts to build the multi-billion dollar Galileo
satellite navigational system is seen as a direct threat to U.S. plans
for space dominance.

In a computer wargame held at the Air Force's Space Warfare Center at
Schriever A.F.B. in Colorado this past spring, the U.S. practiced such
space "negation." The wargame, set in the year 2017, pitted the blue
team (U.S.) against the red team (China). Its scenario was fairly
complex, incorporating several "opportunities for conflict in
southwest and southern Asia." Unlike the last such game in 2001, this
year's version urged participants not to get "bogged down in
discussions about space law and policies, which disrupted the game's
military operations," reported Aviation Week & Space Technology. This
time around the ABM Treaty with Russia was no longer in existence.

Russia and China are renewing their call for a global ban on weapons
in space. On July 31, 2003 the two powers delivered their pleas at a
session of the U.N. Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. Both
countries worry that Bush's call for early deployment of National
Missile Defense (NMD) will create a new and costly arms race in space
that will be difficult to call back. So far the U.S. refuses to
discuss a moratorium or ban on weapons in space * saying there is no
problem and thus no need to begin negotiations.

Bush is calling for deployment of six NMD missile interceptors in
Alaska, and four in California, by September 30, 2004. Ten more are
due in Fort Greely, Alaska by 2005. The $500 million silo construction
project is headed by Boeing and Bechtel corporations. The big problem
for Bush's deployment plan, to be carried out just prior to the 2004
national elections, is that the testing program of the interceptor
missiles is not going well. In addition to the fact that the
hit-to-kill mechanisms are proving unreliable (trying to have a bullet
hit a bullet in deep space), the booster rockets that are supposed to
launch the "kill vehicle" into space are months behind schedule in
development. The Bush solution to the problem has been to say that
future testing will be done in secrecy.

Each of these Missile Defense Agency (MDA) tests cost over $100
million. Boeing was recently promised a $45 million bonus if it could
carry out a successful test, but failed to do so.

In fact Boeing has other troubles. Last January, two Boeing managers
stationed at Cape Canaveral, Florida were charged with conspiring to
steal Lockheed Martin trade secrets involving another Air Force rocket
program.

Despite such fraud, delays, cost overruns and technology problems the
U.S. House and Senate continue to grant the Pentagon virtually every
penny they request for Star Wars. In 2004 $9.1 billion will be awarded
to the MDA for space weapons research and development.

Bush has, in his first three years in office, created the largest
budget deficit in U.S. history. As money for education, health care,
social security, environmental clean-up, and the like are cut,
military spending now accounts for the majority of federal spending in
nearly every state. The U.S. now accounts for 43% of world military
spending.

The U.S. is anxious for Australia, UK, India, Israel, Russia, and
others to become international partners in Star Wars. The program will
be so expensive (some say the largest industrial project in the
history of the planet) that even the U.S. can't pay for it alone. By
pulling in the aerospace sectors of other countries, Bush knows he can
blunt international opposition to his goals of a new and very
expensive arms race that will clearly benefit the aerospace industry
and the politicians that get the kick-backs.

As we recall George W. Bush's post 9-11 statement that, "It's going to
be a long, long war" our eyes must turn to the larger issue of U.S.
plans for global empire. Recent disclosures in U.S. News (7/21/03)
about Pentagon "Operations Plan 5030" reveal a new war plan for North
Korea. One scenario calls for U.S. surveillance flights bumping up
alongside North Korean airspace in hopes of creating the right
incident to spark the pretext for war.

Expanding U.S. military presence worldwide is intended to secure
scarce resources like oil and water for U.S. corporate control.
Growing "global strike capability" means smaller but more maneuverable
troop deployments to rapidly suppress any opposition to U.S.
dominance. The people of the world are being told to submit to U.S.
authority or pay the price. U.S. space technology is intended to tie
this global military package together and to ensure that no military
competitor can emerge.

The global peace movement we witnessed prior to the recent U.S.
attacks and occupation of Iraq is the other superpower in the world
today. U.S. ambitions for global control and domination in the end
will fail because the people of the world will not allow any one
nation to be the over lord of the planet.

On October 4-11 the Global Network will hold its annual Keep Space for
Peace Week: International Days of Protest to Stop the Militarization
of Space. Local events are expected to be held on virtually every
continent of the world to show the growing consciousness within the
peace movement about the current U.S. plan for control of space. We
urge local groups to organize actions in solidarity with other groups
on this day. Check our website at www.space4peace.org for details.

Let us all do what we can to non-violently resist this frightening
global strategy.

Bruce K. Gagnon is coordinator of Global Network Against Weapons &
Nuclear Power in Space based in Brunswick, ME, and a member of the
NPRI Board of Advisors.

2003 NPRI. All rights reserved.

"Cherie Mils" wrote in message
om...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
"John Carrier" wrote in message
...

Was worth it, but evidently no longer? We've all been there ... lose
a
wingman, watch a friend hit the ramp ... when the risks suddenly seem
very
real, very personal, and quite possible. Then you shake it off, put
your
gear on, strap in and do it.

NASA has to develop a vehicle to go to the Moon before the Chinese get
there. The use of Mars as a destination is only a metaphor for
wherever.
NASA has been given their priorities from the Executive and no new
money.
How else can NASA continue to visit planets on less money than to use
robots?

The 2% loss rate for shuttles was acceptable when they were to build
large
space structures for military applications as a stopgap measure. The
militarization of space race pretty well ended with Reagan's bluff in
the
80's and so there was no follow on vehicle. The fact is, without a new
vehicle NASA may as well cease to exist as a manned flight program
shortly
after 2010.

Cherie Mills responds:

Militarization of space race "did not end" with Reagan's bluff in the
80s.

The money dried up for manned vehicles in the '80s.

*********************
U.S. Space Warriors:
(Quotations from article below):

"According to James Roche, the U.S.A.F. Secretary, America's allies
would have "no veto power" over projects like the military space plane
that are designed to give the U.S. military control of space."

A dead program.

"The NRO, the super secret spy agency that is responsible for U.S.
satellites, has been given the job to develop the strategy to ensure
American allies or enemies never gain access to space without U.S.
permission. European efforts to build the multi-billion dollar Galileo
satellite navigational system is seen as a direct threat to U.S.
plans for space dominance."

Galileo is more of a threat to TACAN navigation in Europe than it is to the
US. MLS with GPS substituted for DME looks to be a promising system instead
of Galileo.

"NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe, who claims everything NASA does from
now on will be 'dual use' (meaning it will serve both military and
civilian purposes) has said, 'propulsion power generation advances
that are so critical to the purposes of achieving our exploration and
discovery objectives are the same technologies that national security
seeks to utilize.' It has long been claimed by the Pentagon that they
will require nuclear reactors in space to power space-based weapons."

No change then.

NASA's true purpose was and is the development of military capability in
space, without being overtly threatening. This is no different from the
Chinese space agency and it is a good thing. NASA was about ICBMs and then
it was about Large Space Structures for Polar Orbit. The money ran out on
the destroy the Earth vehicles with the Soviet's caving to Reagan's bluff.

Now NASA must engage in a friendly race to the Moon with China and continue
to explore the solar system. That way some science gets done along the way
and manned space flight can continue for the US program.

In article ,
"John Carrier" wrote:

60 minutes had a piece on Sean O'Keefe's decision to no longer support the
Hubble Space Telescope. His reasoning: it's too risky.

The decision was neither solely O'Keefe's, nor his to make on his own.
He's just the messenger. (And the astronaut corps agree with the
decision.)

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"John Carrier" wrote:

60 minutes had a piece on Sean O'Keefe's decision to no longer support
the
Hubble Space Telescope. His reasoning: it's too risky.

The decision was neither solely O'Keefe's, nor his to make on his own.
He's just the messenger.

Actually, it probably WAS his to make. He may well have been strongly
persuaded from on high ("do this or I'll find someone who will"). He may
have been advised from below. But making such decisions are why he gets the
big bucks.

(And the astronaut corps agree with the
decision.)

Perhaps. Or they were told to do so. I'd like to see a breakdown of the
yea's and nay's. I doubt it was unanimous.

R / John

Personally i think its about time they replaced the aging shuttles with new
ones; or are they just gonna wait until they have none left!!??
"John Carrier" wrote in message
...
60 minutes had a piece on Sean O'Keefe's decision to no longer support the
Hubble Space Telescope. His reasoning: it's too risky. Supporting the
space station is okay because if the shuttle is damaged and cannot
reenter,
they can always board the ISS and wait for a rescue mission. The Hubble
mission would not have a rescue option. So the current effort to put
together an upgrade package to keep the telescope and its research alive
for
another decade may not come to pass.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't ANY form of exploration
accompanied by risk? If we accept the President's challenge to go to
Mars,
will we only do so if we have a solid, low risk, plan B? (Did Armstrong,
Aldrin, and Collins even contemplate a plan B?)

NASA's chief scientist John Grunsfeld (two Hubble missions) seems to
equivocate:

From 60 minutes transcript
"I still think that Hubble is a tremendous resource and was worth risking
my
life for," says Grunsfeld. "But Columbia changed all of that in a very
fundamental way. We now know more about the risks of the space shuttle
than
we ever knew before."

Does he think that flying to Hubble is more dangerous than flying to the
space station?

"If everything goes perfectly on a mission, I would say it's comparable
risk," says Grunsfeld. "But we've seen from Columbia that things don't
always go perfectly. And it's that fundamental difference that on a Hubble
flight if something goes wrong you run out of options very quickly. And on
these space station flights we have lots of options."
Snip

Was worth it, but evidently no longer? We've all been there ... lose a
wingman, watch a friend hit the ramp ... when the risks suddenly seem very
real, very personal, and quite possible. Then you shake it off, put your
gear on, strap in and do it.

But not NASA.

R / John

In article , mhsw13136
@blueyonder.co.uk says...
Personally i think its about time they replaced the aging shuttles with new
ones; or are they just gonna wait until they have none left!!??

Apparently the shuttles have to be re certified in a few years. The cost
of doing this is huge.

I think the best solution now is to bite the bullet. Change to the
Russian launchers, dump the shuttle and use the money saved on the
shuttle to start immediately on the new launchers.

really there was no plan B, but apollo 13 showed that a plan B could work if
absolutely neccesary by using the LEM as a lifeboat, but that was because
the Orbiters power base flunked, what if it had been the LEM, and on the
surface of the moon?; there would be No way back.
The mission was planned with ONE command module, and ONE LEM any probs they
would work it out from there as they did with "13", and if all went south,
that was IT really!
"John Carrier" wrote in message
...
60 minutes had a piece on Sean O'Keefe's decision to no longer support the
Hubble Space Telescope. His reasoning: it's too risky. Supporting the
space station is okay because if the shuttle is damaged and cannot
reenter,
they can always board the ISS and wait for a rescue mission. The Hubble
mission would not have a rescue option. So the current effort to put
together an upgrade package to keep the telescope and its research alive
for
another decade may not come to pass.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't ANY form of exploration
accompanied by risk? If we accept the President's challenge to go to
Mars,
will we only do so if we have a solid, low risk, plan B? (Did Armstrong,
Aldrin, and Collins even contemplate a plan B?)

NASA's chief scientist John Grunsfeld (two Hubble missions) seems to
equivocate:

From 60 minutes transcript
"I still think that Hubble is a tremendous resource and was worth risking
my
life for," says Grunsfeld. "But Columbia changed all of that in a very
fundamental way. We now know more about the risks of the space shuttle
than
we ever knew before."

Does he think that flying to Hubble is more dangerous than flying to the
space station?

"If everything goes perfectly on a mission, I would say it's comparable
risk," says Grunsfeld. "But we've seen from Columbia that things don't
always go perfectly. And it's that fundamental difference that on a Hubble
flight if something goes wrong you run out of options very quickly. And on
these space station flights we have lots of options."
Snip

Was worth it, but evidently no longer? We've all been there ... lose a
wingman, watch a friend hit the ramp ... when the risks suddenly seem very
real, very personal, and quite possible. Then you shake it off, put your
gear on, strap in and do it.

But not NASA.

R / John

really there was no plan B, but apollo 13 showed that a plan B could work
if
absolutely neccesary by using the LEM as a lifeboat,

How true. NASA's finest hour IMO.

R / John