A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Hubble plug to be pulled



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 15th 04, 09:55 PM
John Carrier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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



  #2  
Old March 15th 04, 10:06 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #3  
Old March 15th 04, 11:22 PM
Steve Hix
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.)
  #4  
Old March 16th 04, 12:27 AM
John Carrier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #5  
Old March 16th 04, 12:57 AM
M. H. Greaves
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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





  #6  
Old March 16th 04, 01:02 AM
M. H. Greaves
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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





  #7  
Old March 16th 04, 02:35 AM
Jim Yanik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



If O'Keefe had been in command when Apollo 1 had it's fire,we would never
have reached the moon.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net
  #8  
Old March 16th 04, 03:11 AM
Peter Kemp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 14:55:19 -0600, "John Carrier"
wrote:

"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."


What I don't understand is - even if the Columbia mission had been to
the ISS it may have all still ended in tragedy. It only takes a small
leading edge crack to expand in the way we saw, so unless they're
planning doing *very* thorough orbital "walk arounds" of the orbiter
to inspect fro cracks, you're still likely to come back in pieces.
After all the Columbia didn't know their wing was damaged when they
attempted reentry.

Oh, and my vote would be to keep Hubble going, but it isn't my bum on
the line, so I won't second guess NASA.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster
  #9  
Old March 16th 04, 12:26 PM
Bernardz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


  #10  
Old March 16th 04, 01:16 PM
Stephen Harding
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Peter Kemp wrote:

Oh, and my vote would be to keep Hubble going, but it isn't my bum on
the line, so I won't second guess NASA.


It's my understanding the decision to discard Hubble
is currently under review.

Lots of upset astronomers and cosmologists out there
when word of its "retirement" came out.

Then the thing turns around and makes more discoveries,
like the farthest object yet known in space, a mere 750
million years after the big bang.

A shame to lose such a wonderful resource, especially
when a replacement isn't going to be on-line for years
to come.


SMH

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Helicopter headset plug - help needed NewsGroups Home Built 4 September 8th 04 05:21 PM
Fiberglass release agent? [email protected] Home Built 14 July 9th 04 10:26 PM
OV-10A Bronco Shameless ebay plug DavidG35 Military Aviation 0 November 7th 03 07:17 AM
WTB: Turbine ignition exciter unit, single plug Juan E Jimenez Aviation Marketplace 0 August 25th 03 12:48 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.