Hubble plug to be pulled

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

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

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
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.

Had the bum on the line for 20 years. I'll be happy to second guess for
you.

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

So it appears.

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.

Regarded as one of the greatest scientific programs of all time.

R / John

"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
...
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.

That is true. But future shuttle flights won't be conducted in the same
"come home as you are" fashion". A mission to the ISS that results in the
detection of damage that prohibits a timely reentry and landing means the
crew becomes extended guests on the ISS; detection of the same damage during
a Hubble repair/service mission does not leave them that option and results
in a rather short timeline within which to launch and complete some sort of
rescue effort.

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.

Because they did no investigation at all? Agreed that in-flight inspection,
be it by space walk, remote viewing, or a camera mounted on the end of the
shuttle arm, or the likely combination of all three, will not be foolproof,
but you can bet that they pay particular attention to leading edge surfaces.


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.

I think it is a shame that it may be allowed to die--but like you I have
pretty good confidence in the professionals' assessment.

Brooks


---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

In article ,
says...

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.

I think it is a shame that it may be allowed to die--but like you I have
pretty good confidence in the professionals' assessment.



Most of the jobs that used to be done by the Hubble are done by improved
Earth based telescopes today. Its mainly now used for spotting not the
major work.

Yes there would be some advantages to keep it going as it can see
spectrums that cannot penetrate the Earth's atmosphere but its
considered, not enough to justify the risk to the people on the shuttle
and its will outdated anyway soon.

--
Morality is like fashion. It changes all the time.

Observations of Bernard - No 54

NASA's afraid of another crew loss. So man the shuttle with old heads
like me. I'll go in a heart beat. That sucker can't be much trickier
to land than a 104
from its 15,000 foot high key. Wonder if John Glenn would side me. I'd
a damn sight rather die in the shuttle than in a hospital bed from
prostate cancer, my little souvenir from Vietnam and Agent Orange.
Walt BJ

"WaltBJ" wrote in message
om...
NASA's afraid of another crew loss. So man the shuttle with old heads
like me. I'll go in a heart beat. That sucker can't be much trickier
to land than a 104
from its 15,000 foot high key. Wonder if John Glenn would side me. I'd
a damn sight rather die in the shuttle than in a hospital bed from
prostate cancer, my little souvenir from Vietnam and Agent Orange.
Walt BJ

Which part would you play in Space Cowboys?
Eastwood, Sutherland, Jones or Garner?

Pete

"Pete" wrote in message ...
"WaltBJ" wrote in message
om...
NASA's afraid of another crew loss. So man the shuttle with old heads
like me. I'll go in a heart beat. That sucker can't be much trickier
to land than a 104
from its 15,000 foot high key. Wonder if John Glenn would side me. I'd
a damn sight rather die in the shuttle than in a hospital bed from
prostate cancer, my little souvenir from Vietnam and Agent Orange.
Walt BJ

Which part would you play in Space Cowboys?
Eastwood, Sutherland, Jones or Garner?

Pete

Dumb question - Sutherland, of course.
Walt BJ

WaltBJ wrote:

"Pete" wrote in message ...

Which part would you play in Space Cowboys?
Eastwood, Sutherland, Jones or Garner?

Pete

Dumb question - Sutherland, of course.

But Sutherland wasn't a pilot, being essentially blind. Gee, you don't suppose that may have
been related to . . . on second thought, it's probably better if we don't go there ;-)

Guy

(WaltBJ) wrote in message . com...
NASA's afraid of another crew loss. So man the shuttle with old heads
like me. I'll go in a heart beat. That sucker can't be much trickier
to land than a 104 from its 15,000 foot high key. Wonder if John
Glenn would side me. I'd a damn sight rather die in the shuttle than
in a hospital bed from prostate cancer, my little souvenir from
Vietnam and Agent Orange.

I think NASA is more worried about another Shuttle loss. There's no
shortage of willing astronauts and astronaut candidates, but there is
a noticeable shortage of orbiters, and they're much harder (read:
impossible) to replace.

-jake