Hubble plug to be pulled

"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

"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.

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

"John Carrier" wrote in message
...
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.

NASA's ICBM R&D is complete, it is time to move on.

"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

yes i agree with that!!
"John Carrier" wrote in message
...
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

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