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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 06:17 AM |
WTB: Turbine ignition exciter unit, single plug | Juan E Jimenez | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 25th 03 12:48 AM |