Eric Chomko wrote:
Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: David M. Palmer wrote:
: In article , Max Beerbohm
: wrote:
:
:
:
: Seriously, if you are going to say that there is no reason not to do a
: Hubble visit, you need to address the safety issue - as some on this
: group have done.
:
: The article above is poorly researched because of this.
:
:
: The expected risk cost is ~0.1 lives and 0.015 shuttles (assuming a
: 1/70 chance of disaster with each shuttle mission not to ISS).
:

: Recalculate for 1/50 That is the current safety rating.


: It's not a safety issue. It is quite a bit of a project management
: issue. The 2007 launch to Hubble would be right in the middle of
: ISS flights. They would have to take a shuttle offline and do
: a one-off flight to another destination. If they go with a
: safety net of a spare shuttle, then you have created a gap of
: a couple months when ISS construction and processing is interrupted.

So ISS will get completed two months early and THAT is why Hubble can't
be serviced? Two months? Real leadership would complete ISS and fix the
Hubble. Partisan BS has Texas getting its project done whereas the ongoing
Maryland project can go to hell!


Generally, sudden halts in construction projects are bad. They can
sometimes allow things backlogged to catch up, but that is not the case
here. They have the parts and are ready to roll. Arbitrarily stopping
construction to do a sideline task in a life extension program on
something that has already been extended is not really something that
makes a large amount of sense, or even a small amount. Shuttle is there
for ISS now. Nothing else.