Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:
: Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: : Eric Chomko wrote:
: : Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: : : David M. Palmer wrote:
: : : In article , Max Beerbohm

: : 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.
:
: Right, and that is a political decision. HST was designed to be repaired
: by the shuttle. The decision to not fix it now is politcal in favor of
: ISS. Where is each mission based out of? Maryland - blue state. Texas -
: red state. I'll let you guess which one is which.


: This one is not even close to red/blue.

: ISS has 10+ years of international construction and backlogged equipment
: that has to be flown to meet existing obligations. Hubble is a piece of
: equipment well past it's original lifecycle.

But Hubble isn't borken and ISS will get built. Is it worth trashing
Hubble for single launch? A true leader would do both, fix Hubble and
finish ISS.

: It's a *PROJECT MANAGEMENT* decision. If you take 2 shuttles (of the
: 2 in operation in 2007, IIRC) out of shuttle processing for 2 months,
: then you have a 3-6 month break in ISS construction as they will
: have to prep two shuttles for non-ISS flights, then send the rescue
: shuttle back through processing to load the payload and refly. It
: simply does not make sense to divert resources to an ancillary task.

Sure it does. It makes as musch sense as what they are doing on ISS. What
are they doing on ISS? The Hubble produced loads of astronomical science.

: This is especially important in that there is a finite end to the
: Shuttle. It is not an arbitrary end. They will only fly through the
: current certification cycle. They are operating within the constraints
: of the CAIB and that was a bipartisan commission.

Yes, I have the book. I read it. No where does it say not to fly to
Hubble. They warn about the age of the fleet, etc. Fine, the fleet is old.
But to claim that one, albeit differently configured, shuttle of the 27
missions remaining can't be sent to Hubble because of the ISS places too
much importance on ISS and not enough on Hubble. THAT is political.

: ISS is political. It is also politically the *only* reason Shuttle
: is even considered worth flying. Hubble is, at best, a side issue
: to anyone paying the bills. No matter what party they belong to.

You obviously don't live in Maryland or anywhere near it. I wonder what
would be said in Texas if ISS was to be canned in lieu of the Hubble? Care
to guess?

Eric