View Single Post
  #6  
Old February 13th 04, 11:15 PM
Charles Buckley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Don't Desert Hubble

Chosp wrote:

"Brett Buck" wrote in message
...


Brian Gaff wrote:

Hmm, I have not seen anywhere any detailed, data supported reasons for


the

cancellations yet. Lots of words, but no arguable reason for it.

so, what is the reason?


Seems perfectly simple and well-defined to me. No on-orbit repair
capability because it's too expensive, no ready rescue flight because
it's too expensive, so all shuttle flight go to ISS as a safe haven.

What's so hard to understand about that?



A whole lot - because it is false.

The CAIB report REQUIRES on-orbit repair capability even on trips
to the ISS (because of the possibility of abort-to-orbit scenarios
which cannot reach the ISS. Therefore it is NOT too expensive -
because they are doing it anyway.


The CAIB does state that the repair kit can be positioned at
ISS..

Big difference there..

It has not been demonstrated that the ISS is any real "safe haven".
There are questions about the Russians ability to make Soyuz capsules
fast enough to offload enough stranded astronauts if something goes
wrong with the ISS. Problems with the systems aboard the ISS (in its
current configuration) will greatly increase as they are overdriven by
having nine astronauts aboard. If an approaching Progress supply craft
goes bump in the night - there is no place left to go.

Flights to the ISS are more stressful to the Shuttle than would be a
flight to Hubble. The payloads are heavier; the inclination requires
more fuel and a longer burn time - all of which add more risk
to such a mission than to a mission to Hubble.

Before the Shuttle launches again it will have a boom extension for
its arm (which was already being developed by Canadarm for
the ISS to enable it to reach all the expected additional components);
some form of repair capability and the means to reach anywhere
on the Shuttle. This will be the case whether it goes to the ISS or
not.