http://www.floridatoday.com/news/spa...501SHUTTLE.htm

NASA details risks to astronauts on mission to Hubble
_FLORIDA TODAY_ - May 1, 2004

CAPE CANAVERAL -- NASA for the first time Friday detailed its reasons
for a controversial decision to scrap a servicing mission to the Hubble
Space Telescope, saying the flight would entail higher risk to
astronauts.

Those aboard a crippled shuttle in open space could only survive a month
at most, significantly cutting time available to stage a rescue mission,
the agency said.

Ground teams would face an "unprecedented double workload" to ensure a
second shuttle would be ready for timely flight, and it would be
dangerous to carry out spacewalks to move astronauts on a stranded
shuttle to a rescue ship.

"This was a response to the Hubble discussion that's been in the media
lately," said former astronaut John Casper, who now is a shuttle program
manager.

Casper said NASA felt it "needed to articulate a little bit better" the
reasons for canceling a planned Hubble servicing flight in mid-2006 --
"or at least identify the risks."

NASA's thinking on the matter was outlined in a new version of its
Return-To-Flight Implementation Plan, which outlines efforts to respond
to recommendations from Columbia accident investigators.

The investigators ordered NASA to develop a way to carry out orbital
inspections and repairs of the type of damage that doomed Columbia's
crew in February 2003. It also told NASA to "explore all options" for
providing future crews with safe havens in orbit.

NASA now plans to fly shuttles only to the station. Stranded crews could
await a rescue flight at the outpost for more than two months.

The agency had planned to fly a fifth servicing mission to the Hubble
telescope. But the agency cancelled the flight in January, saying it was
too dangerous to carry out in light of board recommendations.

Anonymous NASA white papers circulated earlier this year, though, said a
Hubble mission would be as safe "as ISS missions that fail to dock" at
the station.

NASA's updated Return-To-Flight plan includes a written rebuttal. In it,
the agency outlined "additional risks" of flying missions not destined
for the station. Among them:

# A reduced safe haven capability. Shuttle crews could stay on the
station for up to 68 days in an emergency, time that would allow NASA to
consider all options for a rescue mission.

Crews headed to Hubble or elsewhere would have to be rescued within two
to four weeks.

# A double workload for ground teams. A shortened launch window for a
second shuttle would force NASA to simultaneously prepare two ships for
launch "to ensure timely rescue capability." Two "highly complex"
missions would have to be carried out at the same time.

The amount of time to investigate the cause of whatever failure prompted
the rescue mission also would be limited. And NASA would have no time to
modify the second shuttle to avoid whatever failure crippled the
orbiting shuttle.

The agency's bottom line: Any flight to Hubble or elsewhere "is clearly
riskier than a flight to the station," NASA deputy shuttle program
manager Wayne Hale said.

There, "you have friends that have air and electricity and food and
water and all the necessary means to hang out and give you options to
fix the problem," he said. "That's just common sense."

[end of article]