In article ,
Scott Lowther wrote:
It doesn't matter *how* the servicing is done or from where using what
launcher, just so's it's done economically. I mean, jeez. A Shuttle HST
mission costs $500M.

Remember that the shuttle cost is almost all fixed annual overhead. The
cost of *adding* one more flight to existing shuttle operations is nowhere
near $500M; last I heard, it was estimated at $50-100M, depending on how
much custom preparation is needed.

The Hubble-specific side of preparations, which isn't trivial, is the same
regardless. (If it can be streamlined with another vehicle, it can be
streamlined with the shuttle.) Except that lots of little bits of
existing support equipment and operations procedures are shuttle-specific,
and modifying or rebuilding them is an extra cost of using something else.

Pushing this off the shuttle and saying "use something else" is either
major false economy, or an attempt to kill the mission without actually
quite saying so. It actually doesn't cost that much to use the shuttle
for it; I doubt greatly that you can do it much more cheaply on something
else, all other things being equal.

The way I read it is that O'Keefe sees the safety argument as a great
excuse to head the astronomers off at the pass, firmly eliminating any
possibility that he will later be lobbied for extended Hubble operations,
more servicing flights, more improvements and extensions, etc. He might
have been inclined to go ahead with the one planned servicing flight...
but if he permits one visit, that ruins his silver-bullet argument that
reliably kills all later pleas for more money. So even that one flight
has got to go; the grief he'll take over canceling it will pay off in
avoiding later hassles.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |