Hubble to be abandoned

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html

Not good news; here's hoping Bush follows through with the replacement
telescope!

Michael Gallagher wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html

Not good news; here's hoping Bush follows through with the replacement
telescope!

Simple answer: sell Hubble. Let whoever buys it sell the images/scope
time... and let *them* service it.

Hubble has been a hell of a success story. But it is rather old and
ailing; if NASA thinks the only way to service it is with
half-billion-dollar Shuttle missions, then perhaps owndership should go
to someone who could service it with, say, two Falcon V launches... one
with the parts, one with the Burt Rutan Spaceship 3 capsule for the
repair crew...

--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

Oh for... see, this is what I was afraid of. Granted, something like HST cannot
last forever, but it seems we're sacrificing something that can be of continued
use in the long term for a short-term gain. There is NO promise that CEV or
anything we need to get back to the Moon or to Mars will be ready in the near
term.

We can do better, guys. Let us not put all our eggs in this basket.

Matt Periolat wrote:

Oh for... see, this is what I was afraid of. Granted, something like HST cannot
last forever, but it seems we're sacrificing something....

So, fly repair missions with something other than Shuttle.


--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

Scott Lowther wrote:
Michael Gallagher wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html

Not good news; here's hoping Bush follows through with the replacement
telescope!


Simple answer: sell Hubble. Let whoever buys it sell the images/scope
time... and let *them* service it.

Hubble has been a hell of a success story. But it is rather old and
ailing; if NASA thinks the only way to service it is with
half-billion-dollar Shuttle missions, then perhaps owndership should go
to someone who could service it with, say, two Falcon V launches... one
with the parts, one with the Burt Rutan Spaceship 3 capsule for the
repair crew...



You know, that's not a bad idea. NASA has already amortized out
most of it's costs associated with Hubble. Puts the onus on the
end user to maintain the system.

Charles Buckley wrote:

Scott Lowther wrote:
Michael Gallagher wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html

Not good news; here's hoping Bush follows through with the replacement
telescope!


Simple answer: sell Hubble. Let whoever buys it sell the images/scope
time... and let *them* service it.

Hubble has been a hell of a success story. But it is rather old and
ailing; if NASA thinks the only way to service it is with
half-billion-dollar Shuttle missions, then perhaps owndership should go
to someone who could service it with, say, two Falcon V launches... one
with the parts, one with the Burt Rutan Spaceship 3 capsule for the
repair crew...


You know, that's not a bad idea.

[God] Of COURSE it's a good idea! [/God]

NASA has already amortized out
most of it's costs associated with Hubble. Puts the onus on the
end user to maintain the system.

Indeed. While I have been more than happy to download high-rez Hubble
images for free... I've also happily purchased Hubble image posters.
There is a market for scientific equipement and their products. Those
who want to use Hubble to look at, say, M-31 should be willing to pony
up the money to do so. If they can find a far cheaper way of doing so
than using the Shuttle, then more power to 'em. And it seems
unreasonable in the extreme to me that the *only* way to service the HST
is with a giant reusable payload shroud that costs a half-billion-plus
every time you pull the trigger on it. If you could get that servicing
mission down to twenty million dollars every five years, that's 4
million per year or about eleven grand per day. Get four hundred
thousand people (worldwide) to subscribe to the HST download service at,
say, ten dollars per year, then your servicing missions are paid for.


--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

Scott Lowther wrote:
Matt Periolat wrote:

Oh for... see, this is what I was afraid of. Granted, something like HST cannot
last forever, but it seems we're sacrificing something....


So, fly repair missions with something other than Shuttle.




What? You mean like flying a Soyuz from Kourou? Timing looks
good for that. I think it would be able to make the Hubble orbit,
but I am guessing.

That looks pretty basic. Offer it to whoever can contract with
RSA for that. If they can do a salvo launch with an ATV, so much
the better.

Charles Buckley wrote:

Scott Lowther wrote:
Matt Periolat wrote:

Oh for... see, this is what I was afraid of. Granted, something like HST cannot
last forever, but it seems we're sacrificing something....


So, fly repair missions with something other than Shuttle.



What? You mean like flying a Soyuz from Kourou?

Or D-IVs from Canaveral. Or Falcon V's from Texas. Or Pioneer
Trailblazers from Oklahoma.

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. Give $500M to a commercial concern, and they'll
probably be able to build and launch an entire HST-class scopesat for
that price.

--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

I mean, jeez. A Shuttle HST
mission costs $500M. Give $500M to a commercial concern, and they'll
probably be able to build and launch an entire HST-class

Just where does that prce keep coming from?

The last figures posted were shuttle cost about 4.5 BILLION per year for all
costs, and that was expected to rise to 5B after columbia for safety upgrades.

Now fly 4 missions per year thats 1.25 billion per flight.

no where near 500 million, what am I missing?

Beyond which whats it going to cost to build and launch the space tug to
deorbit hubble?

I think it would be better to fund one more service flight then decide hubbles
future after its replacement is up and working and the new manned launcher is
operational.

hack the new manned klauncher might make continued operations more affordabole.

we are about to see nasa gutted to fund a moon mars program that probably
wouldnt get off the ground.

If you ask me this is a cover to kill nasa

Scott Lowther wrote:
Charles Buckley wrote:

Scott Lowther wrote:

Matt Periolat wrote:


Oh for... see, this is what I was afraid of. Granted, something like HST cannot
last forever, but it seems we're sacrificing something....


So, fly repair missions with something other than Shuttle.



What? You mean like flying a Soyuz from Kourou?


Or D-IVs from Canaveral. Or Falcon V's from Texas. Or Pioneer
Trailblazers from Oklahoma.

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. Give $500M to a commercial concern, and they'll
probably be able to build and launch an entire HST-class scopesat for
that price.



I was looking more at using existing hardware, for the most
point or items that are in the pipeline. The launch vehicles
are all developed for what I was describing. The new launch site
is already in development and is projected to be online
in 2007.

Consider is a baseline cost model and mission.

What would it really cost to use Soyuz to boost Hubble in
the 2008 timeframe? Can they service the gyro's with Soyuz,
or will it require an additional launch from another source?