possible January launch

I was just reading http://space.com/news/okeefe_shuttle_040212.html
and it looks like they might miss the fall 2004 time frame and end up
launching in January 2005.

Considering the history of problems with January launches, does anyone
find this idea discouraging?

-- David

David Ball wrote:

I was just reading http://space.com/news/okeefe_shuttle_040212.html
and it looks like they might miss the fall 2004 time frame and end up
launching in January 2005.

Considering the history of problems with January launches, does anyone
find this idea discouraging?

The January thing is a coincidence, nothing more.

Aside from that I'm not surprised. O'Keefe is blaming the delay on ET
and inspection boom problems? If you read the recent RTF Task Group
report issued last month (http://www.returntoflight.org/) it appears
that there are _many_ other show stoppers holding up RTF. Things like:

Orbiter Hardening - still at the preliminary stage
Closeout Inspection - no specific plans yet
Mission Mgmt. Team Improvements - needs more detailed plans
Independent Tech. Engineering Authority - plan in development
Mission Assurance Organization - missing critical elements
Plan for Organizational Change - undeveloped

Interestingly enough, the inspection boom does not appear to be one of
the concerns in the report. O'Keefe's testimony is puzzling. He
doesn't even mention the longer poles in the tent; instead, he chooses
to limit his field of view to the strictly technical issues.

I'm not involved in any aspect of the work being done, but from the
point of view of a casual observer it looks like a _lot_ of work remains
to be done.

My own personal estimate of when the Shuttle will return to flight is
sometime late in 2005.

I think they're greasing the skids for Hubble's demise because they
won't be in a position to launch the servicing mission in time to save
it. Echoes of Skylab.

--
bp
Proud Member of the Human O-Ring Society Since 2003

Considering the history of problems with January launches, does anyone
find this idea discouraging?

-- David

Well I try to get to florida in january and really want to see a shuttle
launch. Perhaps february will be better. I think the week in question should be
no launch out of respect for the familys / survivors

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 23:33:52 GMT, Bruce Palmer
wrote:

I think they're greasing the skids for Hubble's demise because they
won't be in a position to launch the servicing mission in time to save
it. Echoes of Skylab.

Is Hubble that close to de-orbiting or does that assume more equipment
failures aboard Hubble ?

I admit I'm a bit ignorant on the technical details of keeping Hubble
in orbit. Does it require re-fueling or some kind of orbital re-boost
by the Shuttle ?

-- David Ball

On 13 Feb 2004 02:37:22 GMT, (Hallerb) wrote:


Considering the history of problems with January launches, does anyone
find this idea discouraging?

-- David

Well I try to get to florida in january and really want to see a shuttle
launch. Perhaps february will be better. I think the week in question should be
no launch out of respect for the familys / survivors

I grew up in Middle Georgia, but I never managed to get to the Cape
for a launch. I've taken the tour a few times, though.

Can someone here comment on how a Shuttle launch compares to an Apollo
launch?

-- David

David Ball wrote in
:

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 23:33:52 GMT, Bruce Palmer
wrote:

I think they're greasing the skids for Hubble's demise because they
won't be in a position to launch the servicing mission in time to save
it. Echoes of Skylab.

Is Hubble that close to de-orbiting or does that assume more equipment
failures aboard Hubble ?

I admit I'm a bit ignorant on the technical details of keeping Hubble
in orbit. Does it require re-fueling or some kind of orbital re-boost
by the Shuttle ?

Hubble has no propulsion systems, and is completely dependent on the
shuttle for reboost.

Hubble is in a relatively high orbit and is not projected to re-enter until
after 2010. Of course, a bad solar maximum like the one in 1979-80 that
brought down Skylab could accelerate that, but not by much.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

David Ball wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 23:33:52 GMT, Bruce Palmer
wrote:


I think they're greasing the skids for Hubble's demise because they
won't be in a position to launch the servicing mission in time to save
it. Echoes of Skylab.


Is Hubble that close to de-orbiting or does that assume more equipment
failures aboard Hubble ?

I admit I'm a bit ignorant on the technical details of keeping Hubble
in orbit. Does it require re-fueling or some kind of orbital re-boost
by the Shuttle ?

-- David Ball


Shuttle usually re-boosts it, but the main problem is its gyros are
failing. 2, maybe 3 years max remaining useful life if the servicing
mission isn't done.

Once the fleet is cleared for spaceflight I *think* the servicing
mission is (or was) scheduled to be the 10th or 11th mission.

--
bp
Proud Member of the Human O-Ring Society Since 2003

The Hubble requires periodic servicing in order to keep the gyroscopes that
point the thing running, as well as other maintenance tasks.

What's going to happen is that one of these days from now to 2007 the Hubble
will be in the headlines when it loses pointing capability. It will float
in orbit until 2012 and enter the atmosphere.

In article ,
Bruce Palmer wrote:
David Ball wrote:

I was just reading http://space.com/news/okeefe_shuttle_040212.html
and it looks like they might miss the fall 2004 time frame and end up
launching in January 2005.

Considering the history of problems with January launches, does anyone
find this idea discouraging?

The January thing is a coincidence, nothing more.

Challenger was weather-related. Did January weather affect
foam shedding on Columbia's tank?

--
John Carr )

John F. Carr wrote:
In article ,
Bruce Palmer wrote:

David Ball wrote:


I was just reading http://space.com/news/okeefe_shuttle_040212.html
and it looks like they might miss the fall 2004 time frame and end up
launching in January 2005.

Considering the history of problems with January launches, does anyone
find this idea discouraging?

The January thing is a coincidence, nothing more.


Challenger was weather-related. Did January weather affect
foam shedding on Columbia's tank?


Not according to the CAIB report.

--
bp
Proud Member of the Human O-Ring Society Since 2003