Hubble Economics - modern math?

So NASA cancels a shuttle maintance mission and says it's cheaper to

(1) re-write the shuttle software program to work with three gyros
operational instead of four; then probably with two instead of three
(we don't even know this is POSSIBLE yet)

(2) design, test, and built a new experiental robot spacecraft that
when launched will rendezvous with the Hubble, attach to it, then
guide it to splashdown in a remote part of the ocean (we don't know if
this is POSSIBLE either)

I find it hard to believe that a single shuttle trip to Hubble to do
regular maintenance will be cheaper than these very risky, unproven
elaborate programs.

As far as that goes, what happens if Bush loses the election and the
next President disagrees with his plans for NASA? Then several
billion dollars will be spent, and many priceless missions canceled,
for nothing at all.

I'm as much of a fan of a mission to the moon and to Mars, but I
believe that NASA should not act on what the President says. Changes
in space policy of this magnitude must be approved by Congress, and
officially written into law after lengthy public debate. Otherwise
we're just chasing our tail like a dog.

Bill Clark
http://home.austin.rr.com/whcii/

"Bill Clark" wrote in message

I'm as much of a fan of a mission to the moon and to Mars, but I
believe that NASA should not act on what the President says. Changes
in space policy of this magnitude must be approved by Congress, and
officially written into law after lengthy public debate. Otherwise
we're just chasing our tail like a dog.

Bill Clark
http://home.austin.rr.com/whcii/

I hear what you are saying, but it was not so much a change in space policy
as it was the actual statement of *a* policy. The president showed some
*leadership*, which is what we pay him the big bucks to do. If we had to
wait on Congress to *do* something ... remember that if "pro" is the
opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"? Now we'll just have
to hope that Congress will have the balls to support it on its merits and
not make it a political football.

:-)

Jon

Bill, you're an idiot with no grasp on reality or facts,
lucky for us your track record is pretty clear on that.


(Bill Clark) wrote in message . com...
So NASA cancels a shuttle maintance mission and says it's cheaper to

(1) re-write the shuttle software program to work with three gyros
operational instead of four; then probably with two instead of three
(we don't even know this is POSSIBLE yet)

I think you mean Hubble not Shuttle. For such short
points you'd think you could read them at least once
to check for such a major error.


(2) design, test, and built a new experiental robot spacecraft that
when launched will rendezvous with the Hubble, attach to it, then
guide it to splashdown in a remote part of the ocean (we don't know if
this is POSSIBLE either)

This is actually fairly simple, for the main reason
that we don't care how much it damages Hubble, so
long as it deorbits it.


I find it hard to believe that a single shuttle trip to Hubble to do
regular maintenance will be cheaper than these very risky, unproven
elaborate programs.

A single shuttle trip with no crew, no training, no
equipment, no nothin', would cost about half a
billion dollars. Probably more since there are
fewer shuttles. Same standing army of workers for
the fleet, same annual cost, fewer shuttles, fewer
flights, higher cost. Add in training and
whatnot and it gets even more expensive.


As far as that goes, what happens if Bush loses the election and the
next President disagrees with his plans for NASA? Then several
billion dollars will be spent, and many priceless missions canceled,
for nothing at all.

What in the hell are you talking about? At the very
most the Hubble deorbiter will cost less than one
Shuttle flight, not billions of dollars. Next time
you see a clue rushing by, grab on and hold on for
dear life.


I'm as much of a fan of a mission to the moon and to Mars, but I
believe that NASA should not act on what the President says. Changes
in space policy of this magnitude must be approved by Congress, and
officially written into law after lengthy public debate. Otherwise
we're just chasing our tail like a dog.

*sigh*
I don't even know why I bothered.

Bill Clark wrote:
So NASA cancels a shuttle maintance mission and says it's cheaper to

(1) re-write the shuttle software program to work with three gyros
operational instead of four; then probably with two instead of three
(we don't even know this is POSSIBLE yet)

This has been done in the past with other space telescopes.

Paul

Christopher M. Jones wrote:

(2) design, test, and built a new experiental robot spacecraft that
when launched will rendezvous with the Hubble, attach to it, then
guide it to splashdown in a remote part of the ocean (we don't know if
this is POSSIBLE either)

This is actually fairly simple, for the main reason
that we don't care how much it damages Hubble, so
long as it deorbits it.


I confidently predict that no such effort will be made. The economics
(expected damage from uncontrolled reentry vs. cost of this effort)
make this a no-brainer.

Paul

Paul F. Dietz wrote:
snip

I confidently predict that no such effort will be made. The economics
(expected damage from uncontrolled reentry vs. cost of this effort)
make this a no-brainer.

Paul
That's my read on this announcment. Make promises to safely deorbit
the system, but ignore the problem for 10 years until it's dropping
a few miles a day and declare that it's too late to do anything.
SOP
Jim Davis.

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message
...
Christopher M. Jones wrote:

(2) design, test, and built a new experiental robot spacecraft that
when launched will rendezvous with the Hubble, attach to it, then
guide it to splashdown in a remote part of the ocean (we don't know if
this is POSSIBLE either)

This is actually fairly simple, for the main reason
that we don't care how much it damages Hubble, so
long as it deorbits it.


I confidently predict that no such effort will be made. The economics
(expected damage from uncontrolled reentry vs. cost of this effort)
make this a no-brainer.


You assume a rational decision, not one clouded by politics.


Paul

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message
...
Bill Clark wrote:
So NASA cancels a shuttle maintance mission and says it's cheaper to

(1) re-write the shuttle software program to work with three gyros
operational instead of four; then probably with two instead of three
(we don't even know this is POSSIBLE yet)

This has been done in the past with other space telescopes.

None of them have had the pointing constraints Hubble has.

(Bill Clark) wrote in message . com...
So NASA cancels a shuttle maintance mission and says it's cheaper to

Check here for the "science lifetime" of Hubble if there is no SM4.
"...formal probability of continuous science operations through May
2010 is 30 percent."

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=9911

"Al Jackson" wrote in message
om...
(Bill Clark) wrote in message
. com...
So NASA cancels a shuttle maintance mission and says it's cheaper to

Check here for the "science lifetime" of Hubble if there is no SM4.
"...formal probability of continuous science operations through May
2010 is 30 percent."

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=9911

You are leaving out the fact that the upgrades would do much,
much more than simply extend Hubble's expected lifespan.
$200 million worth of optical improvements sit on the ground
waiting forever. Improvements which would increase Hubble's
productivity by ten times. More data, at higher resolution,
at a greater range of wavelengths - ten times more science
day and night for all that extra time.
It is not so easy to dismiss what is being intentionally thrown
away here.