The other shoe drops: Hubble...

Forgive me for being cynical, but now we know why President Bush
gave a big speech about going to Mars (in the out years, of course).
As per CNN, it has just been announced that the Hubble Space Telescope
will not be serviced again, meaning that it will go out of service in
2007 or possibly 2008. NASA stated that with the plan to shut down
shuttle operations, there is "just not room" for a mission to service
Hubble, which would allow it to continue service (and possibly receive
upgrades) for several more years. NASA states that at WH direction the
'limited' remaining shuttle flights will be prioritized for ISS and
meeting "international commitments".
This would appear to mean they are serious about the shuttle being
shut down in 2010. With a firm shut-down date, remaining launches are
becoming scarce items and fingers are crossed that the shuttle will fly
successfully again as scheduled. Any delays now in returning the shuttle
to service will have major compounding effects (unless the shut down date
were slipped back).
Clearly it is a tight situation. When a project as public and
lauded (by commoners and scientists)as Hubble is sent down the tubes...
There is a newer telescope (the "Webb" telescope) tentatively scheduled to
be launched in 2011, but that will leave several years at best gap in
that type of outer space astronomy. I'm not certain how firm or how far
along the "Webb" is either.
Yes, there is a continuing promise of great projects -- in the out
years. But a bird in the hand... It really seems to me that the great
Mars push is not so much a serious plan/effort as it was an attempt to
forestall criticism (deserved or not) for pulling the plug on the shuttle and
letting major ongoing projects like Hubble go down in the process.

regards,
--------------------------------------------------------------

Steven James Forsberg wrote:

Forgive me for being cynical, but now we know why President Bush
gave a big speech about going to Mars (in the out years, of course).
As per CNN, it has just been announced that the Hubble Space Telescope
will not be serviced again, meaning that it will go out of service in
2007 or possibly 2008. NASA stated that with the plan to shut down ...

Your cynicism is well-intentioned but definitely not ready for USENET.
Step aside son and let me handle this.

1) No room in the New Normal NASA-DOD synergy for sciencey peace toys
such as Hubble. Besides, it's pointed in the wrong direction for our tastes.

2) Pretty pictures, sure. But I got screen savers that can do better
than that, Prof.

3) You scientists keep talking about Hubble-imaged objects that are
millions of light years away from us. Isn't that an implicit endorsement
of evolution? What are you people, godless athiests? Not on our tax dollars!

4) Why do you hate Amerimars so much?

To be fair (just this once), retiring Hubble early has been brought up
before. I think even in this newsgroup. Its dependence on the Shuttle
has a lot to do with it.


... shuttle operations, there is "just not room" for a mission to service
Hubble, which would allow it to continue service (and possibly receive
upgrades) for several more years. NASA states that at WH direction the
'limited' remaining shuttle flights will be prioritized for ISS and
meeting "international commitments".

Too bad, because there seemed to be room for a few UTTERLY CRUCIAL,
DESPERATELY VITAL missions before, such as that last Columbia flight.
Yep, that one sure was worth seven lives.

This would appear to mean they are serious about the shuttle being
shut down in 2010. With a firm shut-down date, remaining launches are
becoming scarce items and fingers are crossed that the shuttle will fly
successfully again as scheduled. Any delays now in returning the shuttle
to service will have major compounding effects (unless the shut down date
were slipped back).
Clearly it is a tight situation. When a project as public and
lauded (by commoners and scientists)as Hubble is sent down the tubes...
There is a newer telescope (the "Webb" telescope) tentatively scheduled to
be launched in 2011, but that will leave several years at best gap in
that type of outer space astronomy. I'm not certain how firm or how far
along the "Webb" is either.

What? another sciencey peace toy? Oh yeah, *that*'ll go on as scheduled.

Yes, there is a continuing promise of great projects -- in the out
years. But a bird in the hand... It really seems to me that the great
Mars push is not so much a serious plan/effort as it was an attempt to
forestall criticism (deserved or not) for pulling the plug on the shuttle and
letting major ongoing projects like Hubble go down in the process.

Ja, you betcha. This is classic Bush "Death by Mañana" strategery(TM).
Delay innovation that would disrupt the status quo by dangling a more
promising but more distant alternative in its place.

For another example see Bush's Freedom Cooperative Automotive Research
(CAR) initiative, which replaced research into efficient
gasoline-electric hybrid engines with studies on the hydrogen fuel cell
ultra cars of the future-uture-chur-rrrr. Always mañana. In the
meantime, fill'er up! Ka-ching!

(Those darn Japanese! They're making hybrids anyway! The nerve of them!)

I want this administration to prove me wrong. I want to have people go
back and google this post and tell me what a fscking party-pooper I was!
But unlike what those investment commercials on radio say, I go by past
performance as an indicator of future results when it comes to the Bush
crowd. And I see no reason to think they will actually put the US
government space program on the road they describe in this initiative.
Heck, I don't even think they believe it.

Corry

--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

NASA says that cancellation of the last servicing mission had absolutely
nothing to do with the new initiative. The reason is that it has been
decided that a shuttle mission to HST is too dangerous - they want to send
all remaining shuttles to the ISS so the vehicle can be inspected before
returning.

"Steven James Forsberg" wrote in message
...

Forgive me for being cynical, but now we know why President Bush
gave a big speech about going to Mars (in the out years, of course).
As per CNN, it has just been announced that the Hubble Space Telescope
will not be serviced again, meaning that it will go out of service in
2007 or possibly 2008. NASA stated that with the plan to shut down
shuttle operations, there is "just not room" for a mission to service
Hubble, which would allow it to continue service (and possibly receive
upgrades) for several more years. NASA states that at WH direction the
'limited' remaining shuttle flights will be prioritized for ISS and
meeting "international commitments".
This would appear to mean they are serious about the shuttle being
shut down in 2010. With a firm shut-down date, remaining launches are
becoming scarce items and fingers are crossed that the shuttle will fly
successfully again as scheduled. Any delays now in returning the shuttle
to service will have major compounding effects (unless the shut down date
were slipped back).
Clearly it is a tight situation. When a project as public and
lauded (by commoners and scientists)as Hubble is sent down the tubes...
There is a newer telescope (the "Webb" telescope) tentatively scheduled to
be launched in 2011, but that will leave several years at best gap in
that type of outer space astronomy. I'm not certain how firm or how far
along the "Webb" is either.
Yes, there is a continuing promise of great projects -- in the out
years. But a bird in the hand... It really seems to me that the great
Mars push is not so much a serious plan/effort as it was an attempt to
forestall criticism (deserved or not) for pulling the plug on the shuttle
and
letting major ongoing projects like Hubble go down in the process.

regards,
--------------------------------------------------------------

NASA says that cancellation of the last servicing mission had
absolutely nothing to do with the new initiative.

Right. And monkeys might fly out of my butt.

By-Tor wrote:
NASA says that cancellation of the last servicing mission had
absolutely nothing to do with the new initiative.

Right. And monkeys might fly out of my butt.




Given that the Hubble review was ordered immediately after
the Columbia accident and the CAIB established safety priorities
that precluded another Hubble mission, it's actually a legitimate
stance to take. Hubble being shut down was on the table a year ago.


They aren't going to be doing much in terms of making Shuttle
fundamentally safer. So, they are doing some basic cosmetic stuff
and doing items within their budget to reach their primary objective.
This one falls directly into that area where they can increase
safety by not flying. Cheaper all the way around.

Even without the "new" directive, I suspect that this was the
exact same decision they were going to make. For the first time,
the ISS team is in a position of having hardware complete and ready
to fly on schedule. There should be a bit of a backlog even. So,
they can pretty much just schedule out the rest of the construction
of ISS without having to worry too much about the payload.

If you look at the pre-accident shuttle schedule, you'll note
that Columbia was the only shuttle slated for non-ISS missions. They
were keeping it in rotation pretty much for the sole purpose of
doing Hubble missions.

Now, they have a backlog of ISS components to fly. No free
shuttles for other missions outside ISS. Safety regs that call
for specific requirements. Hubble is at least 4-5 years from
the earliest opportunity for a service mission and it's down
a couple gyros and has one showing signs of dying... It is entirely
possible that Hubble will lose it's control capability by the
time they clear the ISS backlog. In which case, they would certainly
scrub any repair mission anyway. It's a low percentage, high risk,
manned mission. All in all, the cards are stacked against Hubble.

I for one am not amused by this decision. Hubble proved a secular success
and shutting it down prematurely is just plain stupid. I am wondering if the
space agency isn't playing chicken with the Whitehouse over the shuttle's
face. Remember how the parks people shut down the statue of Liberty first
when Clinton and Congress were feuding over the budget? Strictly going by
the numbers the statue should have been kept open but the bureaucrats wanted
to make an "impression" on the American people. Like wise NASA wants to
make an impression on the scientific community.





"Charles Buckley" wrote in message
...
By-Tor wrote:
NASA says that cancellation of the last servicing mission had
absolutely nothing to do with the new initiative.

Right. And monkeys might fly out of my butt.




Given that the Hubble review was ordered immediately after
the Columbia accident and the CAIB established safety priorities
that precluded another Hubble mission, it's actually a legitimate
stance to take. Hubble being shut down was on the table a year ago.


They aren't going to be doing much in terms of making Shuttle
fundamentally safer. So, they are doing some basic cosmetic stuff
and doing items within their budget to reach their primary objective.
This one falls directly into that area where they can increase
safety by not flying. Cheaper all the way around.

Even without the "new" directive, I suspect that this was the
exact same decision they were going to make. For the first time,
the ISS team is in a position of having hardware complete and ready
to fly on schedule. There should be a bit of a backlog even. So,
they can pretty much just schedule out the rest of the construction
of ISS without having to worry too much about the payload.

If you look at the pre-accident shuttle schedule, you'll note
that Columbia was the only shuttle slated for non-ISS missions. They
were keeping it in rotation pretty much for the sole purpose of
doing Hubble missions.

Now, they have a backlog of ISS components to fly. No free
shuttles for other missions outside ISS. Safety regs that call
for specific requirements. Hubble is at least 4-5 years from
the earliest opportunity for a service mission and it's down
a couple gyros and has one showing signs of dying... It is entirely
possible that Hubble will lose it's control capability by the
time they clear the ISS backlog. In which case, they would certainly
scrub any repair mission anyway. It's a low percentage, high risk,
manned mission. All in all, the cards are stacked against Hubble.

GMW wrote:
I for one am not amused by this decision. Hubble proved a secular success
and shutting it down prematurely is just plain stupid. I am wondering if the
space agency isn't playing chicken with the Whitehouse over the shuttle's
face. Remember how the parks people shut down the statue of Liberty first
when Clinton and Congress were feuding over the budget? Strictly going by
the numbers the statue should have been kept open but the bureaucrats wanted
to make an "impression" on the American people. Like wise NASA wants to
make an impression on the scientific community.



Hubble is dead. It's not a game of chicken. It simply is
outside the criteria that NASA has been told - in no uncertain
terms - that it has to follow.

At some point, in any engineering endeavor, someone has to
run the numbers and pull the plug. The plug here is Shuttle.
By my count, there are about 20 more flights for Shuttle.
Which is damn close to a 50-50 chance of another Shuttle
accident under the current safety rating before it is retired.
Any Shuttle mission now has a discernable risk.

Simple risk analysis. Is an incremental maint mission
of Hubble worth the 2% chance of a loss of an irreplaceable
Shuttle? Nope.

January 17, 2004

Charles Buckley wrote:

At some point, in any engineering endeavor, someone has to
run the numbers and pull the plug. The plug here is Shuttle.
By my count, there are about 20 more flights for Shuttle.
Which is damn close to a 50-50 chance of another Shuttle
accident under the current safety rating before it is retired.

Time to double check your Shuttle units. Let's see, the shuttle has a demonstrated
1 in 100 flight loss risk, and now we've made some improvements ... How many
shuttle flights before 2010? I'm so confused.

Any Shuttle mission now has a discernable risk.

As opposed to a previously indiscernible flight loss risk?

Simple risk analysis. Is an incremental maint mission
of Hubble worth the 2% chance of a loss of an irreplaceable
Shuttle? Nope.

First you state the Shuttle will be retired, but now you call them irreplaceable.
Can you please make up your mind!

Space is scary. I'm so scared. Better we not take any pictures.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
January 17, 2004

Charles Buckley wrote:


At some point, in any engineering endeavor, someone has to
run the numbers and pull the plug. The plug here is Shuttle.
By my count, there are about 20 more flights for Shuttle.
Which is damn close to a 50-50 chance of another Shuttle
accident under the current safety rating before it is retired.


Time to double check your Shuttle units. Let's see, the shuttle has a demonstrated
1 in 100 flight loss risk, and now we've made some improvements ... How many
shuttle flights before 2010? I'm so confused.


2 losses in 113 flights = 1.77% loss rate demonstrated. Projected
at about 1 loss in 50 flights as they are expecting reduced safety
as they are not going to be implementing periodic main out thru the
end of cycle.

Unless you are saying that either Columbia or Challenger did not
demonstrate a loss as they found the wreckage. Or maybe that they
only recovered half off each shuttle.

In any case, you are looking at a 40-50% chance of another loss
before EOL.

Any Shuttle mission now has a discernable risk.


As opposed to a previously indiscernible flight loss risk?


Yes. There does seem to have been a certain degree of
complacency in risk analysis over the past decade. Read
the CAIB.


Simple risk analysis. Is an incremental maint mission
of Hubble worth the 2% chance of a loss of an irreplaceable
Shuttle? Nope.


First you state the Shuttle will be retired, but now you call them irreplaceable.
Can you please make up your mind!



If you lose another, there is nothing to replace it for the ISS
missions. ISS will not be completed. The lost Shuttle will not be
replaced. Irreplaceable when completing a mission does not equate
to continued service after it's mission is complete. The day that the
last heavy element is lifted to ISS, Shuttle will have served it's
purpose and is then expendible. Hubble servicing needs to be done approx
two years prior to the end of ISS construction. So, a loss of a shuttle
there would, in fact, take ISS with it at 90% completion. It's an
unacceptable risk.

Charles Buckley wrote in
:

Now, they have a backlog of ISS components to fly. No free
shuttles for other missions outside ISS. Safety regs that call
for specific requirements. Hubble is at least 4-5 years from
the earliest opportunity for a service mission and it's down
a couple gyros and has one showing signs of dying... It is entirely
possible that Hubble will lose it's control capability by the
time they clear the ISS backlog. In which case, they would certainly
scrub any repair mission anyway.

Most of your analysis is correct: O'Keefe made this decision for crew
safety reasons, not any of the other reasons being floated in this thread.
See the leaked NASA memo at NASA Watch:

http://www.nasawatch.com/misc/01.16.04.hst.html

However, your last statement above is incorrect. Loss of gyros only affects
Hubble's ability to point accurately enough for science, not its ability to
maintain control. It uses momentum wheels and magnetic torquers for
control, and those are doing fine, last I heard. If Hubble loses too many
gyros, it goes into safe mode and can't do science, but it is still
retrievable by the shuttle. In fact, this has already been done on HST SM-
03A (STS-103).
--
JRF

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