Don't Desert Hubble

Explorer8939 wrote:

I have to say that I am surprised how lightly everyone is taking the
ISS safe haven concept for Shuttle. What if a Shuttle is stranded at
ISS, and something goes wrong with the next Progress that is required
to keep the 10 person crew going? Is the ISS safe haven truly 2 fault
tolerant?



Because, the 3 remaining shuttles are all going to be in
rotation and an accelarated launch would have the next shuttle
going up within a few weeks..

And, ATV and Progress gives 2 resupply vehicles possible.



Brett Buck wrote in message ...

Brian Gaff wrote:

Hmm, I have not seen anywhere any detailed, data supported reasons for the
cancellations yet. Lots of words, but no arguable reason for it.

so, what is the reason?

Seems perfectly simple and well-defined to me. No on-orbit repair
capability because it's too expensive, no ready rescue flight because
it's too expensive, so all shuttle flight go to ISS as a safe haven.

What's so hard to understand about that?

Brett

(Explorer8939) wrote in
om:

I have to say that I am surprised how lightly everyone is taking the
ISS safe haven concept for Shuttle. What if a Shuttle is stranded at
ISS, and something goes wrong with the next Progress that is required
to keep the 10 person crew going? Is the ISS safe haven truly 2 fault
tolerant?

I have to say that I am surprised how lightly everyone is taking the LM
lifeboat concept for Apollo. What if the Service Module suffers a massive
systems failure, and something goes wrong with the LM that is required to
land on the moon? Is Apollo truly 2 fault tolerant?

--
JRF

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

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

(Explorer8939) wrote:

I have to say that I am surprised how lightly everyone is taking the
ISS safe haven concept for Shuttle. What if a Shuttle is stranded at
ISS, and something goes wrong with the next Progress that is required
to keep the 10 person crew going? Is the ISS safe haven truly 2 fault
tolerant?

I have to say that I am surprised how lightly everyone is taking the LM
lifeboat concept for Apollo. What if the Service Module suffers a massive
systems failure, and something goes wrong with the LM that is required to
land on the moon? Is Apollo truly 2 fault tolerant?

The Apollo CSM/LM last flew over 30 years ago. How is that system
relevant to today?

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

There is no question that the NASA of today is less risk tolerant than
the NASA of the Apollo era.



"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ...
(Explorer8939) wrote in
om:

I have to say that I am surprised how lightly everyone is taking the
ISS safe haven concept for Shuttle. What if a Shuttle is stranded at
ISS, and something goes wrong with the next Progress that is required
to keep the 10 person crew going? Is the ISS safe haven truly 2 fault
tolerant?

I have to say that I am surprised how lightly everyone is taking the LM
lifeboat concept for Apollo. What if the Service Module suffers a massive
systems failure, and something goes wrong with the LM that is required to
land on the moon? Is Apollo truly 2 fault tolerant?

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:39:19 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
wrote:

In the face of massive public outrage about his decision, M

"Massive public outrage?" Get real.

Brian