Death Sentence for the Hubble?

Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: David M. Palmer wrote:
: In article , Max Beerbohm
: wrote:
:
:
:
: Seriously, if you are going to say that there is no reason not to do a
: Hubble visit, you need to address the safety issue - as some on this
: group have done.
:
: The article above is poorly researched because of this.
:
:
: The expected risk cost is ~0.1 lives and 0.015 shuttles (assuming a
: 1/70 chance of disaster with each shuttle mission not to ISS).
:

: Recalculate for 1/50 That is the current safety rating.


: It's not a safety issue. It is quite a bit of a project management
: issue. The 2007 launch to Hubble would be right in the middle of
: ISS flights. They would have to take a shuttle offline and do
: a one-off flight to another destination. If they go with a
: safety net of a spare shuttle, then you have created a gap of
: a couple months when ISS construction and processing is interrupted.

So ISS will get completed two months early and THAT is why Hubble can't
be serviced? Two months? Real leadership would complete ISS and fix the
Hubble. Partisan BS has Texas getting its project done whereas the ongoing
Maryland project can go to hell!

: It's also a 40% chance of vehicle loss over the remaining number of
: flights, to where no one individual flight is more risky than any
: other, it is the aggregate total that is the issue. Without ISS,
: shuttle would be permamently grounded already. There is zero push
: to get it back into service for anything else.

No, fix Hubble and then consider grounding the shuttle if you think ISS
isn't worth it. We KNOW that Hubble has value!

: The deaths are equivalent to ~12 million passenger miles of automotive
: travel, or every member of the American Astronomical Society driving
: 2000 miles, or every U.S. amateur astronomer driving about a dozen
: miles, or every person who has ever looked at a Hubble picture and
: thought 'wow! that's cool' driving a few hundred meters.
:
: Or to put it another way, it's equivalent to each of the seven
: astronauts who decide that they are willing to risk a Shuttle flight to
: fix Hubble doing so.
:
: Now that the safety issue has been addressed (although not compared to
: that of the dozens of planned trips to the ISS, with only a marginal
: increase in safety per flight) let's go and fix it.
:

Eric Chomko wrote:
Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: David M. Palmer wrote:
: In article , Max Beerbohm
: wrote:
:
:
:
: Seriously, if you are going to say that there is no reason not to do a
: Hubble visit, you need to address the safety issue - as some on this
: group have done.
:
: The article above is poorly researched because of this.
:
:
: The expected risk cost is ~0.1 lives and 0.015 shuttles (assuming a
: 1/70 chance of disaster with each shuttle mission not to ISS).
:

: Recalculate for 1/50 That is the current safety rating.


: It's not a safety issue. It is quite a bit of a project management
: issue. The 2007 launch to Hubble would be right in the middle of
: ISS flights. They would have to take a shuttle offline and do
: a one-off flight to another destination. If they go with a
: safety net of a spare shuttle, then you have created a gap of
: a couple months when ISS construction and processing is interrupted.

So ISS will get completed two months early and THAT is why Hubble can't
be serviced? Two months? Real leadership would complete ISS and fix the
Hubble. Partisan BS has Texas getting its project done whereas the ongoing
Maryland project can go to hell!


Generally, sudden halts in construction projects are bad. They can
sometimes allow things backlogged to catch up, but that is not the case
here. They have the parts and are ready to roll. Arbitrarily stopping
construction to do a sideline task in a life extension program on
something that has already been extended is not really something that
makes a large amount of sense, or even a small amount. Shuttle is there
for ISS now. Nothing else.

Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:
: Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: : David M. Palmer wrote:
: : In article , Max Beerbohm
: : wrote:
: :
: :
: :
: : Seriously, if you are going to say that there is no reason not to do a
: : Hubble visit, you need to address the safety issue - as some on this
: : group have done.
: :
: : The article above is poorly researched because of this.
: :
: :
: : The expected risk cost is ~0.1 lives and 0.015 shuttles (assuming a
: : 1/70 chance of disaster with each shuttle mission not to ISS).
: :
:
: : Recalculate for 1/50 That is the current safety rating.
:
:
: : It's not a safety issue. It is quite a bit of a project management
: : issue. The 2007 launch to Hubble would be right in the middle of
: : ISS flights. They would have to take a shuttle offline and do
: : a one-off flight to another destination. If they go with a
: : safety net of a spare shuttle, then you have created a gap of
: : a couple months when ISS construction and processing is interrupted.
:
: So ISS will get completed two months early and THAT is why Hubble can't
: be serviced? Two months? Real leadership would complete ISS and fix the
: Hubble. Partisan BS has Texas getting its project done whereas the ongoing
: Maryland project can go to hell!
:

: Generally, sudden halts in construction projects are bad. They can
: sometimes allow things backlogged to catch up, but that is not the case
: here. They have the parts and are ready to roll. Arbitrarily stopping
: construction to do a sideline task in a life extension program on
: something that has already been extended is not really something that
: makes a large amount of sense, or even a small amount. Shuttle is there
: for ISS now. Nothing else.

Right, and that is a political decision. HST was designed to be repaired
by the shuttle. The decision to not fix it now is politcal in favor of
ISS. Where is each mission based out of? Maryland - blue state. Texas -
red state. I'll let you guess which one is which.

Eric

Eric Chomko wrote:
Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:
: Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: : David M. Palmer wrote:
: : In article , Max Beerbohm

: Generally, sudden halts in construction projects are bad. They can
: sometimes allow things backlogged to catch up, but that is not the case
: here. They have the parts and are ready to roll. Arbitrarily stopping
: construction to do a sideline task in a life extension program on
: something that has already been extended is not really something that
: makes a large amount of sense, or even a small amount. Shuttle is there
: for ISS now. Nothing else.

Right, and that is a political decision. HST was designed to be repaired
by the shuttle. The decision to not fix it now is politcal in favor of
ISS. Where is each mission based out of? Maryland - blue state. Texas -
red state. I'll let you guess which one is which.


This one is not even close to red/blue.

ISS has 10+ years of international construction and backlogged equipment
that has to be flown to meet existing obligations. Hubble is a piece of
equipment well past it's original lifecycle.

It's a *PROJECT MANAGEMENT* decision. If you take 2 shuttles (of the
2 in operation in 2007, IIRC) out of shuttle processing for 2 months,
then you have a 3-6 month break in ISS construction as they will
have to prep two shuttles for non-ISS flights, then send the rescue
shuttle back through processing to load the payload and refly. It
simply does not make sense to divert resources to an ancillary task.
This is especially important in that there is a finite end to the
Shuttle. It is not an arbitrary end. They will only fly through the
current certification cycle. They are operating within the constraints
of the CAIB and that was a bipartisan commission.

ISS is political. It is also politically the *only* reason Shuttle
is even considered worth flying. Hubble is, at best, a side issue
to anyone paying the bills. No matter what party they belong to.

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 07:30:09 -0700, in a place far, far away, Charles
Buckley made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Right, and that is a political decision. HST was designed to be repaired
by the shuttle. The decision to not fix it now is politcal in favor of
ISS. Where is each mission based out of? Maryland - blue state. Texas -
red state. I'll let you guess which one is which.


This one is not even close to red/blue.

For Eric, *everything* is red/blue.

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 07:30:09 -0700, in a place far, far away, Charles
: Buckley made the phosphor on my monitor
: glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: Right, and that is a political decision. HST was designed to be repaired
: by the shuttle. The decision to not fix it now is politcal in favor of
: ISS. Where is each mission based out of? Maryland - blue state. Texas -
: red state. I'll let you guess which one is which.
:
:
: This one is not even close to red/blue.

: For Eric, *everything* is red/blue.

Naw, yer yella...

Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:
: Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: : Eric Chomko wrote:
: : Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: : : David M. Palmer wrote:
: : : In article , Max Beerbohm

: : Generally, sudden halts in construction projects are bad. They can
: : sometimes allow things backlogged to catch up, but that is not the case
: : here. They have the parts and are ready to roll. Arbitrarily stopping
: : construction to do a sideline task in a life extension program on
: : something that has already been extended is not really something that
: : makes a large amount of sense, or even a small amount. Shuttle is there
: : for ISS now. Nothing else.
:
: Right, and that is a political decision. HST was designed to be repaired
: by the shuttle. The decision to not fix it now is politcal in favor of
: ISS. Where is each mission based out of? Maryland - blue state. Texas -
: red state. I'll let you guess which one is which.


: This one is not even close to red/blue.

: ISS has 10+ years of international construction and backlogged equipment
: that has to be flown to meet existing obligations. Hubble is a piece of
: equipment well past it's original lifecycle.

But Hubble isn't borken and ISS will get built. Is it worth trashing
Hubble for single launch? A true leader would do both, fix Hubble and
finish ISS.

: It's a *PROJECT MANAGEMENT* decision. If you take 2 shuttles (of the
: 2 in operation in 2007, IIRC) out of shuttle processing for 2 months,
: then you have a 3-6 month break in ISS construction as they will
: have to prep two shuttles for non-ISS flights, then send the rescue
: shuttle back through processing to load the payload and refly. It
: simply does not make sense to divert resources to an ancillary task.

Sure it does. It makes as musch sense as what they are doing on ISS. What
are they doing on ISS? The Hubble produced loads of astronomical science.

: This is especially important in that there is a finite end to the
: Shuttle. It is not an arbitrary end. They will only fly through the
: current certification cycle. They are operating within the constraints
: of the CAIB and that was a bipartisan commission.

Yes, I have the book. I read it. No where does it say not to fly to
Hubble. They warn about the age of the fleet, etc. Fine, the fleet is old.
But to claim that one, albeit differently configured, shuttle of the 27
missions remaining can't be sent to Hubble because of the ISS places too
much importance on ISS and not enough on Hubble. THAT is political.

: ISS is political. It is also politically the *only* reason Shuttle
: is even considered worth flying. Hubble is, at best, a side issue
: to anyone paying the bills. No matter what party they belong to.

You obviously don't live in Maryland or anywhere near it. I wonder what
would be said in Texas if ISS was to be canned in lieu of the Hubble? Care
to guess?

Eric

Eric Chomko wrote:
Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:
: Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: : Eric Chomko wrote:
: : Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: : : David M. Palmer wrote:
: : : In article , Max Beerbohm

: : Generally, sudden halts in construction projects are bad. They can
: : sometimes allow things backlogged to catch up, but that is not the case
: : here. They have the parts and are ready to roll. Arbitrarily stopping
: : construction to do a sideline task in a life extension program on
: : something that has already been extended is not really something that
: : makes a large amount of sense, or even a small amount. Shuttle is there
: : for ISS now. Nothing else.
:
: Right, and that is a political decision. HST was designed to be repaired
: by the shuttle. The decision to not fix it now is politcal in favor of
: ISS. Where is each mission based out of? Maryland - blue state. Texas -
: red state. I'll let you guess which one is which.


: This one is not even close to red/blue.

: ISS has 10+ years of international construction and backlogged equipment
: that has to be flown to meet existing obligations. Hubble is a piece of
: equipment well past it's original lifecycle.

But Hubble isn't borken and ISS will get built. Is it worth trashing
Hubble for single launch? A true leader would do both, fix Hubble and
finish ISS.


No. A true leader will actually weigh consequences and act. Not every
task needs to be done. And "it would be nice to" is a horrible decision
process. As is "hey, as long as this is flying, let's do one thing with
this that has zero bearing on anything else we are doing".


: It's a *PROJECT MANAGEMENT* decision. If you take 2 shuttles (of the
: 2 in operation in 2007, IIRC) out of shuttle processing for 2 months,
: then you have a 3-6 month break in ISS construction as they will
: have to prep two shuttles for non-ISS flights, then send the rescue
: shuttle back through processing to load the payload and refly. It
: simply does not make sense to divert resources to an ancillary task.

Sure it does. It makes as musch sense as what they are doing on ISS. What
are they doing on ISS? The Hubble produced loads of astronomical science.


Key word "produced"

It is well past the end of its life. It makes *no sense* to
redirect limitted assets towards an ancillary goal when they have
a very hard firm committment to meet their non-negotiable agreements.
ISS is going to be completed to meet our international goals. Shuttle
is going to be put back into production for that sole purpose.

: This is especially important in that there is a finite end to the
: Shuttle. It is not an arbitrary end. They will only fly through the
: current certification cycle. They are operating within the constraints
: of the CAIB and that was a bipartisan commission.

Yes, I have the book. I read it. No where does it say not to fly to
Hubble. They warn about the age of the fleet, etc. Fine, the fleet is old.
But to claim that one, albeit differently configured, shuttle of the 27
missions remaining can't be sent to Hubble because of the ISS places too
much importance on ISS and not enough on Hubble. THAT is political.


2 mission actually.. you have to count the rescue shuttle as that is
also one taken out of production and has all the ancillary tasks also
assigned..

It says a) fly through through to a given date and b) meet these
criteria on flying. Guess what.. one of those criteria is seriously
compromised when you throw shuttle flights to Hubble in addition to
those already backlogged to ISS. 27 flights. Flight rate of 6 per
year, plus a slippage of a 2 flight cycle to allow for repair and
other supply issues will hit that 2010 date.

Eric, do the math..

2005: 3 flights
2006: 6 flights
2007: 6 flights
2008: 6 flights
2009: 6 flights

27 flights. And, even those won't do everything, IIRC.

And, looking at the manifest, they are thinking only 5 a
year.. which effectively means *zero* room for slippage.
None. There is no 2 month gap in the ISS construction, much
less room for a 3-4 month gap for Hubble.

: ISS is political. It is also politically the *only* reason Shuttle
: is even considered worth flying. Hubble is, at best, a side issue
: to anyone paying the bills. No matter what party they belong to.

You obviously don't live in Maryland or anywhere near it. I wonder what
would be said in Texas if ISS was to be canned in lieu of the Hubble? Care
to guess?


There is no "in lieu of" even possible. If they fly shuttle, at all, it
will be to ISS. No ISS, no Shuttle. That is as pointless as charge as I
have ever heard of. Hubble never even entered into the equation of
whether to refly shuttle.

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:27:57 -0700, in a place far, far away, Charles
Buckley made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

2 mission actually.. you have to count the rescue shuttle as that is
also one taken out of production and has all the ancillary tasks also
assigned..

It says a) fly through through to a given date and b) meet these
criteria on flying. Guess what.. one of those criteria is seriously
compromised when you throw shuttle flights to Hubble in addition to
those already backlogged to ISS. 27 flights. Flight rate of 6 per
year, plus a slippage of a 2 flight cycle to allow for repair and
other supply issues will hit that 2010 date.

If you read between the lines of Chairman Boehlert's opening statement
at the hearing today, it's pretty clear that ISS takes second priority
to ending the Shuttle program in 2010. It also takes second priority
to keeping the Iranians from getting Russian techology.

IOW, ISS doesn't have a lot of support from the chairman. Of course,
neither does Shuttle. And he didn't mention Hubble...

Charles Buckley wrote:
2005: 3 flights
2006: 6 flights
2007: 6 flights
2008: 6 flights
2009: 6 flights

27 flights. And, even those won't do everything, IIRC.

And, looking at the manifest, they are thinking only 5 a
year.. which effectively means *zero* room for slippage.

Which effectively means that the effort is screwed from the get-go. Ask
any project manager that has led a project longer than couple of weeks.
*zero* error margin projects never have a snowballs chance in hell.

-kert