MSNBC (JimO) - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury

Derek Lyons wrote:

"JimO" wrote:

MSNBC - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4580820/

The amusing part in the whole debate is the public's changed attitude
towards Hubble. A decade ago Hubble was post-Challenger proof that
NASA couldn't do anything right (Along with the floundering
SSF/SSA/ISS program).

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

Not taking exception with this, but....

Public Opinion seems to be what ever the media says it is.


Until the news media finds profit in reporting good news,
expect the worst.


Richard

Richard Lamb wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:

"JimO" wrote:

MSNBC - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4580820/

The amusing part in the whole debate is the public's changed attitude
towards Hubble. A decade ago Hubble was post-Challenger proof that
NASA couldn't do anything right (Along with the floundering
SSF/SSA/ISS program).

Not taking exception with this, but....

Public Opinion seems to be what ever the media says it is.

Media reports seem to match the opinions of my non-space enthusiast
aquaintences. Maybe chicken-and-egg though.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

Derek Lyons wrote:

Richard Lamb wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:

"JimO" wrote:

MSNBC - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4580820/

The amusing part in the whole debate is the public's changed attitude
towards Hubble. A decade ago Hubble was post-Challenger proof that
NASA couldn't do anything right (Along with the floundering
SSF/SSA/ISS program).

Not taking exception with this, but....

Public Opinion seems to be what ever the media says it is.

Media reports seem to match the opinions of my non-space enthusiast
aquaintences. Maybe chicken-and-egg though.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

Touche'

I just finished slogging through this opinion piece. In it, Mr Oberg
attempts to take the "broad view", and touches on a dizzying array of
important topics, including adjustments to NASA's attitude toward safety,
automated service missions, pressure on engineers due to time constraints,
the relative merit of Hubble vs. other missions, and partisan politics.

Whew.

So anyway here is the real deal. We have three shuttles left. If we lose
one (not loose one, dammit) in the first five flights, the Shuttle program
will either be cancelled or kept going.

I think the intelligent view is to level with chattering classes and tell
them that space flight is inherently dangerous. If you fly, you lose
vehicles. "We are going to fly the last three shuttles until they are
replaced by a newer model or until they are all destroyed" should be the
clear policy, stated in advance.

If you want some irony, here it is: No amount of effort put into making
Shuttle safer will have a marked effect on the overall reliability of the
system. If you think that the current efforts are intended to make the
shuttle safe, then you don't get it. Space flight is dangerous. We will
lose a few OSPs. The Russians will lose some Clippers.

I would even go farther and say that flying or not flying a Hubble mission
will not have a significant impact on the number of flights left in the
shuttle inventory. If we look at each mission and ask "Can we afford the
risk?" then I really have to wonder what is meant by "afford". I haven't
figured that out yet.

"Is a Hubble service mission worth the risk?" I don't think it is really a
valid question. If the science return is significant, then fly the mission.
The risk and danger part is a constant and applies equally to each mission,
and to me is not a separate factor that applies to a particular mission,
exempli gratia, is a truck load of canned corn worth a car wreck? The only
thing that matters is whether each flight is prepared as well as the techs
and engineers can do it. The astronauts know this and it would be well for
the rest of us to recognize it as well.

"Kent Betts" writes:
I would even go farther and say that flying or not flying a Hubble mission
will not have a significant impact on the number of flights left in the
shuttle inventory. If we look at each mission and ask "Can we afford the
risk?" then I really have to wonder what is meant by "afford". I haven't
figured that out yet.

"Is a Hubble service mission worth the risk?" I don't think it is really a
valid question. If the science return is significant, then fly the mission.
The risk and danger part is a constant and applies equally to each mission,
and to me is not a separate factor that applies to a particular mission,
exempli gratia, is a truck load of canned corn worth a car wreck? The only
thing that matters is whether each flight is prepared as well as the techs
and engineers can do it. The astronauts know this and it would be well for
the rest of us to recognize it as well.

I liked the article. Unfortunately it mentions some trends without
trying to project along them at all. But the trends are important.

First, NASA should be able to say no because of risk reasons. It is
terrible that NASA has gotten pressured over the years to launch on
time whether or not it was safe. That was cited as a major underlying
reason for the Challenger crash: engineers were reporting problems but
the administration thought there was too much PR pressure to delay the
launch over it. Whether or not we agree with NASA, we certainly need
to let it use its own judgement on a technical matter.

Second, there needs to be more broad risk-reward analysis of this kind
Kent is talking about. Don't focus so much on an individual mission
that we forget about the overall cost of *periodic* missions to
Hubble. And of course, on the flip side, don't focus so much on risk
as a whole that we give up on space activity entirely! All in all the
issue is complicated and requires some careful analysis.

Does anyone know if NASA has published any of its own risk-reword
analysis? That would help clear up a lot of the discussions I see
happening.


-Lex

Lex Spoon wrote:
First, NASA should be able to say no because of risk reasons.

Ok, lets ask the question:

Does a mission to Hubble increase risk of *failures* ?

What are the differences ? Lighter load, and re-entry from higher altitude
which (with a lighter orbiter) either gives higher G forces, or hotter
re-entry. Right ? Anything else that is different ?

Yes, in terms of odds of survival in cause of failure, mission to ISS is
better. But for actual risk of failure, is that really so different ?

Also, for a Hubble mission, couldn't they perform inspections while in the
initial low orbit and only raise it to Hubble altitude if the Shuttle checks
out ? Wouldn't that greatly reduce load during re-entry ?

Where there is a will, there is a way. Seems to me that NASA decided to find
reason not to fly Hubble instead of flying ways to safely do it.

A statement from NASA I would have found very reassuring/reasonable would have been:

Hubble missions delayed indefinitely until Shuttle has tested its
inspections/repair techniques, after which they may be re-instated if those
techniques succeed.

"John Doe"

A statement from NASA I would have found very reassuring/reasonable would
have been:

Hubble missions delayed indefinitely until Shuttle has tested

Yeah but that assumes that NASA wants to keep Hubble going. I think they
were done fooling with the thing and decided now was a good time to turn it
shut it down. (Keep hitting the rocks together, JD.)

March 25, 2004

Blockhead wrote:

"John Doe"

A statement from NASA I would have found very reassuring/reasonable would
have been:

Hubble missions delayed indefinitely until Shuttle has tested

Yeah but that assumes that NASA wants to keep Hubble going. I think they
were done fooling with the thing and decided now was a good time to turn it
shut it down. (Keep hitting the rocks together, JD.)

Oh Sure ... After paying for and constructing the optics, training for and
scheduling the mission, just cancel it. That sounds familiar. Spend a lot of
money, kill a lot of people, do something half assed and then pull out. Better
off not doing it at all, eh? That's the American way.

Just keep throwing the rocks at each other, Blockhead.

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