The Hubble Space Telescope...

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Craig Fink wrote:

Mike Dicenso wrote:



On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Craig Fink wrote:

Looks like Endeavour is being canibalized as the first four flights are
KSC Web Site
Atlantis, Discovery, Atlantis and Discovery.
JSC Web Site
Atlantis,Discovery,US Orbiter,US Orbiter.

Huh? The current manifest is taking into account for that fact that
Endeavour is in it's Orbiter Maintenace and Modification Period (OMMP).
If things stand as they are, the return to flight occurs in September
of 2004, then Endeavour will only just have returned from the OMMP, and be
just starting flight processing.
-Mike

WTF? All of the orbiters in NASA's shuttle fleet are U.S. orbiters.
-Mike

A Hubble Hubble wrote in
:

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

A Hubble Hubble wrote in
:

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

I wouldn't take the FAWG manifest too seriously (if that's the one
you're referring to); the HST flight has moved around quite a bit on
that manifest the last few months. Anything after STS-116 is written
in sand.

Given that the FAWG is the only long range planning manifest that I
know of, and given that prior to the latest manifest only the first 4
flights were not labelled "Under Review", but now all the flights up
through STS-124 (HST SM-4) are not "under review" and given that SM-4
was placed where it is after discussions with the Administrator,

OK, I didn't know this had gone to O'Keefe. Thanks for the info.

I
believe this FAWG isn't going to change much (in terms of flight
order) in the near future.

Hmm, I must have an out-of-date FAWG. Mine (11/13) has flights after STS-
124/HST SM-04 labeled "under review" (as yours does), but mine also shows
STS-124 on OV-105 on 8/24/06, right smack dab in the middle of an OV-104
OMM with only two orbiters available (which yours doesn't) and with 123 and
125 scheduled for 6/30/06 and 11/30/06 on OV-103 (way too quick a
turnaround for a rescue mission). So it looks like SM-04 has already moved
once since the "under review line" moved from post-116 to post-124. What's
the date on your FAWG?

Anyway, as the saying goes, "Standby to stand by."


--
JRF

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

Mike Dicenso wrote:



On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Craig Fink wrote:

Mike Dicenso wrote:



On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Craig Fink wrote:

Looks like Endeavour is being canibalized as the first four flights
are
KSC Web Site
Atlantis, Discovery, Atlantis and Discovery.
JSC Web Site
Atlantis,Discovery,US Orbiter,US Orbiter.

Huh? The current manifest is taking into account for that fact that
Endeavour is in it's Orbiter Maintenace and Modification Period (OMMP).
If things stand as they are, the return to flight occurs in September
of 2004, then Endeavour will only just have returned from the OMMP, and
be just starting flight processing.
-Mike

WTF? All of the orbiters in NASA's shuttle fleet are U.S. orbiters.
-Mike

Yeah, I agree, it's kind of like stating the obvious.

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

A Hubble Hubble wrote in
:



Jorge R. Frank wrote:



A Hubble Hubble wrote in
:



Jorge R. Frank wrote:


I wouldn't take the FAWG manifest too seriously (if that's the one
you're referring to); the HST flight has moved around quite a bit on
that manifest the last few months. Anything after STS-116 is written
in sand.


Given that the FAWG is the only long range planning manifest that I
know of, and given that prior to the latest manifest only the first 4
flights were not labelled "Under Review", but now all the flights up
through STS-124 (HST SM-4) are not "under review" and given that SM-4
was placed where it is after discussions with the Administrator,



OK, I didn't know this had gone to O'Keefe. Thanks for the info.



I
believe this FAWG isn't going to change much (in terms of flight
order) in the near future.



Hmm, I must have an out-of-date FAWG. Mine (11/13) has flights after STS-
124/HST SM-04 labeled "under review" (as yours does), but mine also shows
STS-124 on OV-105 on 8/24/06, right smack dab in the middle of an OV-104
OMM with only two orbiters available (which yours doesn't) and with 123 and
125 scheduled for 6/30/06 and 11/30/06 on OV-103 (way too quick a
turnaround for a rescue mission). So it looks like SM-04 has already moved
once since the "under review line" moved from post-116 to post-124. What's
the date on your FAWG?

Anyway, as the saying goes, "Standby to stand by."



My bad. There's an alternate scenario that has all 3 orbiters available
by the time HST SM-4 rolls around. I should have looked at the FAWG
before I spoke.

A Hubble Hugger wrote in
:

My bad. There's an alternate scenario that has all 3 orbiters
available by the time HST SM-4 rolls around. I should have looked at
the FAWG before I spoke.

No prob, there's lots of "manifest options" floating around nowadays.

--
JRF

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

Pat Flannery wrote:


A Hubble Hubble wrote:


Current plan is to launch the prop module on an ELV when HST is no
longer able to produce science.


We should talk to the Russians; a modified Progress could do this job at
fairly low cost.

Pat


It's my understanding that the approach rate of the Progress is too
fast. HST is "delicate" and needs something better than Progress.

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 12:31:53 GMT, A Hubble Hubble
wrote:

Current plan is to launch the prop module on an ELV when HST is no
longer able to produce science.


We should talk to the Russians; a modified Progress could do this job at
fairly low cost.

Pat

It's my understanding that the approach rate of the Progress is too
fast. HST is "delicate" and needs something better than Progress.

And Progress can't reach Hubble's altitude.

Brian

Pat Flannery wrote in
:



A Hubble Hubble wrote:


Current plan is to launch the prop module on an ELV when HST is no
longer able to produce science.

We should talk to the Russians; a modified Progress could do this job at
fairly low cost.

Not really. Progress requires a passive docking adapter and passive Kurs
navaids on the target vehicle. HST has no docking adapter and no navaids.
And as Hubble Hugger pointed out, Progress' terminal approach rate is too
fast for a delicate target like HST.


--
JRF

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

Brian Thorn wrote in
:

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 12:31:53 GMT, A Hubble Hubble
wrote:

Current plan is to launch the prop module on an ELV when HST is no
longer able to produce science.


We should talk to the Russians; a modified Progress could do this
job at fairly low cost.

Pat

It's my understanding that the approach rate of the Progress is too
fast. HST is "delicate" and needs something better than Progress.

And Progress can't reach Hubble's altitude.

Or inclination, at least until the pad in Kourou is operational.

--
JRF

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