Aw Crap....Now the White House Wants Hubble Gone

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6853009

So much for O'Keefe's departure bringing some hope for those who wanted
to see a Shuttle-based HST servicing mission. Some notes...

1) "both robotic and shuttle-based servicing options expected to cost
well in excess of $1 billion"

Where the hell did that number come from? Robotic servicing fine, but
Shuttle-based...that sounds like a load of crap.

2) "NASA was told it simply could not afford to save Hubble given
everything else NASA has on its agenda, including preparing the shuttle
fleet to fly again."

I can buy this given the press of ISS flights and the time-frame they
have to finish in.

Maybe Congress can pressure NASA into not abandoning HST, but, where
the White House directs NASA is where it tends to go (or try to at
least).

-A.L.

Andrew Lotosky wrote:

2) "NASA was told it simply could not afford to save Hubble given
everything else NASA has on its agenda, including preparing the shuttle
fleet to fly again."

I can buy this given the press of ISS flights and the time-frame they
have to finish in.

zigackly. NASA doesn't want the manned HSS mission because it would cut
into the "use STS to complete ISS" mission. Which they get funded for.
Which they don't want to give up under any circumstances.

Just governmental budget manuevering, is all.

--
Terrell Miller


"Every gardener knows nature's random cruelty"
-Paul Simon George Harrison

"Andrew Lotosky" wrote in
oups.com:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6853009

So much for O'Keefe's departure bringing some hope for those who wanted
to see a Shuttle-based HST servicing mission. Some notes...

1) "both robotic and shuttle-based servicing options expected to cost
well in excess of $1 billion"

Where the hell did that number come from? Robotic servicing fine, but
Shuttle-based...that sounds like a load of crap.

True, the marginal cost of adding a single shuttle flight to the manifest
in a given year is much lower ($100-200 million). However, adding the HST
servicing mission delays ISS assembly by three months, which in turn delays
the retirement of the shuttle fleet by three months and requires the
shuttle program stay funded (at $4 billion/year) that much longer.

So the $1 billion figure is probably correct - it's just that most of it is
back-loaded: you pay the marginal cost of the flight in the year that it
flies, and the rest in the year the shuttle fleet is retired.

On the other hand, the robotic servicing mission costs are front-loaded;
the tech development must occur now and be paid for now.

--
JRF

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

"Andrew Lotosky"
excess of $1 billion"

Where the hell did that number come from? Robotic servicing fine,

except that it won't work

but Shuttle-based...that sounds like a load of crap.

$500 M for launch, $500 M for parts....NASA bookkeeping

Maybe Congress can pressure NASA into not abandoning HST

Congress wants to spend a billion on Hubble? I think a functional
replacement could be done for the same price.

Revision wrote:

"Andrew Lotosky"
excess of $1 billion"

Where the hell did that number come from? Robotic servicing fine,

except that it won't work

but Shuttle-based...that sounds like a load of crap.

$500 M for launch, $500 M for parts....NASA bookkeeping

Maybe Congress can pressure NASA into not abandoning HST

Congress wants to spend a billion on Hubble? I think a functional
replacement could be done for the same price.


Except for the fact that the 500 million has already been
spent and the service hardware and such is already built
and sitting on the shelf, so to speak. that means that for
a measley 500 million we can have an updated instrument ready
to work for another decade or more. A replacement would not
only cost probably a billion to build, but you have to add
on the loss of the existing hardware (500 million) plus the
half a billion for the launch. So, that replacement ends up
effectively costing two billion, four times more than the
additional spending to service what we already have.

"Car's got a flat tire, let's buy a new car" is the mentality
of a nation with a lot more money, vision, and desire than
what the US has nowadays.

BTW, we spend 51 billion, with a B, in Iraq each and every day.

JazzMan
--
************************************************** ********
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
************************************************** ********
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
************************************************** ********

In article , JazzMan
wrote:

BTW, we spend 51 billion, with a B, in Iraq each and every day.

JazzMan
--

Cite? I think you've slipped a decimal place or two there (not that
what we've spent there since 2003 is peanuts, by any stretch of
anyone's imagination, mind you).

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D., GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C
"The loss of the American system of checks and balances is more of a security
danger than any terrorist risk." -- Bruce Schneier
http://dischordia.blogspot.com
http://www.angryherb.net

Herb Schaltegger wrote:

In article , JazzMan
wrote:

BTW, we spend 51 billion, with a B, in Iraq each and every day.

JazzMan
--

Cite? I think you've slipped a decimal place or two there (not that
what we've spent there since 2003 is peanuts, by any stretch of
anyone's imagination, mind you).


You're most correct, I misremembered a number I heard on
a radio show earlier in the week. Here's a cite showing
about 5 billion a month, not a day. Hey, a billion here
and a billion there, pretty soon you're talking real money.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...aq-costs_x.htm

JazzMan
--
************************************************** ********
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
************************************************** ********
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
************************************************** ********

Herb Schaltegger wrote:

:In article , JazzMan
:wrote:
:
: BTW, we spend 51 billion, with a B, in Iraq each and every day.
:
:Cite? I think you've slipped a decimal place or two there (not that
:what we've spent there since 2003 is peanuts, by any stretch of
:anyone's imagination, mind you).

He seems to have confused an annual cost with a daily cost. In other
words, his number is roughly 300x the actual number, which includes
military costs as well as aid costs.

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

JazzMan wrote in :

Revision wrote:

"Andrew Lotosky"
excess of $1 billion"

Where the hell did that number come from? Robotic servicing fine,

except that it won't work

but Shuttle-based...that sounds like a load of crap.

$500 M for launch, $500 M for parts....NASA bookkeeping

Maybe Congress can pressure NASA into not abandoning HST

Congress wants to spend a billion on Hubble? I think a functional
replacement could be done for the same price.

Except for the fact that the 500 million has already been
spent and the service hardware and such is already built
and sitting on the shelf, so to speak. that means that for
a measley 500 million we can have an updated instrument ready
to work for another decade or more.

Nope. NASA's numbers do *not* include the costs of hardware already built
to support HST SM-04. See my other post for URL with details.

A replacement would not
only cost probably a billion to build, but you have to add
on the loss of the existing hardware (500 million)

Nope. JHU's proposal for the HST replacement (Hubble Origins Probe, or HOP)
*does* include the replacement hardware built for HST SM-04.

plus the
half a billion for the launch.

Nope. HOP would be launched on an Atlas 521, at a cost of $130-150 million.

So, that replacement ends up
effectively costing two billion,

Nope, JHU included the launch costs in their $1 billion (actually $991
million...) cost estimate for HOP.

"Car's got a flat tire, let's buy a new car" is the mentality
of a nation with a lot more money, vision, and desire than
what the US has nowadays.

Nope. Out of the three options for dealing with HST (shuttle servicing,
robotic servicing, or HOP), HOP is probably the cheapest, although shuttle
servicing is more likely to succeed.

--
JRF

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

"Revision" wrote in
:

"Andrew Lotosky"
excess of $1 billion"

Where the hell did that number come from? Robotic servicing fine,
but Shuttle-based...that sounds like a load of crap.

$500 M for launch, $500 M for parts....NASA bookkeeping

Nope... here are NASA's numbers, according to GAO:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0534.pdf

(Table 1, p. 6, or p. 9 of the PDF)

Maybe Congress can pressure NASA into not abandoning HST

Congress wants to spend a billion on Hubble? I think a functional
replacement could be done for the same price.

I agree.

--
JRF

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