Hubble to be abandoned

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html

Not good news; here's hoping Bush follows through with the replacement
telescope!

Michael Gallagher wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html

Not good news; here's hoping Bush follows through with the replacement
telescope!

Simple answer: sell Hubble. Let whoever buys it sell the images/scope
time... and let *them* service it.

Hubble has been a hell of a success story. But it is rather old and
ailing; if NASA thinks the only way to service it is with
half-billion-dollar Shuttle missions, then perhaps owndership should go
to someone who could service it with, say, two Falcon V launches... one
with the parts, one with the Burt Rutan Spaceship 3 capsule for the
repair crew...

--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

Scott Lowther wrote:
Michael Gallagher wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html

Not good news; here's hoping Bush follows through with the replacement
telescope!


Simple answer: sell Hubble. Let whoever buys it sell the images/scope
time... and let *them* service it.

Hubble has been a hell of a success story. But it is rather old and
ailing; if NASA thinks the only way to service it is with
half-billion-dollar Shuttle missions, then perhaps owndership should go
to someone who could service it with, say, two Falcon V launches... one
with the parts, one with the Burt Rutan Spaceship 3 capsule for the
repair crew...



You know, that's not a bad idea. NASA has already amortized out
most of it's costs associated with Hubble. Puts the onus on the
end user to maintain the system.

Charles Buckley wrote:

Scott Lowther wrote:
Michael Gallagher wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html

Not good news; here's hoping Bush follows through with the replacement
telescope!


Simple answer: sell Hubble. Let whoever buys it sell the images/scope
time... and let *them* service it.

Hubble has been a hell of a success story. But it is rather old and
ailing; if NASA thinks the only way to service it is with
half-billion-dollar Shuttle missions, then perhaps owndership should go
to someone who could service it with, say, two Falcon V launches... one
with the parts, one with the Burt Rutan Spaceship 3 capsule for the
repair crew...


You know, that's not a bad idea.

[God] Of COURSE it's a good idea! [/God]

NASA has already amortized out
most of it's costs associated with Hubble. Puts the onus on the
end user to maintain the system.

Indeed. While I have been more than happy to download high-rez Hubble
images for free... I've also happily purchased Hubble image posters.
There is a market for scientific equipement and their products. Those
who want to use Hubble to look at, say, M-31 should be willing to pony
up the money to do so. If they can find a far cheaper way of doing so
than using the Shuttle, then more power to 'em. And it seems
unreasonable in the extreme to me that the *only* way to service the HST
is with a giant reusable payload shroud that costs a half-billion-plus
every time you pull the trigger on it. If you could get that servicing
mission down to twenty million dollars every five years, that's 4
million per year or about eleven grand per day. Get four hundred
thousand people (worldwide) to subscribe to the HST download service at,
say, ten dollars per year, then your servicing missions are paid for.


--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

"Michael Gallagher" wrote in message
...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html

Not good news; here's hoping Bush follows through with the replacement
telescope!

There is no replacement telescope.
NGST (James Webb Telescope) will only improve
its vision in some of the infrared. It is an infrared
only instrument.
There is no replacement in visible light.
Most importantly there is no replacement in
the ultraviolet where earthbound telescopes
can't see at all.
They compliment each other. One does not
replace the other.

Scott Lowther wrote:

Michael Gallagher wrote:


http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html

Not good news; here's hoping Bush follows through with the replacement
telescope!



Simple answer: sell Hubble. Let whoever buys it sell the images/scope
time... and let *them* service it.

Hubble has been a hell of a success story. But it is rather old and
ailing; if NASA thinks the only way to service it is with
half-billion-dollar Shuttle missions, then perhaps owndership should go
to someone who could service it with, say, two Falcon V launches... one
with the parts, one with the Burt Rutan Spaceship 3 capsule for the
repair crew...



Do you really think NASA will ever let anyone do anything more cheaply
than NASA can?

That would be political suicide for NASA.

Rod Montgomery wrote:

Do you really think NASA will ever let anyone do anything more cheaply
than NASA can?

NASA does not control the world.


--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:54:27 -0500, "Michael Gallagher"
wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html

Not good news; here's hoping Bush follows through with the replacement
telescope!




How about planning a shuttle mission to Hubble, with a
Soyuz or two standing by for rescue if the shuttle is
damaged during launch?


TA

Tom Abbott wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:54:27 -0500, "Michael Gallagher"
wrote:


http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html

Not good news; here's hoping Bush follows through with the replacement
telescope!





How about planning a shuttle mission to Hubble, with a
Soyuz or two standing by for rescue if the shuttle is
damaged during launch?



Got the answer to that when I mentioned a Soyuz mission to
Hubble. The only facilities where manned soyuz vehicles can
be launched from can't reach Hubble's inclination. The only
facility being built in the next few years does not handle
manned soyuz..

Charles Buckley wrote in
:

Tom Abbott wrote:

How about planning a shuttle mission to Hubble, with a
Soyuz or two standing by for rescue if the shuttle is
damaged during launch?

Got the answer to that when I mentioned a Soyuz mission to
Hubble. The only facilities where manned soyuz vehicles can
be launched from can't reach Hubble's inclination. The only
facility being built in the next few years does not handle
manned soyuz..

Someone on s.s.shuttle told me there were plans for manned Soyuz flights
from Kourou, but I've seen no independent verification of this.

The bigger problem with Tom's plan is that it would take 4 Soyuzes to
rescue a 7-member shuttle crew (and with all the EVAs that will be required
for the next HST servicing mission, it *will* take 7). There's also the
small matter of how the shuttle crew will ingress the Soyuz, since the
current Soyuz variations do not appear to have EVA capability.

--
JRF

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