Death Sentence for the Hubble?

"rk" wrote in message
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/13/opinion/13sun2.html?

Death Sentence for the Hubble?

snip

I think a controlled de-orbit makes a lot more sense than what Skylab got.

"Neil Gerace" wrote:

"rk" wrote in message
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/13/opinion/13sun2.html?

Death Sentence for the Hubble?

snip

I think a controlled de-orbit makes a lot more sense than what Skylab got.


Reality check: Skylab got a controlled de-orbit.

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

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

In article ,
Derek Lyons wrote:
I think a controlled de-orbit makes a lot more sense than what Skylab got.

Reality check: Skylab got a controlled de-orbit.

Controlled only in a rather loose sense -- controlled a little bit, by an
untried technique which had rather more effect than expected (delaying
reentry to be clear of the US east coast unexpectedly delayed it far
enough to hit western Australia).

The modern definition of "controlled de-orbit" is that it goes down where
and when you want it to, on a trajectory and to a target that minimize the
effect of remaining uncertainties.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

In article , Derek Lyons
wrote:

"Neil Gerace" wrote:

"rk" wrote in message
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/13/opinion/13sun2.html?

Death Sentence for the Hubble?

snip

I think a controlled de-orbit makes a lot more sense than what Skylab got.


Reality check: Skylab got a controlled de-orbit.

Reality check check: Skylab's deorbit was not completely uncontrolled,
but they didn't intend to hit Australia. The same level of control
authority (changing its orientation and solar panel position) is
available for Hubble.

--
David M. Palmer (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)

Neil Gerace wrote:

I think a controlled de-orbit makes a lot more sense than what Skylab got.




I still picture that mirror coming out of the sky somewhere like a
white-hot Frisbee from hell.

Pat

Anybody remember when the last time the NY Times
editorial page was on the right side of a space policy debate?

Has it EVER been?

These guys are not now, and never have been, friends
of space exploration and its proponents.




"rk" wrote in message
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/13/opinion/13sun2.html?

Death Sentence for the Hubble?

Published: February 13, 2005

Sean O'Keefe, the departing administrator of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, has yanked the agency's most important scientific
instrument off life support. His refusal to budget any funds to service
and
upgrade the Hubble Space Telescope looks like the petulant final act of an
administrator who made a foolish decision and then refused to back down in
the
face of withering criticism from experts. The only uncertainty is whether
the
decision to let the Hubble die prematurely was solely Mr. O'Keefe's or
reflects the judgment of higher-ups in the administration that servicing
the
Hubble would be a diversion from the president's long-range program of
space
exploration.

-end excerpt-

--
rk, Just an OldEngineer
"Engineers abhor extrapolation"
-- Ken Iliff, from _Runway to Orbit_, 2004

On 2005-02-14, Jim Oberg wrote:
Anybody remember when the last time the NY Times
editorial page was on the right side of a space policy debate?

Has it EVER been?

Well, they did publish their "Oh. Yes. Um. Actually, it looks like a
rocket *can* work in vacuum. Sorry about that one." retraction editorial
back in 1969, so...

--
-Andrew Gray

"Jim Oberg" wrote in message
...
Anybody remember when the last time the NY Times
editorial page was on the right side of a space policy debate?

Has it EVER been?


Jim, they're just trying to save us all from that foolishness of rockets in
a vacuum, since we know after all there's nothing for them to push against!


These guys are not now, and never have been, friends
of space exploration and its proponents.

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...

Reality check: Skylab got a controlled de-orbit.

Hardly. It didn't go down where the controllers wanted it to.

"David M. Palmer" wrote in message
...

Reality check check: Skylab's deorbit was not completely uncontrolled,
but they didn't intend to hit Australia. The same level of control
authority (changing its orientation and solar panel position) is
available for Hubble.

And this time the appropriate people know that in advance, instead of
finding it out after four years of no attention with one year to do
something.