Death Sentence for the Hubble?

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 07:30:09 -0700, in a place far, far away, Charles
: Buckley made the phosphor on my monitor
: glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: Right, and that is a political decision. HST was designed to be repaired
: by the shuttle. The decision to not fix it now is politcal in favor of
: ISS. Where is each mission based out of? Maryland - blue state. Texas -
: red state. I'll let you guess which one is which.
:
:
: This one is not even close to red/blue.

: For Eric, *everything* is red/blue.

Naw, yer yella...

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 07:30:09 -0700, in a place far, far away, Charles
Buckley made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Right, and that is a political decision. HST was designed to be repaired
by the shuttle. The decision to not fix it now is politcal in favor of
ISS. Where is each mission based out of? Maryland - blue state. Texas -
red state. I'll let you guess which one is which.


This one is not even close to red/blue.

For Eric, *everything* is red/blue.

Eric Chomko wrote:
Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:
: Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: : Eric Chomko wrote:
: : Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: : : David M. Palmer wrote:
: : : In article , Max Beerbohm

: : Generally, sudden halts in construction projects are bad. They can
: : sometimes allow things backlogged to catch up, but that is not the case
: : here. They have the parts and are ready to roll. Arbitrarily stopping
: : construction to do a sideline task in a life extension program on
: : something that has already been extended is not really something that
: : makes a large amount of sense, or even a small amount. Shuttle is there
: : for ISS now. Nothing else.
:
: Right, and that is a political decision. HST was designed to be repaired
: by the shuttle. The decision to not fix it now is politcal in favor of
: ISS. Where is each mission based out of? Maryland - blue state. Texas -
: red state. I'll let you guess which one is which.


: This one is not even close to red/blue.

: ISS has 10+ years of international construction and backlogged equipment
: that has to be flown to meet existing obligations. Hubble is a piece of
: equipment well past it's original lifecycle.

But Hubble isn't borken and ISS will get built. Is it worth trashing
Hubble for single launch? A true leader would do both, fix Hubble and
finish ISS.


No. A true leader will actually weigh consequences and act. Not every
task needs to be done. And "it would be nice to" is a horrible decision
process. As is "hey, as long as this is flying, let's do one thing with
this that has zero bearing on anything else we are doing".


: It's a *PROJECT MANAGEMENT* decision. If you take 2 shuttles (of the
: 2 in operation in 2007, IIRC) out of shuttle processing for 2 months,
: then you have a 3-6 month break in ISS construction as they will
: have to prep two shuttles for non-ISS flights, then send the rescue
: shuttle back through processing to load the payload and refly. It
: simply does not make sense to divert resources to an ancillary task.

Sure it does. It makes as musch sense as what they are doing on ISS. What
are they doing on ISS? The Hubble produced loads of astronomical science.


Key word "produced"

It is well past the end of its life. It makes *no sense* to
redirect limitted assets towards an ancillary goal when they have
a very hard firm committment to meet their non-negotiable agreements.
ISS is going to be completed to meet our international goals. Shuttle
is going to be put back into production for that sole purpose.

: This is especially important in that there is a finite end to the
: Shuttle. It is not an arbitrary end. They will only fly through the
: current certification cycle. They are operating within the constraints
: of the CAIB and that was a bipartisan commission.

Yes, I have the book. I read it. No where does it say not to fly to
Hubble. They warn about the age of the fleet, etc. Fine, the fleet is old.
But to claim that one, albeit differently configured, shuttle of the 27
missions remaining can't be sent to Hubble because of the ISS places too
much importance on ISS and not enough on Hubble. THAT is political.


2 mission actually.. you have to count the rescue shuttle as that is
also one taken out of production and has all the ancillary tasks also
assigned..

It says a) fly through through to a given date and b) meet these
criteria on flying. Guess what.. one of those criteria is seriously
compromised when you throw shuttle flights to Hubble in addition to
those already backlogged to ISS. 27 flights. Flight rate of 6 per
year, plus a slippage of a 2 flight cycle to allow for repair and
other supply issues will hit that 2010 date.

Eric, do the math..

2005: 3 flights
2006: 6 flights
2007: 6 flights
2008: 6 flights
2009: 6 flights

27 flights. And, even those won't do everything, IIRC.

And, looking at the manifest, they are thinking only 5 a
year.. which effectively means *zero* room for slippage.
None. There is no 2 month gap in the ISS construction, much
less room for a 3-4 month gap for Hubble.

: ISS is political. It is also politically the *only* reason Shuttle
: is even considered worth flying. Hubble is, at best, a side issue
: to anyone paying the bills. No matter what party they belong to.

You obviously don't live in Maryland or anywhere near it. I wonder what
would be said in Texas if ISS was to be canned in lieu of the Hubble? Care
to guess?


There is no "in lieu of" even possible. If they fly shuttle, at all, it
will be to ISS. No ISS, no Shuttle. That is as pointless as charge as I
have ever heard of. Hubble never even entered into the equation of
whether to refly shuttle.

Charles Buckley wrote:
2005: 3 flights
2006: 6 flights
2007: 6 flights
2008: 6 flights
2009: 6 flights

27 flights. And, even those won't do everything, IIRC.

And, looking at the manifest, they are thinking only 5 a
year.. which effectively means *zero* room for slippage.

Which effectively means that the effort is screwed from the get-go. Ask
any project manager that has led a project longer than couple of weeks.
*zero* error margin projects never have a snowballs chance in hell.

-kert

Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:
: Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: : Eric Chomko wrote:
: : Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: : : Eric Chomko wrote:
: : : Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: : : : David M. Palmer wrote:
: : : : In article , Max Beerbohm
:
: : : Generally, sudden halts in construction projects are bad. They can
: : : sometimes allow things backlogged to catch up, but that is not the case
: : : here. They have the parts and are ready to roll. Arbitrarily stopping
: : : construction to do a sideline task in a life extension program on
: : : something that has already been extended is not really something that
: : : makes a large amount of sense, or even a small amount. Shuttle is there
: : : for ISS now. Nothing else.
: :
: : Right, and that is a political decision. HST was designed to be repaired
: : by the shuttle. The decision to not fix it now is politcal in favor of
: : ISS. Where is each mission based out of? Maryland - blue state. Texas -
: : red state. I'll let you guess which one is which.
:
:
: : This one is not even close to red/blue.
:
: : ISS has 10+ years of international construction and backlogged equipment
: : that has to be flown to meet existing obligations. Hubble is a piece of
: : equipment well past it's original lifecycle.
:
: But Hubble isn't borken and ISS will get built. Is it worth trashing
: Hubble for single launch? A true leader would do both, fix Hubble and
: finish ISS.


: No. A true leader will actually weigh consequences and act. Not every
: task needs to be done. And "it would be nice to" is a horrible decision
: process. As is "hey, as long as this is flying, let's do one thing with
: this that has zero bearing on anything else we are doing".

Still you make no case where ISS is inherently more valuable than Hubble.
None! Further, given the number of shuttle missions left (27), the
numbers 27-0 vs. 26-1, against and for Hubble, respectively; one can
conclude is ISS really worth that much more than Hubble?

I sure hope that once ISS is done and regardring Hubble, when it dies, we
don't hear, "we should have fixed Hubble", because ISS was a waste.

: : It's a *PROJECT MANAGEMENT* decision. If you take 2 shuttles (of the
: : 2 in operation in 2007, IIRC) out of shuttle processing for 2 months,
: : then you have a 3-6 month break in ISS construction as they will
: : have to prep two shuttles for non-ISS flights, then send the rescue
: : shuttle back through processing to load the payload and refly. It
: : simply does not make sense to divert resources to an ancillary task.
:
: Sure it does. It makes as musch sense as what they are doing on ISS. What
: are they doing on ISS? The Hubble produced loads of astronomical science.
:

: Key word "produced"

Can you say WRT ISS the word "producing"?

: It is well past the end of its life. It makes *no sense* to
: redirect limitted assets towards an ancillary goal when they have
: a very hard firm committment to meet their non-negotiable agreements.
: ISS is going to be completed to meet our international goals. Shuttle
: is going to be put back into production for that sole purpose.

Yes, I know and I question that descision.

: : This is especially important in that there is a finite end to the
: : Shuttle. It is not an arbitrary end. They will only fly through the
: : current certification cycle. They are operating within the constraints
: : of the CAIB and that was a bipartisan commission.
:
: Yes, I have the book. I read it. No where does it say not to fly to
: Hubble. They warn about the age of the fleet, etc. Fine, the fleet is old.
: But to claim that one, albeit differently configured, shuttle of the 27
: missions remaining can't be sent to Hubble because of the ISS places too
: much importance on ISS and not enough on Hubble. THAT is political.
:

: 2 mission actually.. you have to count the rescue shuttle as that is
: also one taken out of production and has all the ancillary tasks also
: assigned..

: It says a) fly through through to a given date and b) meet these
: criteria on flying. Guess what.. one of those criteria is seriously
: compromised when you throw shuttle flights to Hubble in addition to
: those already backlogged to ISS. 27 flights. Flight rate of 6 per
: year, plus a slippage of a 2 flight cycle to allow for repair and
: other supply issues will hit that 2010 date.

We're looking for one mission to Hubble! Just one! Not missions. One!

: Eric, do the math..

: 2005: 3 flights
: 2006: 6 flights
: 2007: 6 flights
: 2008: 6 flights
: 2009: 6 flights

Right, so 2006 should be 5 ISS flights and one HST flight. The rest of
your table is correct. Is or is not the payload for an HST repair ready to
go? Do we have a trained crew? Yes and yes!

: 27 flights. And, even those won't do everything, IIRC.

Everything on ISS is not even know! THAT is part of the problem.

: And, looking at the manifest, they are thinking only 5 a
: year.. which effectively means *zero* room for slippage.
: None. There is no 2 month gap in the ISS construction, much
: less room for a 3-4 month gap for Hubble.

The one thing I have learned about manifests over the past 24 years is
that they change and sometimes drastically.

: : ISS is political. It is also politically the *only* reason Shuttle
: : is even considered worth flying. Hubble is, at best, a side issue
: : to anyone paying the bills. No matter what party they belong to.
:
: You obviously don't live in Maryland or anywhere near it. I wonder what
: would be said in Texas if ISS was to be canned in lieu of the Hubble? Care
: to guess?

: There is no "in lieu of" even possible. If they fly shuttle, at all, it
: will be to ISS. No ISS, no Shuttle. That is as pointless as charge as I
: have ever heard of. Hubble never even entered into the equation of
: whether to refly shuttle.

Yes, yes, I am aware of the JSC-centric point-of-view. One NASA means JSC
first, and it is becoming overly obvious.

Eric

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:27:57 -0700, in a place far, far away, Charles
: Buckley made the phosphor on my monitor
: glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: 2 mission actually.. you have to count the rescue shuttle as that is
: also one taken out of production and has all the ancillary tasks also
: assigned..
:
: It says a) fly through through to a given date and b) meet these
: criteria on flying. Guess what.. one of those criteria is seriously
: compromised when you throw shuttle flights to Hubble in addition to
: those already backlogged to ISS. 27 flights. Flight rate of 6 per
: year, plus a slippage of a 2 flight cycle to allow for repair and
: other supply issues will hit that 2010 date.

: If you read between the lines of Chairman Boehlert's opening statement
: at the hearing today, it's pretty clear that ISS takes second priority
: to ending the Shuttle program in 2010. It also takes second priority
: to keeping the Iranians from getting Russian techology.

Heck, why not another Iran/Contra-like deal and cut out the Russians?

: IOW, ISS doesn't have a lot of support from the chairman. Of course,
: neither does Shuttle. And he didn't mention Hubble...

I see Star Wars and SDI are on these people's minds more so than actual
spaceflight.

Eric

kert wrote:
Charles Buckley wrote:

2005: 3 flights
2006: 6 flights
2007: 6 flights
2008: 6 flights
2009: 6 flights

27 flights. And, even those won't do everything, IIRC.

And, looking at the manifest, they are thinking only 5 a
year.. which effectively means *zero* room for slippage.


Which effectively means that the effort is screwed from the get-go. Ask
any project manager that has led a project longer than couple of weeks.
*zero* error margin projects never have a snowballs chance in hell.



Oh... that is very much a given.. I suspect that they will
waiver the last few flights to finish off the project..

Eric Chomko wrote:
Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:27:57 -0700, in a place far, far away, Charles
: Buckley made the phosphor on my monitor
: glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: 2 mission actually.. you have to count the rescue shuttle as that is
: also one taken out of production and has all the ancillary tasks also
: assigned..
:
: It says a) fly through through to a given date and b) meet these
: criteria on flying. Guess what.. one of those criteria is seriously
: compromised when you throw shuttle flights to Hubble in addition to
: those already backlogged to ISS. 27 flights. Flight rate of 6 per
: year, plus a slippage of a 2 flight cycle to allow for repair and
: other supply issues will hit that 2010 date.

: If you read between the lines of Chairman Boehlert's opening statement
: at the hearing today, it's pretty clear that ISS takes second priority
: to ending the Shuttle program in 2010. It also takes second priority
: to keeping the Iranians from getting Russian techology.


snip

“As I mentioned in my opening statement, there are a lot of questions
NASA can’t answer yet. I’m going to go through a list of nine items, and
for each of them, I’d like to know when NASA will be able to give
Congress an answer to the question. It would be helpful to know a month,
but a season will do. I’ll stop after each item.

“When will we know:

A) The research agenda for the Space Station?

B) Whether the Space Station will be reconfigured again? Whether we will
not bring up the centrifuge?

C) The number of remaining Shuttle flights?

D) The manifest for the Shuttle flights, that is, which flight will
conduct which mission?

E) Whether NASA will have to lay off employees this year or next year?

F) What mission will be used as a test for Project Prometheus?

G) The basic parameters for the CEV, including the crew size and whether
it could service the Space Station?

H) NASA’s plan for dealing with the Iran Nonproliferation Act?

I) The launch vehicle for the CEV?”


===============

The opening statements are one thing.. when they actually started in,
the first 5 were all ISS/Shuttle questions.


The really, really obvious thing about the opening statement was the
following statement:

" So where does that leave me on the current budget proposal? With the
same mixed feelings I’ve had in the past. First, let me blunt, I don’t
think NASA should be our top budget priority either in this Committee or
the Congress. That means in a budget as excruciatingly tight as this
one, NASA probably should not get as much as the President has proposed.
Moreover, even if NASA received every cent it has requested, it would
still be trying to do too much at once – the historic pattern for the
Agency, as the Gehman Report noted. So something has to give, and this
hearing will be a first step in looking at what that might be."

I have been of the position that Bush was going to be facing a revolt
within his own party over this budget. They are going to start chopping.
That schedule for ISS is glaringly vulnerable to any number of potential
delays and, at core, serves no purpose other than building ISS to meet
international agreements.






: IOW, ISS doesn't have a lot of support from the chairman. Of course,
: neither does Shuttle. And he didn't mention Hubble...


NASA, in general, is not getting much support from the chairman.

Eric Chomko wrote:
Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:
: Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: : Eric Chomko wrote:
: : Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: : : Eric Chomko wrote:
: : : Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: : : : David M. Palmer wrote:
: : : : In article , Max Beerbohm


snip


: No. A true leader will actually weigh consequences and act. Not every
: task needs to be done. And "it would be nice to" is a horrible decision
: process. As is "hey, as long as this is flying, let's do one thing with
: this that has zero bearing on anything else we are doing".

Still you make no case where ISS is inherently more valuable than Hubble.
None! Further, given the number of shuttle missions left (27), the
numbers 27-0 vs. 26-1, against and for Hubble, respectively; one can
conclude is ISS really worth that much more than Hubble?



ISS is inherently more valuable than Hubble in that a) it is the
non-negotiable cornerstone of a large number of international agreements
b) It tests a large number of space qualified hardware which can be
leveraged into the CEV and other manned programs c) it can function
as a platform to test more equipment and test equipment in an in situ
environment.

I sure hope that once ISS is done and regardring Hubble, when it dies, we
don't hear, "we should have fixed Hubble", because ISS was a waste.



You're going to have people second guessing every decision, no matter
what. Fact of life. The point here is to set priorities and focus.

: : It's a *PROJECT MANAGEMENT* decision. If you take 2 shuttles (of the
: : 2 in operation in 2007, IIRC) out of shuttle processing for 2 months,
: : then you have a 3-6 month break in ISS construction as they will
: : have to prep two shuttles for non-ISS flights, then send the rescue
: : shuttle back through processing to load the payload and refly. It
: : simply does not make sense to divert resources to an ancillary task.
:
: Sure it does. It makes as musch sense as what they are doing on ISS. What
: are they doing on ISS? The Hubble produced loads of astronomical science.
:

: Key word "produced"

Can you say WRT ISS the word "producing"?


Testing construction. Identifying issues related to automated resupply
flights. test of remote piloting. Any of a hundred operations related
studies. Any number of studies related to equipment lifecycles in an in
situ environment.

: It is well past the end of its life. It makes *no sense* to
: redirect limitted assets towards an ancillary goal when they have
: a very hard firm committment to meet their non-negotiable agreements.
: ISS is going to be completed to meet our international goals. Shuttle
: is going to be put back into production for that sole purpose.

Yes, I know and I question that descision.


I personally question putting shuttle back into service. If you have
qualms about Shuttle, now is the time to kill it.


:

: 2 mission actually.. you have to count the rescue shuttle as that is
: also one taken out of production and has all the ancillary tasks also
: assigned..

: It says a) fly through through to a given date and b) meet these
: criteria on flying. Guess what.. one of those criteria is seriously
: compromised when you throw shuttle flights to Hubble in addition to
: those already backlogged to ISS. 27 flights. Flight rate of 6 per
: year, plus a slippage of a 2 flight cycle to allow for repair and
: other supply issues will hit that 2010 date.

We're looking for one mission to Hubble! Just one! Not missions. One!


2 shuttles offline.. that is equiv to 2 mission because you have to
delay processing the rescue shuttle for any other mission. And, flying
hubble without a rescue shuttle is even more of a political dead-end.

: Eric, do the math..

: 2005: 3 flights
: 2006: 6 flights
: 2007: 6 flights
: 2008: 6 flights
: 2009: 6 flights

Right, so 2006 should be 5 ISS flights and one HST flight. The rest of
your table is correct. Is or is not the payload for an HST repair ready to
go? Do we have a trained crew? Yes and yes!


We also have those for ISS. So what?

: 27 flights. And, even those won't do everything, IIRC.

Everything on ISS is not even know! THAT is part of the problem.

: And, looking at the manifest, they are thinking only 5 a
: year.. which effectively means *zero* room for slippage.
: None. There is no 2 month gap in the ISS construction, much
: less room for a 3-4 month gap for Hubble.

The one thing I have learned about manifests over the past 24 years is
that they change and sometimes drastically.


They get extended. They generally don't get massively retasked.

: : ISS is political. It is also politically the *only* reason Shuttle
: : is even considered worth flying. Hubble is, at best, a side issue
: : to anyone paying the bills. No matter what party they belong to.
:
: You obviously don't live in Maryland or anywhere near it. I wonder what
: would be said in Texas if ISS was to be canned in lieu of the Hubble? Care
: to guess?

: There is no "in lieu of" even possible. If they fly shuttle, at all, it
: will be to ISS. No ISS, no Shuttle. That is as pointless as charge as I
: have ever heard of. Hubble never even entered into the equation of
: whether to refly shuttle.

Yes, yes, I am aware of the JSC-centric point-of-view. One NASA means JSC
first, and it is becoming overly obvious.



JSC is dying. This is the equivalent to the sabretook tiger in the tar
pits. All of its energies going into one function. In a lot of ways,
it is useful to keep ISS and Shuttle going until 2010 just to keep
large portions of management tied up while you essentially create
new institutions with a new philosphical outlook.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:54:05 -0700, in a place far, far away, Charles
Buckley made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


: IOW, ISS doesn't have a lot of support from the chairman. Of course,
: neither does Shuttle. And he didn't mention Hubble...


NASA, in general, is not getting much support from the chairman.


Except you snipped this:

"I am for returning humans to the moon by 2020. I am for moving ahead
prudently but swiftly with the development of a Crew Exploration
Vehicle (CEV) for that purpose. I am for retiring the Space Shuttle as
soon as possible, but under absolutely no circumstances later than
December 31, 2010. I am for a NASA that sees itself as a science
agency, with all of Space Science, Earth Science and Aeronautics
receiving theattention and funding accorded to priority areas. I am
for a NASA that is open to outside ideas from academia and the private
sector..."

He's supporting NASA, and the VSE (and maybe even an increase in the
aeronautics budget). What he's not supporting is ISS, or Shuttle
beyond 2010.


Oh. I misread your post as meaning he was all for taking Shuttle to
2010. Heck.. no one wants to see this go past the date he said.
By that date, ISS will be at least operational enough to get by.
I think this is just a recognition of the fact that priorities
now are a) get ISS to core complete b) end shuttle in 2010 and
c) do as much as possible towards completing secondary work on ISS
between the two conditions listed above.

I see that "retire shuttle as soon as possible" as a statement that
it is ISS driving the shuttle as shuttle would be retired tomorrow
without ISS.