Hubble to be abandoned

Darren J Longhorn wrote:

Actually, I was thinking of using the Revell Gemini astronaut. Or the
one that comes with the MMU, I think it's the same astronaut. Although
floating, it's pretty close to seated.


Those are two different kits...and sizes- the MMU one is smaller. It was
also done by Aurora originally.
http://www.culttvman.com/bruce_bishop_s_astronaut.html
Given the time frame and mission of the vehicle, I would think that the
pilot might have worn one of those orange U-2/SR-71/Shuttle suits:
http://www.ninfinger.org/~sven/models/suits/suit72.html

Pat

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 05:24:43 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
wrote:

The way I read it is that O'Keefe sees the safety argument as a great
excuse to head the astronomers off at the pass, firmly eliminating any
possibility that he will later be lobbied for extended Hubble operations,
more servicing flights, more improvements and extensions, etc. He might
have been inclined to go ahead with the one planned servicing flight...
but if he permits one visit, that ruins his silver-bullet argument that
reliably kills all later pleas for more money. So even that one flight
has got to go; the grief he'll take over canceling it will pay off in
avoiding later hassles.

Another possibility is that O'Keefe *wants* to fly two more missions
to Hubble, but knows that independent repair capability is not
feasible for the RCC.

Now, Congress and the President will have to say "don't even think of
abandoning Hubble -- our crown jewel -- we'll let you waive the RCC
repair capability, but only for Hubble."

O'Keefe wins either way.

Unless Endeavour comes back from Hubble servicing and
disintegrates, costing us 7 more crew, another shuttle, more
months of delays...

Bruce

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in
:


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.


I take this part back; the three remaining shuttles are equipped with the
Orbiter Docking System, and the four Soyuz craft could be equipped with
APAS for compatibility.





As an aside away from the Hubble question entirely...

I am not that familiar with the ATV and it's docking
capability, but I am curious to know what sort of system
could be made between ATV and Soyuz.

Basically, I am curious as to whether the combination of these
could be used as the core of a man tended short duration space
station.

On 18 Jan 2004 21:38:46 GMT, isney (Matt
Periolat) wrote:

..... I'm worried we're headed into a
similar situation we had at the end of Apollo: retiring existing hardware when
the next thing in line could be years off.


Yes, that bothers me two, even with the guaruntees of rides on the
Soyuz.

And if the CEV/Booster we get harkins back to the Apollo/Saturn 1B,
then what was the point of the shuttle program?


...... It still bothers me that, again,
existing PROVEN hardware being scrapped for something else that isn't even a
blip on the radar. Screams "mistake" to me. But hey, I just live in the asylum,
I don't run it.


From what I have read, there was only going to be one more servicing
mission up to Hubble anyway. And the new observatory will be too far
from Earth to be conveniently serviced. At least that's the plan.

Then again, since the CEV will be designed to go farther than the
shuttle orbiter, maybe it could be used to service things in
geosynchronis orbits and at LaGrange points in addition to other
missions?

A thought.

Oh and trust me, Bush will be using a similar excuse when Congress kills his
Space plan. The inventor of the bomb doesn't drop it.


On the plus side, the Congressional reaction to Bush's plan doesn't
sound as negative the reaction to his father's proposal, when Ted
Kennedy called his own press conference and coined the phrase "No free
launch!" almost immediately. Plus, IIRC, Congress was put off not
just by the budget but by the 90 Day Study calling for more shuttles,
more this, more that; that's what lead to the synthesis group. Bush
seems to be laying out more 'down to Earth steps' -- unmanned probes,
develop a new vehicle, and so forth. So the outlook may be a LITTLE
brighter for it.

*sighs* It just frustrates me to no end that it's come to this.

Welcome to a democracy.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 15:45:51 -0600, "Jon Berndt"
wrote:

Yes, but there is this (at least):

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...s/con01164.xml


Thanks.

Interesting that there's now a new office of Exploration systems.
OTOH, why the six year gap between the CEV's first demonstration
flight and its first manned flight!? That's bothersome. A program
delay leaves us without our own manned vehicle for a LONG time!

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:58:48 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:



Darren J Longhorn wrote:

Actually, I was thinking of using the Revell Gemini astronaut. Or the
one that comes with the MMU, I think it's the same astronaut. Although
floating, it's pretty close to seated.


Those are two different kits...and sizes- the MMU one is smaller. It was
also done by Aurora originally.
http://www.culttvman.com/bruce_bishop_s_astronaut.html

Sorry Pat, I didn't explain myself very well. I was talking about the
Revell _Shuttle_ MMU kit which, although it's the shuttle MMU,
actually has the Gemini astronaut!
http://www.airspacemodels.com/mmu.htm

Given the time frame and mission of the vehicle, I would think that the
pilot might have worn one of those orange U-2/SR-71/Shuttle suits:
http://www.ninfinger.org/~sven/models/suits/suit72.html

I like that idea.

Darren J Longhorn wrote:

Sorry Pat, I didn't explain myself very well. I was talking about the
Revell _Shuttle_ MMU kit which, although it's the shuttle MMU,
actually has the Gemini astronaut!
http://www.airspacemodels.com/mmu.htm


I had forgotten about that little disaster area.




Given the time frame and mission of the vehicle, I would think that the
pilot might have worn one of those orange U-2/SR-71/Shuttle suits:
http://www.ninfinger.org/~sven/models/suits/suit72.html



I like that idea.


Go Joe!

http://www.mastercollector.com/neat/...o/shuttle.html

Pat

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:46:28 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

snip

Go Joe!

http://www.mastercollector.com/neat/...o/shuttle.html


I'd never get to use that, the kids would nab it first.

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:30:33 GMT, "Bruce Sterling Woodcock"
wrote:


Now, Congress and the President will have to say "don't even think of
abandoning Hubble -- our crown jewel -- we'll let you waive the RCC
repair capability, but only for Hubble."

O'Keefe wins either way.

Unless Endeavour comes back from Hubble servicing and
disintegrates, costing us 7 more crew, another shuttle, more
months of delays...

The chances of that are remote once we eliminate the ET foam-shedding
problem. Launch is still the riskiest part of a Shuttle flight, and
ISS missions are just as vulnerable as HST SM-4.

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:30:33 GMT, "Bruce Sterling Woodcock"
wrote:



Now, Congress and the President will have to say "don't even think of
abandoning Hubble -- our crown jewel -- we'll let you waive the RCC
repair capability, but only for Hubble."

O'Keefe wins either way.

Unless Endeavour comes back from Hubble servicing and
disintegrates, costing us 7 more crew, another shuttle, more
months of delays...


The chances of that are remote once we eliminate the ET foam-shedding
problem. Launch is still the riskiest part of a Shuttle flight, and
ISS missions are just as vulnerable as HST SM-4.



Hmm. Actually, re-entry is the most dangerous.

The chances aren't that remote. There are several
hundred failure conditions related to potential
loss of vehicle still present.

Now, if the president wants to override the technical
recommendations of the people hired to do the job...
It's not a question of "let them waive.." O'Keefe is
going to be looking for a flat out order to do this.

Next time won't be months of delays. If they have Core Complete
when they run Hubble, it would likely not be cost effective to
make any major repairs to return the Shuttle to service. You
don't have an accident in 2008 with an 18 month fleet grounding, then
fly one flight, then retire the fleet.