MSNBC (JimO) - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury

Yes, in terms of odds of survival in cause of failure, mission to ISS is
better. But for actual risk of failure, is that really so different ?


yes...but how much better/safer is going to ISS only.....

ISS is ONLY safer when the failure aint so bad you die before get there...AND
is bad enough to be detected once your at ISS....but ISNT of a nature that you
dont detect it at ISS but it kills you anyway AFTER you leave ISS.....

Sounds like a failure of that sort is a damn small fraction of the possible
failure modes the shuttle has.....

So going to ISS at best 30 percent "safer" (my WAG).....and is most likey only
a few percent safer really....

So, how does that small increase in safety change something from damn deadly to
acceptably safe?

Its like smoking and drinking like a sailor on shore leave but feeling healthy
because you happen to eat green salads for lunch....

Blll

"John Doe"

A statement from NASA I would have found very reassuring/reasonable would
have been:

Hubble missions delayed indefinitely until Shuttle has tested

Yeah but that assumes that NASA wants to keep Hubble going. I think they
were done fooling with the thing and decided now was a good time to turn it
shut it down. (Keep hitting the rocks together, JD.)

March 25, 2004

Blockhead wrote:

"John Doe"

A statement from NASA I would have found very reassuring/reasonable would
have been:

Hubble missions delayed indefinitely until Shuttle has tested

Yeah but that assumes that NASA wants to keep Hubble going. I think they
were done fooling with the thing and decided now was a good time to turn it
shut it down. (Keep hitting the rocks together, JD.)

Oh Sure ... After paying for and constructing the optics, training for and
scheduling the mission, just cancel it. That sounds familiar. Spend a lot of
money, kill a lot of people, do something half assed and then pull out. Better
off not doing it at all, eh? That's the American way.

Just keep throwing the rocks at each other, Blockhead.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

Well NASA is out to lunch when I call. I wanted to give them a great
idea for the Hubble. They should attach it to the ISS. It would be a
space feat that the public would appreciate. Bush should say he thought
of it. It is more realistic than men and woman walking on Mars. The moon
is three days away,and it takes 60 Earths to fill the space. Going to
the ISS is like going from Boston to NY city. What's happening with
the ISS? Was it worth it? Would the money have been better spent on
Hubble 2 ? Seems the Mir went round and round for many years. Is
there any beer aboard? Can Mexican sweet potatoes grow in space? Maybe
they can grow up side down??? Does it have more than one 25 million
dollar toilet(I hope so) Will the two astronauts come back as
homosexuals? Years ago air line stewardess were very sexy(not today)
Girl astronauts should have the brain of Darla,and the body of Sharon
Stone. That in my minds eye makes flying in the shuttle worth the risk.
Bert

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Well NASA is out to lunch when I call. I wanted to give them a great
idea for the Hubble. They should attach it to the ISS. It would be a
space feat that the public would appreciate.

Not viable. The Hubble can't be attached to anything and work properly. In
addition all the goo floating away from the ISS would cloud the images that
Hubble gathers. Not to mention the Hubble and the ISS are in very different
orbits and it would be difficult to match the two into one orbit.

Bush should say he thought of it.

No way Bert. You get credit for this idea.

It is more realistic than men and woman walking on Mars. The moon
is three days away,and it takes 60 Earths to fill the space. Going to
the ISS is like going from Boston to NY city. What's happening with
the ISS? Was it worth it?

Totally. It is was worth it and it still is. We are learning how to live in
space, how to maintain gear in space, how equipment lasts, how astronauts
last in space, etc.
snip

--
BV.
www.iheartmypond.com

"JimO" wrot...
MSNBC - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4580820/

Instead of arguing about whether the shuttle can/cannot do the job, or
whether Bush is/isn't to blaim, has anyone stopped to think if there could
be a better way? Not just to fix the problem of this service visit, but all
the others too? If the shuttle can only go to the ISS then why not take
hubble there as well?

Deep Space One has proven the effectiveness and capacity of ion-propulsion.
The required deltaV of 3kmps is well within the capacity of such a system,
at which point the hubble can be serviced in perfect safety. Afterwards the
ion-drive system can move it away if required, and then come back to the
station for service, refueling and storage. Such a reusable OTV would have
many uses, not the least of which would be further hubble missions.

John

"John" wrote in message ...
"JimO" wrot...
MSNBC - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4580820/

Instead of arguing about whether the shuttle can/cannot do the job, or
whether Bush is/isn't to blaim, has anyone stopped to think if there could
be a better way? Not just to fix the problem of this service visit, but all
the others too? If the shuttle can only go to the ISS then why not take
hubble there as well?

Because Hubble would not work well, or at all, at or
near ISS.

"Christopher M. Jones" wrote...
"John" wrote...
"JimO" wrot...
MSNBC - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4580820/

Instead of arguing about whether the shuttle can/cannot do the job, or
whether Bush is/isn't to blaim, has anyone stopped to think if there
could
be a better way? Not just to fix the problem of this service visit, but
all
the others too? If the shuttle can only go to the ISS then why not take
hubble there as well?

Because Hubble would not work well, or at all, at or
near ISS.

Hence I said Hubble could be moved away afterwards. Return the OTV to the
station, replace the worn out ion drive grids and either send it off to do
something else or dock it to part of the station. Repeat five years later.
Keeping such a 'spaceship' at the station could be good practice for keeping
the mars and moon ships there whilst they're being assembled at a later
date.

John

On 3/30/04 2:12 AM, in article ,
"John" wrote:

"Christopher M. Jones" wrote...
"John" wrote...
"JimO" wrot...
MSNBC - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4580820/

Instead of arguing about whether the shuttle can/cannot do the job, or
whether Bush is/isn't to blaim, has anyone stopped to think if there
could
be a better way? Not just to fix the problem of this service visit, but
all
the others too? If the shuttle can only go to the ISS then why not take
hubble there as well?

Because Hubble would not work well, or at all, at or
near ISS.

Hence I said Hubble could be moved away afterwards. Return the OTV to the
station, replace the worn out ion drive grids and either send it off to do
something else or dock it to part of the station. Repeat five years later.
Keeping such a 'spaceship' at the station could be good practice for keeping
the mars and moon ships there whilst they're being assembled at a later
date.

John


John, I just finished reading an article in the April (new issue) of Sky and
Telescope (NASA Seeks To Give Hubble The Heave-Ho,pp. 24-25 ). In that
article it states "NASA now plans to develop a robot that will fly to the
telescope, attach a retrorocket, and steer the spacecraft to a harmless
reentry over an unpopulated area.."

My question is: (if there are any experts in orbital mechanics out there
please tell me why this wouldn¹t work, Im not an expert on this subject )
why cant the retrorocket be used instead (as you have suggested ) to put the
Hubble in the same area as the ISS. It would seem to me that that would
solve the immediate safety problem as well as provide a service platform for
servicing the Hubble and installing the COS and the WFC3.

Any thoughts on solutions out there?

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 11:07:51 -0800, in a place far, far away, Chuck
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:


My question is: (if there are any experts in orbital mechanics out there
please tell me why this wouldn¹t work, Im not an expert on this subject )
why cant the retrorocket be used instead (as you have suggested ) to put the
Hubble in the same area as the ISS.

It would require a large plane change, and far too much delta v.
Deorbiting is cheap, but moving it to a 52 degree orbit would cost
almost as much in propellant as launching it in the first place.