Hubble to be abandoned

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
...
It wasn't done because they had no reason to think it would return any
useful data.

Just as the managers didn't hold the meetings that Copy Boy whined about
because they didn't think the meetings would be productive. Based on the
CAIB report and the information available to management at the time, there's
*STILL* no reason to think otherwise. Copy Boy has had ample time to show
otherwise, and his failure to do so makes it clear that he was just talking
out of his ass.

Just as the managers didn't hold the meetings that Copy Boy whined about
because they didn't think the meetings would be productive. Based on the
CAIB report and the information available to management at the time, there's
*STILL* no reason to think otherwise. Copy Boy has had ample time to show
otherwise, and his failure to do so makes it clear that he was just talking
out of his ass.

So SAFETY rules should be disregarded when somne feels it isnt necessary?

THEN! The managers making the decision to ignore the rules must be ready to
accept responsiblity and public outrage when their decision is wrong.

Columbia is a excellent example of this...

All managers making such decisions should be ready to quit at a moments notice
if people die.

At least Dittmore understood this! O keefe should of fired the others including
linda ham

"Hallerb" wrote in message
...
So SAFETY rules should be disregarded when somne feels it isnt necessary?

You have yet to provide any verifiable evidence that the events *would have*
turned out different had a pointless meeting been held. Would safety have
been improved if everyone gathered long enough to check off their names on
the meeting attendance sheet, then went back to their offices to get some
real work done? They would have held a meeting according to the rules, even
though it would serve no purpose. Would that have made you feel better?
Blindly follow the rules, even if it means attending pointless meetings?

Let's see your answer to my question. Where are your verifiable references
to support your claims?

You have yet to provide any verifiable evidence that the events *would have*
turned out different had a pointless meeting been held. Would safety have
been improved if everyone gathered long enough to check off their names on
the meeting attendance sheet, then went back to their offices to get some
real work done? They would have held a meeting according to the rules, even
though it would serve no purpose. Would that have made you feel better?
Blindly follow the rules, even if it means attending pointless meetings?

Let's see your answer to my question. Where are your verifiable references
to support your claims?


I DO BELIEVE THIS IS THE NEW RULE!

If the managers hadnt had their heads in the sand the crew might be alive today

"Hallerb" wrote in message
...
I DO BELIEVE THIS IS THE NEW RULE!

Why don't you find out? It's not like it's being hidden from you.

Tom Abbott wrote in
:

I was wondering if the Hubble repair could get by with
just a minimal crew. I guess you answered that.

You could cut the crew down as low as 5, but that also means only one EVA
team and a practical maximum of three EVAs. That would be of questionable
utility; it would be enough EVAs to replace broken equipment but not enough
to install the new instruments planned for SM-04. If you're going to commit
to an HST servicing mission, you might as well go all out.

I read in the New York Times today that there is a plan
circulating which would time a Hubble repair mission to take
place just before a planned shuttle launch to the space
station, and if something went wrong with the shuttle going
to Hubble, then the one waiting to be launched would be sent
up as a rescue craft instead of going to the space station
(assuming it is not damaged, too).

That was considered as one possible option before O'Keefe cancelled SM-04.

I would also suggest that NASA take a chance and go ahead
and launch a Hubble mission, even if there is no backup.
The odds are very good that they will not have any problems
and the crew could be made up of volunteers. No guts, no
glory.

I agree; the degree of risk is overstated. I'd fly such a mission.

--
JRF

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

"Jorge R. Frank" writes:

I would also suggest that NASA take a chance and go ahead
and launch a Hubble mission, even if there is no backup.
The odds are very good that they will not have any problems
and the crew could be made up of volunteers. No guts, no
glory.

I agree; the degree of risk is overstated. I'd fly such a mission.

Wouldn't we all ? human is the STS component that will _not_ fail !
Seriously though, what's your take on the Hubble decommissioning mission,
Jorge ? Would you fly that one ?

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:24:58 +0100, Reivilo Snuved wrote:

"Jorge R. Frank" writes:

I agree; the degree of risk is overstated. I'd fly such a mission.

Wouldn't we all ? human is the STS component that will _not_ fail !
Seriously though, what's your take on the Hubble decommissioning
mission, Jorge ? Would you fly that one ?

Well John Grunsfeld, who flew on two HST servicing missions (STS-103 and
STS-109), and who is now the NASA chief scientist has said
that he wouldn't.

This is what Grunsfeld said for the record, prior to the cancellation of
the future Hubble servicing missions: "If astronauts are going to risk
their lives to service the Hubble Space Telescope, we should do it in
order to enable great science. For the upcoming SM4 mission the Astronaut
Office has signed up for and is excited about the prospects of sending a
team up to Hubble to install the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph, the Wide
Field-3 Camera, and replace the gyros, batteries, and install the
Aft-shroud Cooling System. The Space Shuttle Program is aggressively
working towards improving the safety of the Shuttle system and to provide
solutions to the tile issues, brought to light by the Columbia accident,
which will enable an SM4 mission to the Hubble.

"If there were to be a mission after the SM4 for the purpose of returning
Hubble to earth in the Shuttle Payload bay, the Astronaut Office would
have reservations supporting the mission. Initial analysis shows that
perhaps four spacewalks are required, significant hardware would have to
be jettisoned, and a heavyweight return through the atmosphere would have
to be performed. In a sense this mission would be risking human lives, and
a unique national resource (the Space Shuttle), for the purpose of
disabling great science, albeit due to necessity at end-of-life. For this
reason the Astronaut Office favors the alternate approaches being
investigated by the Office of Space Science, including an autonomously
installed propulsion module mission, or a Shuttle based combined
servicing/propulsion module installation mission."

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/39/2

Jorge R. Frank wrote:



I would also suggest that NASA take a chance and go ahead
and launch a Hubble mission, even if there is no backup.
The odds are very good that they will not have any problems
and the crew could be made up of volunteers. No guts, no
glory.



I agree; the degree of risk is overstated. I'd fly such a mission.



The actual risk of something going seriously wrong on such a flight is
of course very low; but it would set the dread precedent: "We have done
this once...and nothing bad happened...so maybe we can do it again."...
and we would have taken our first step on the path toward losing crew #3.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote in
:

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

I would also suggest that NASA take a chance and go ahead
and launch a Hubble mission, even if there is no backup.
The odds are very good that they will not have any problems
and the crew could be made up of volunteers. No guts, no
glory.

I agree; the degree of risk is overstated. I'd fly such a mission.

The actual risk of something going seriously wrong on such a flight is
of course very low; but it would set the dread precedent: "We have done
this once...and nothing bad happened...so maybe we can do it again."...
and we would have taken our first step on the path toward losing crew #3.

Incorrect. What I am proposing is in full compliance with the CAIB
recommendations, and not much riskier (if at all) than an ISS mission. It
is certainly much less risky than a lunar or Mars mission. This is gut-
check time, Pat. *Anything* we do in space will be taking our first step on
the path toward losing crew #3. If we're not willing to risk servicing HST,
we have no business even thinking about the moon or Mars, and we might as
well scrap the whole program right here and now, and admit we no longer
have the courage to explore space.

--
JRF

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