Write or call Congress to save Hubble space telescope

"RichA" wrote in
oups.com:

Does anyone know the Space Shuttle's schedule for the next year past
initial launch dates?

2005 May 12 STS-114/ISS LF-1
2005 Jul 10 STS-121/ISS ULF-1.1
2005 Dec 08 STS-115/ISS-12A

--
JRF

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

I believe the poster was suggesting we keep the shuttle fleet active
indefinitely past 2010, and for that, we would need to build new tail
numbers on a regular basis to replace those that were lost or worn out.

If NASA only plans 25 more flights before the STS is decommissioned,
then we can probably make do with the remaining three shuttles. A loss
of one however would severely constrain the program.

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

Tim Killian wrote in
:


Keep the shuttles flying? To do that, we need to reopen the assembly
line because the lifetime of an orbiter appears to be 25-50 flights.


Umm, no. The first shuttle accident occurred after 25 flights, the second
after 88 more flights. With only 28 flights remaining for the entire fleet,
reopening the assembly line is entirely unwarranted.

Tim Killian wrote in
:

I believe the poster was suggesting we keep the shuttle fleet active
indefinitely past 2010,

I interpreted his remarks differently, but reading back, yours is a
reasonable interpretation as well.

and for that, we would need to build new tail
numbers on a regular basis to replace those that were lost or worn
out.

Either that, or just fly them until we run out.

If NASA only plans 25 more flights before the STS is decommissioned,
then we can probably make do with the remaining three shuttles. A loss
of one however would severely constrain the program.

Certainly.

--
JRF

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

On 25 Jan 2005 02:50:47 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

"RichA" wrote in
roups.com:

Does anyone know the Space Shuttle's schedule for the next year past
initial launch dates?

2005 May 12 STS-114/ISS LF-1
2005 Jul 10 STS-121/ISS ULF-1.1
2005 Dec 08 STS-115/ISS-12A

Lovely. They won't send the Shuttle to fix Hubble because it's
"too risky" but they'll send three missions in six months to that
worthless money-pit, the ISS.
-Rich

RichA wrote in
:

On 25 Jan 2005 02:50:47 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

"RichA" wrote in
groups.com:

Does anyone know the Space Shuttle's schedule for the next year past
initial launch dates?

2005 May 12 STS-114/ISS LF-1
2005 Jul 10 STS-121/ISS ULF-1.1
2005 Dec 08 STS-115/ISS-12A

Lovely. They won't send the Shuttle to fix Hubble because it's
"too risky" but they'll send three missions in six months to that
worthless money-pit, the ISS.

What rock have you been hiding under? All 28 remaining shuttle flights are
going to ISS.

--
JRF

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

In article 4,
Tom Kent wrote:

richard schumacher wrote in news:no-spam-
:

Tell your senators and representative to fund a Shuttle rescue mission
to save the Hubble space telescope. Find contact information by your
zip code he http://www.vote-smart.org/


Or write your senators and representative to fund the vision for space
exploration with the money saved from cutting hubble.

Certainly, if you think that an orbiting hotel for astronauts is more
important or useful than doing real science. Hubble's results will live
forever. Bush's "vision" will pass with his administration.

Rand Simberg wrote:

[...]
: Should robot manufacturing be scrapped all together or do you think
: it has a place on ISS?
: I've no opinion on that, and it has nothing to do with my post, which
: wasn't about robotic manufacturing. But what else is new?
You mentioned "ridiculous proposal to do it robotically". That would
imply that it IS on topic.

No, it wouldn't. I was referring to servicing Hubble robotically, not
doing robotic manufacturing, which is completely different

Just possibly, he meant, "manufacture of robots", which would be on topic,
but would also be a very big leap from "we shouldn't do this mission with
a robot".

I can't imagine "manufacture of robots" ending anytime soon, whatever the
space program's thoughts on robots are.

/dps

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

RichA ) wrote:
: Does anyone know the Space Shuttle's schedule for the next year past
: initial launch dates?

Is that a rhetorical question? Sure seems like it!

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On 24 Jan 2005 22:05:58 -0000, in a place far, far away, Thialfi
: made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
: way as to indicate that:

: The Europeans and the Russians have figured out the fact that
: the USA is an unreliable partner, and there's no sense depending
: on them.

: I'd like to think they've figured this out, but I see little evidence
: of it.

: Commercial satellite launches are pretty much monopolized by the
: Russians and Europeans already, and the commercial airplane
: business is moving to Europe as well.

: That remains to be seen.

: The only thing the Americans are spending money on is
: unproductive military boondoggles.

: Actually, military expenditures are a minor part of the overall
: budget.

Ridiculous statement!

How much more does the war cost us every year than we allocate for NASA?
Five, six, or ten times?!

Eric

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:31:24 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: : : Or write your senators and representative to fund the vision for space
: : : exploration with the money saved from cutting hubble.
: :
: : : Very little money will be saved (as long as they give up on the
: : : ridiculous proposal to do it robotically).
: :
: : Should robot manufacturing be scrapped all together or do you think it has
: : a place on ISS?
:
: : I've no opinion on that, and it has nothing to do with my post, which
: : wasn't about robotic manufacturing. But what else is new?
:
: You mentioned "ridiculous proposal to do it robotically". That would imply
: that it IS on topic.

: No, it wouldn't. I was referring to servicing Hubble robotically, not
: doing robotic manufacturing, which is completely different, though I
: suppose I should have cut you some slack, since you're too brainless
: to understand the difference.

You are truely dense! Given that the HST won't be getting a robit mission,
should we continue with the technology and actually develop and test it on
ISS?! (Proof of concept). They ARE related in the whole scope of space
robotics. The fact that you don't seem to be able to seperate HST robotics
with robotics in general in space is an example of your tunnel vision and
closed mindedness.

Geez, forget I even asked your opinion as I think the whole thing flew
right over your head. You ad new meaning to the term "space cadet".

You were a manager once? You couldn't even manage a softball team much
less a technical project!

Eric