A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Shuttle
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Don't Desert Hubble



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old February 14th 04, 08:32 PM
Charles Buckley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Don't Desert Hubble

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

Charles Buckley wrote in
:


The ET tanks alone costs more than the replacement equipment
for Hubble.



Hmm? I'd sure like to see some sources for that. I've seen quotes of $200
million for the instruments alone on SM-4, let alone the gyros. That's at
least three ETs right there. And most of that $200 million has *already*
been spent.


The last sentence you stated is the important one. This is a
political,not technical decision and NASA is putting it back onto
Congress to be *consistant*.



You might want to tell O'Keefe that. He's certainly painting this as a
technical (specifically, crew safety) decision. Congress has every right to
override a political decision, but they would be understandably reluctant
to override a technical decision.


All of that comes from the CAIB. The CAIB is a political document.
The reality of the situation is simple: If there was no huge backlog
of ISS components, Shuttle would be grounded today. The decision to
fly this this at all is a political decision. The crew safety issue
is equally valid for both ISS and Hubble, but what most people keep
missing is that applying the same standard to both ISS and non-ISS
flights would more likely result in no flights to either than flights
to both.

He has a clear mandate to override the core safety requirements
for ISS. Not Hubble.


NASA just got crucified for not following
basic safety requirements and now they are getting flamed for
not waiving those requirements when something "important" comes
along.



No waiving of requirements is necessary. The CAIB certainly had no
intention of painting NASA into a corner such that they couldn't service
HST. Dr. Osheroff has already spoken up on that particular issue.

(Hint: Read chapter 10 of the CAIB report. There is *no* requirement for
ISS safe haven, nor a rescue shuttle for non-ISS missions.)



There are other clauses though that do factor in. The requirement is
for a risk assessment to be done which would meet certain requirements.
Simply put: with a 98% safety record, they can't meet the limits.
In Chapter 10 2.5.4.1 and 2.5.4.2. The specific numbers associated
with the standards set really require outside capability - ie rescue
or repair - to accomplish.

If NASA were to slap down a 99% success rate for continued flights,
how will they go about it?



The drop-dead date for Shuttle is 2010. They don't really have
any room for slippage.



They have about 18 months, actually, based on the last manifest published
before the new space policy was announced.



http://www.caib.us/news/report/pdf/v...s/chapter6.pdf

Start with findings F6.2-1 through F6.2-7 and the recommendation
that follows. They are extremely critical of NASA's scheduling

18 months is a grand total of what? 5 or 6 launches? Assuming no
slippage of any kind on anything in the pipeline. Figure on that
4-5 launch a year schedule for 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009.
20-25 remaining launches.

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/future/

It shows 25 remaining ISS flights.


Then, go to recommendation R6.4-1. That is the killer. That is the
item that would have to be waivered for a Shuttle flight. The
immediate goal of on-orbit inspection can be met, but they specifically
include ISS assets in meeting those goals while non-ISS missions
have to have independant capability. The ultimate goal portion
is waiverable on ISS missions because they can use ISS assets near
term and they are not going to be flying this beyond a short time
related to finishing ISS construction. But, NASA isn't going to
waiver that for flights that are not going to go to ISS since there
is no way to fudge the numbers by applying ISS capabilities to the
safety rating for the mission.

The devil is in the details here. NASA has a very short critical time
frame to accomplish it's primary mission with Shuttle. It has
a pretty specific requirement in terms of repair capability and
safety rating. It has a CAIB very critical of a schedule with no room
for slippage. NASA has a very clear mandate from it's boss to
complete ISS. It has nothing for Hubble. With the political fallout
from Columbia, there is no chance they are going to stick their
necks out on Hubble without the decision being imposed from the outside.
O'Keefe is hitting the technical details and that is going to be
his tack. If Congress or the President directs NASA to go thru
with the Hubble recovery, then they have assumed the liability for
it.
  #22  
Old February 15th 04, 02:10 AM
Brian Thorn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Don't Desert Hubble

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 12:32:34 -0700, Charles Buckley
wrote:

18 months is a grand total of what? 5 or 6 launches? Assuming no
slippage of any kind on anything in the pipeline. Figure on that
4-5 launch a year schedule for 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009.
20-25 remaining launches.

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/future/

It shows 25 remaining ISS flights.


You forgot 2010 itself. 4-5 more launches, or almost a year of backup
time. I don't think 2005 will get 5 launches though. 3-4 at best,
since RTF is likely now in March, 2005.

Brian

  #23  
Old February 15th 04, 06:00 AM
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Don't Desert Hubble

Charles Buckley wrote in
:

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

Charles Buckley wrote in
:

The last sentence you stated is the important one. This is a
political,not technical decision and NASA is putting it back onto
Congress to be *consistant*.


You might want to tell O'Keefe that. He's certainly painting this as
a technical (specifically, crew safety) decision. Congress has every
right to override a political decision, but they would be
understandably reluctant to override a technical decision.


All of that comes from the CAIB. The CAIB is a political document.
The reality of the situation is simple: If there was no huge backlog
of ISS components, Shuttle would be grounded today. The decision to
fly this this at all is a political decision. The crew safety issue
is equally valid for both ISS and Hubble, but what most people keep
missing is that applying the same standard to both ISS and non-ISS
flights would more likely result in no flights to either than flights
to both.

He has a clear mandate to override the core safety requirements
for ISS. Not Hubble.


A clear mandate from the *president*. But the president does not have sole
responsibility for policy decisions. Congress, via its power of the purse,
shares this responsibility. Painting this as purely a technical decision
rather than a policy decision would be a good way to make Congress
reluctant to step in and exercise their policy oversight responsibilities.

NASA just got crucified for not following
basic safety requirements and now they are getting flamed for
not waiving those requirements when something "important" comes
along.


No waiving of requirements is necessary. The CAIB certainly had no
intention of painting NASA into a corner such that they couldn't
service HST. Dr. Osheroff has already spoken up on that particular
issue.

(Hint: Read chapter 10 of the CAIB report. There is *no* requirement
for ISS safe haven, nor a rescue shuttle for non-ISS missions.)


There are other clauses though that do factor in. The requirement
is
for a risk assessment to be done which would meet certain
requirements. Simply put: with a 98% safety record,


98% only if you include 51L. The particular failure mode in that accident
has since been designed out.

they can't meet
the limits. In Chapter 10 2.5.4.1 and 2.5.4.2. The specific numbers
associated with the standards set really require outside capability -
ie rescue or repair - to accomplish.


Or standalone repair (see below).

If NASA were to slap down a 99% success rate for continued flights,
how will they go about it?


Simply solving the ET foam-shedding problem should be sufficient, and is
something they are already required to do prior to return-to-flight (R3.2-
1).

Then, go to recommendation R6.4-1. That is the killer. That is the
item that would have to be waivered for a Shuttle flight. The
immediate goal of on-orbit inspection can be met, but they
specifically include ISS assets in meeting those goals while non-ISS
missions have to have independant capability. The ultimate goal
portion is waiverable on ISS missions because they can use ISS assets
near term and they are not going to be flying this beyond a short time
related to finishing ISS construction.


That was not the CAIB's intent. If NASA thinks that cancelling non-ISS
flights will let them wriggle out of the standalone repair requirement,
they are in for a confrontation with the CAIB. If NASA intends to fulfill
every CAIB recommendation - as they have publicly pledged to do - then they
will have to develop standalone repair capability anyway.

(And as it turns out, NASA's solution for ISS-based repair will only work
up to flight ISS-1J, and the most promising solution for ISS flights
*after* 1J will also work for *standalone* repair. So the argument is moot
- if NASA wants to complete ISS beyond 1J, they will be developing
standalone repair anyway.)

If there's *any* wriggle room for waiving a CAIB recommendation, in fact,
it's probably with R9.2-1, the recertification requirement that resulted in
the 2010 retirement date for the fleet. If NASA starts running into
schedule pressure to complete ISS by the end of 2010, the CAIB would much
rather let NASA waive R9.2-1 and let some flights slip into 2011, than rush
the schedule at the end and raise the risk of an accident, or waste
billions on a recertification that will only apply to a handful of flights.

Or to put it more simply, if R9.2-1 and R6.2-1 collide, R6.2-1 will win.

With the political fallout
from Columbia, there is no chance they are going to stick their
necks out on Hubble without the decision being imposed from the
outside. O'Keefe is hitting the technical details and that is going to
be his tack.


Wouldn't that be deceptive? This is a policy decision about risk-vs-reward,
not a technical decision about risk alone. The latter is entirely within
O'Keefe's authority while the former belongs jointly to the president and
Congress.

If Congress or the President directs NASA to go thru
with the Hubble recovery, then they have assumed the liability for
it.


Congress directed NASA to go thru with STS-107 in the first place (see CAIB
vol. 1 p. 27) and yet practically no one has suggested they assume
liability for it. Missions to ISS, missions to HST, missions to the moon,
missions to Mars - all carry risks and rewards. Lunar and Mars missions are
both far riskier than a mission to HST. A mission to HST may be marginally
riskier than a mission to ISS.

The reward... well, suffice to say that's a matter of perception, and
O'Keefe's perception is not the only one that matters.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
  #24  
Old February 15th 04, 11:23 AM
Chosp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Don't Desert Hubble


"Charles Buckley" wrote in message
...

The ET tanks alone costs more than the replacement equipment
for Hubble.


References, please?


  #25  
Old February 15th 04, 07:05 PM
Karl Hallowell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Don't Desert Hubble

"Chosp" wrote in message news:hTHXb.69784$F15.14540@fed1read06...
"Charles Buckley" wrote in message
...

The ET tanks alone costs more than the replacement equipment
for Hubble.


References, please?


Funny about that. I've heard that the ET *and reburshing solid
boosters* cost $114 or so million in 1997.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=co...s.com&rnum= 1

Meanwhile as Chosp mentions in this post, there is $180 million cost
with the replacement equipment for the Hubble telescope.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...com%26rnum%3D1

Sorry about the long Google links. But don't know of a better way to
reference old USENET posts.


Karl Hallowell

  #26  
Old February 15th 04, 07:17 PM
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Don't Desert Hubble

(Karl Hallowell) wrote in
m:

Sorry about the long Google links. But don't know of a better way to
reference old USENET posts.


http://www.makeashorterlink.com/
http://tinyurl.com/


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
  #27  
Old February 15th 04, 07:46 PM
Andrew Gray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Don't Desert Hubble

In article , Karl
Hallowell wrote:

Funny about that. I've heard that the ET *and reburshing solid
boosters* cost $114 or so million in 1997.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=co...et+boosters%22
&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=5rej3f%24ot6%40usenet78.supernews.
com&rnum=1

Meanwhile as Chosp mentions in this post, there is $180 million cost
with the replacement equipment for the Hubble telescope.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...UTF-8&threadm=
c582c1e3.0401311024.3efcdcc%40posting.google.com&r num=1&prev=/groups
%3Fq%3Dhallowell%2Bhubble%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3 DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-
8%26selm%3Dc582c1e3.0401311024.3efcdcc%2540posting .google.com%26rnum
%3D1

Sorry about the long Google links. But don't know of a better way to
reference old USENET posts.


Message-IDs.

Your post, if you look in the headers, had
Message-ID:
- this is a unique identifier, and wll pick that post out of a
database. Handily, it's also what Google uses as its reference method..
if you look at a Google Groups search, try to pick out the string
starting "selm=..." - the ... is the message-ID.

So, your first link... let's look at it.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=co...et+boosters%22
&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=5rej3f%24ot6%40usenet78.supernews.
com&rnum=1


[& seperates strings]

http://groups.google.com/groups? - is fairly critical :-)

q=cost+ET+%22solid+rocket+boosters%22 - is your search string - we've
got a result, but it keeps the search string so it can highlight the
words you're looking for. It can go. (%22 = ", I assume)

hl=en - in English, but this is the default...
lr= - dunno, but it's not even set to anything
ie=UTF-8
oe=UTF-8 - not sure what either of these do; character-set? Both are on
defaults, anyway...

selm=5rej3f%24ot6%40usenet78.supernews.com - this is it! This string
uniquely identifies the post you're quoting... the %40 is an @ sign.

rnum=1 - I never did work out what this one does.

So, your first link condenses down to

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm....supernews.com

(If you really want, you can shave a few more characters by cutting
//groups.google.com/ to //google.com/, but...)

Simple, really... thanks for the data, BTW ;-)

--
-Andrew Gray

  #28  
Old February 15th 04, 07:47 PM
Bootstrap Bill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Don't Desert Hubble


"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
(Karl Hallowell) wrote in
m:

Sorry about the long Google links. But don't know of a better way to
reference old USENET posts.


http://www.makeashorterlink.com/
http://tinyurl.com/


One problem. The Google archives may last for centuries, if not longer. Will
tinyurl.com or makeashorterlink.com last as long? I recommend using both,
just in case these services go under.




  #29  
Old February 15th 04, 08:36 PM
Scott M. Kozel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Don't Desert Hubble

"Bootstrap Bill" wrote:

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
(Karl Hallowell) wrote:

Sorry about the long Google links. But don't know of a better way to
reference old USENET posts.


http://www.makeashorterlink.com/
http://tinyurl.com/


One problem. The Google archives may last for centuries, if not longer. Will
tinyurl.com or makeashorterlink.com last as long? I recommend using both,
just in case these services go under.


TinyURL claims that they are permanent.
  #30  
Old February 15th 04, 09:18 PM
Bootstrap Bill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Don't Desert Hubble


"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in message
...
"Bootstrap Bill" wrote:

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
(Karl Hallowell) wrote:

Sorry about the long Google links. But don't know of a better way to
reference old USENET posts.

http://www.makeashorterlink.com/
http://tinyurl.com/


One problem. The Google archives may last for centuries, if not longer.

Will
tinyurl.com or makeashorterlink.com last as long? I recommend using

both,
just in case these services go under.


TinyURL claims that they are permanent.


So they say, but what will happen to their database if/when they go
bankrupt? Their income seems to be coming from advertising links on thier
web site. What happens when the next Internet depression hits?






 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NASA Urged to Reconsider Hubble Decision Scott M. Kozel Space Shuttle 116 April 2nd 04 07:14 PM
Taking pictures of a shuttle with hubble? Remy Villeneuve Space Shuttle 16 February 6th 04 09:48 PM
Hubble. Alive and Well VTrade Space Shuttle 12 January 21st 04 06:57 AM
The Death of Hubble...When Will it Come? MasterShrink Space Shuttle 7 January 21st 04 06:49 AM
The Hubble Space Telescope... Craig Fink Space Shuttle 118 December 6th 03 05:41 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.