NASA Details Risks to Astronauts on Mission to Hubble

nobody wrote in :

You could do the mission with 4 "mission specialists" and one CDR.
Total of 5.

Assuming the PLT is one of the "mission specialists", yes.

My first impression is that this would be a training nightmare. The crew
would be stretched too thin between the NBL and the SMS.

However, by reducing the number of people, you can extend on-orbit
survivability.

This is true.

Furthermore, before reaching HST altitude, the shuttle can determine
its health and stay at lower orbit and start saving from day 2,
greatly extending its on-orbit duration capability.

This is untrue, at least with the inspection technology that would be
available for such a flight in the 2007 timeframe. Inspecting the RCC alone
will require most of flight day 2. ISS flights will inspect most of the
acreage tile during the Rbar pitch maneuver during flight day 3, but HST
missions would not have that luxury. They will either have to perform the
inspection after HST capture on flight day 3, or spend the additional
flight days doing inspection prior to committing to HST rendezvous.

I find the excuses (they are just excuses) given by NASA lack
credibility.

This is true, but only partially for the reasons you mention.

Safety is not an issue. As long as NASA implements all of CAIB
technical recommentations, the Shuttle will be usable to HST. Where
there is a will, there is a way.

NASA apologists use to say that it was impossible to EVA to fix tiles.
Didn't take long for NASA engineers to change their tune and now it
will happen.

No, they did not - at least I didn't. What I said is that NASA had no tile
repair capability at the time of STS-107, and that any tile repair
capability developed in the future would carry a significant risk of
further damage to the vehicle. Both of those were, and are, true
statements. Indeed, a lack of confidence that a tile repair would hold up
during entry is one reason why NASA desires ISS safe haven.

If tasked to go to Hubble safely, I am certain NASA will find a way to
do it. If NASA cannot make Shuttle safe, it cannot make CEV or
whetever safe either.

This is true. NASA's current chain of logic regarding non-ISS flights will
come back to bite them, hard, when they desire to fly beyond LEO.

Recall that on Apollo 13, had the explosion damaged the heat shield,
it would also have been toast. Would this make all capsules as unsafe
as the Shuttle ?

In perception, perhaps it would have. And sometimes perception is a
stronger force than engineering reality. Just ask hallerb. :-)

--
JRF

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

nobody wrote:

International agreements/commitments.

When a nuclear satellite fell over Canada, it took forever for the Canadian
government to get the russians to pay for the cost of searching for debris
cleaning up the mess.

And when Skylab fell on australia, it made Australia quite mad that it was
used as a rubbish bin.

Safe re-entry of any satellite is a must, and precedents must not continue to
be set that anyone and everyone can send junk in space and have it fall down "anywhere".

And all this is going to make the government spend hundreds of millions
of dollars ... why?

Paul

rk wrote in
:

bob haller wrote:

I will be *amazed* if any solution but this one is taken.
HST has a 1 in 1000 chance of killing someone on reentry.
It would be absurd to spends hundreds of millions of dollars to save
.001 lives.

Paul

You might eat your wordsif uncontrollwed it happen to come down in
NYC or other highly populated location, like moscow.

What's the probability [see PD post] of it coming down on Moscow? Is
that an acceptable risk?

Indeed, what is the probability of *any* spacecraft in a 28.45 degree
inclination orbit coming down on NYC (latitude 40.4 deg N) or Moscow
(latitude 55.45 deg N)? Especially if said spacecraft has no propulsion
system and an L/D of zero?

--
JRF

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

Andi Kleen wrote:
There seems to be still some funding for research into antimatter at
NASA at least. See http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=12510
It is not exactly an warp drive, but I suppose an working AM drive
would also improve the state of the art of space flight nicely

I have complete plans for a working warp engine at home. It fits on a CD. Part
of the Enterprise-D technical manual. :-) ;-) ;-) Don't understand why NASA
would need to spend billions on research when a $20 CD from a computer store
would give them all the ifor they need :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

HST has a 1 in 1000 chance of killing someone on reentry.
It would be absurd to spends hundreds of millions of dollars to
save .001 lives.

However, probabilistic risk assessment is on the (long) list of
things governments don't do well, if at all. And couple that with
the inability of the US judicial system to handle such cases
impartially...nah, no way that money is _not_ going to be spent.

Jan

In article ,
Andi Kleen wrote:
The small "Breakthrough Propulsion Physics" project at NASA -- which was
exploring odd corners of physics in hopes of finding something useful --
lost what little funding it had about 18 months ago.

There seems to be still some funding for research into antimatter at
NASA at least...

As Robert Forward said some years ago, "antimatter propulsion is no longer
science fiction". There is much engineering still to be done, and the
extremely high production cost of antimatter is a major problem, but at
the level of basic physics, there is no question that antimatter rockets
are feasible.

The BPP effort was pursuing much more exotic possibilities.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

Dosco Jones wrote:


http://www.floridatoday.com/news/spa...501SHUTTLE.htm

NASA details risks to astronauts on mission to Hubble
_FLORIDA TODAY_ - May 1, 2004

So we can either send willing astronauts to Hubble to perform uniquely
valuable
work while risking unknown dangers, or send them to the International
Space Station
to do jack **** in relative safety.

What a bunch of worthless pussies we've become.

What you mean "we", kemosabe?

A functional definition of "we", one evidenced by the collective action taken and
results produced in our name. Many of us remain energetic and productive, but if
they are in too small a minority or have lost the will to motivate others then "we"
have failed.

On 02 May 2004 05:08:58 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

Richard Schumacher wrote in
:

http://www.floridatoday.com/news/spa...cestoryN0501SH
UTTLE.htm

NASA details risks to astronauts on mission to Hubble
_FLORIDA TODAY_ - May 1, 2004

So we can either send willing astronauts to Hubble to perform uniquely
valuable work while risking unknown dangers, or send them to the
International Space Station to do jack **** in relative safety.

It's worse than that. The dangers of an HST mission are relatively well
known, compared to missions beyond low Earth orbit.

What a bunch of worthless pussies we've become.

Amen to that. It's scary that the same people who wrote this document
expect us to believe that the current generation of NASA management can
return people to the moon, or land people on Mars.

Jorge:

35 (almost) years after Apollo 11's landing I wonder what that group
of NASA folks (astronauts, engineers, etc.) would have to say to this
line of thinking....my guess would be they are none too thrilled at
our lack of to use a polite term "backbone".

How do we expect to get back to the moon or much less Mars if we are
unwilling to do a comparatively simple mission to HST using known
technology??

Just my 2 uninformed cents.


===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 262 677 0766
President +1 206 374 6482 FAX
Netwrx Consulting Inc. Jackson, WI USA
http://www.netwrx1.com

ICQ #12862186

In sci.space.policy Henry Spencer wrote:
In article ,
Sander Vesik wrote:
Neither of these imply that the space station must make any sort of sense for
science or space exploration/exploitation.

Ok, so why did the Dutch bother to send an astronaut to the ISS for 11 days?

One should distinguish carefully between whether the program as a whole
makes sense, and whether, *given the existence of the program*, relatively
small additional efforts to exploit it make sense.

But as teh astronaut did make science experiments, it follwos from that that
teh station makes at least some kind of sense. Between the best course of
action and the completely senseless, there are many shades of gray. As long
as there are results from ISS, it is IMHO not 'completely senseless', probably
just not terribly efficent results or money wise.

And one should bear in mind, always, that some of the benefits justifying
a given effort may be political rather than scientific or financial.

Very small fraction of space activities so far make sense financialy, why hold
ISS to that standard at all?

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

In sci.space.policy Henry Spencer wrote:
In article ,
Stephen Bolton wrote:
...Mind you, there is a VERY
strong argument that un-manned space activity is far more scientifically
productive...

Only if you ignore the lessons of the past and the actual numbers. The
problem with manned space activity is not that it is less productive, but
that the minimum size of productive mission is much larger (to the point
that adequate political support for it requires reasons more politically
compelling than science).

Odd thing is everybody just measures the science output and not that of
teh political side. Or for that matter, overlooking the cases where
it is an enabler for future missions. There are a couple of unmanned
probes in the works that will rely on use of ISS as a platform to occasionaly
visit for upgrades.


Best spend the money to invent the warp drive...

The small "Breakthrough Propulsion Physics" project at NASA -- which was
exploring odd corners of physics in hopes of finding something useful --
lost what little funding it had about 18 months ago.

Like with SETI, not having people poke at stuff is politicaly more convinient.
Similar fate almost certainly awaits any non-neglible presence on Moon that
is state sponsored or easily state-affected.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++