|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Aw Crap....Now the White House Wants Hubble Gone
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6853009
So much for O'Keefe's departure bringing some hope for those who wanted to see a Shuttle-based HST servicing mission. Some notes... 1) "both robotic and shuttle-based servicing options expected to cost well in excess of $1 billion" Where the hell did that number come from? Robotic servicing fine, but Shuttle-based...that sounds like a load of crap. 2) "NASA was told it simply could not afford to save Hubble given everything else NASA has on its agenda, including preparing the shuttle fleet to fly again." I can buy this given the press of ISS flights and the time-frame they have to finish in. Maybe Congress can pressure NASA into not abandoning HST, but, where the White House directs NASA is where it tends to go (or try to at least). -A.L. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Andrew Lotosky wrote:
2) "NASA was told it simply could not afford to save Hubble given everything else NASA has on its agenda, including preparing the shuttle fleet to fly again." I can buy this given the press of ISS flights and the time-frame they have to finish in. zigackly. NASA doesn't want the manned HSS mission because it would cut into the "use STS to complete ISS" mission. Which they get funded for. Which they don't want to give up under any circumstances. Just governmental budget manuevering, is all. -- Terrell Miller "Every gardener knows nature's random cruelty" -Paul Simon George Harrison |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Andrew Lotosky" wrote in
oups.com: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6853009 So much for O'Keefe's departure bringing some hope for those who wanted to see a Shuttle-based HST servicing mission. Some notes... 1) "both robotic and shuttle-based servicing options expected to cost well in excess of $1 billion" Where the hell did that number come from? Robotic servicing fine, but Shuttle-based...that sounds like a load of crap. True, the marginal cost of adding a single shuttle flight to the manifest in a given year is much lower ($100-200 million). However, adding the HST servicing mission delays ISS assembly by three months, which in turn delays the retirement of the shuttle fleet by three months and requires the shuttle program stay funded (at $4 billion/year) that much longer. So the $1 billion figure is probably correct - it's just that most of it is back-loaded: you pay the marginal cost of the flight in the year that it flies, and the rest in the year the shuttle fleet is retired. On the other hand, the robotic servicing mission costs are front-loaded; the tech development must occur now and be paid for now. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in
: (bob haller) wrote: End the dangerous wasteful shuttle now before it kills any more astronauts.... Haven't you said that at least 10,000 times already? It's his .sig. He doesn't know how to format it properly, so instead it shows up as part of the message. And yes, he's been told. He's just very clue-resistant. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
End the dangerous wasteful shuttle now before it kills any more astronauts.... Haven't you said that at least 10,000 times already? I am still waiting for the news its shut down but fear it will be after the next accident .. .. End the dangerous wasteful shuttle now before it kills any more astronauts.... |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Andrew Lotosky" excess of $1 billion" Where the hell did that number come from? Robotic servicing fine, except that it won't work but Shuttle-based...that sounds like a load of crap. $500 M for launch, $500 M for parts....NASA bookkeeping Maybe Congress can pressure NASA into not abandoning HST Congress wants to spend a billion on Hubble? I think a functional replacement could be done for the same price. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Revision wrote:
"Andrew Lotosky" excess of $1 billion" Where the hell did that number come from? Robotic servicing fine, except that it won't work but Shuttle-based...that sounds like a load of crap. $500 M for launch, $500 M for parts....NASA bookkeeping Maybe Congress can pressure NASA into not abandoning HST Congress wants to spend a billion on Hubble? I think a functional replacement could be done for the same price. Except for the fact that the 500 million has already been spent and the service hardware and such is already built and sitting on the shelf, so to speak. that means that for a measley 500 million we can have an updated instrument ready to work for another decade or more. A replacement would not only cost probably a billion to build, but you have to add on the loss of the existing hardware (500 million) plus the half a billion for the launch. So, that replacement ends up effectively costing two billion, four times more than the additional spending to service what we already have. "Car's got a flat tire, let's buy a new car" is the mentality of a nation with a lot more money, vision, and desire than what the US has nowadays. BTW, we spend 51 billion, with a B, in Iraq each and every day. JazzMan -- ************************************************** ******** Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net. Curse those darned bulk e-mailers! ************************************************** ******** "Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry ************************************************** ******** |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Revision" wrote in
: "Andrew Lotosky" excess of $1 billion" Where the hell did that number come from? Robotic servicing fine, but Shuttle-based...that sounds like a load of crap. $500 M for launch, $500 M for parts....NASA bookkeeping Nope... here are NASA's numbers, according to GAO: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0534.pdf (Table 1, p. 6, or p. 9 of the PDF) Maybe Congress can pressure NASA into not abandoning HST Congress wants to spend a billion on Hubble? I think a functional replacement could be done for the same price. I agree. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In article , JazzMan
wrote: BTW, we spend 51 billion, with a B, in Iraq each and every day. JazzMan -- Cite? I think you've slipped a decimal place or two there (not that what we've spent there since 2003 is peanuts, by any stretch of anyone's imagination, mind you). -- Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D., GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C "The loss of the American system of checks and balances is more of a security danger than any terrorist risk." -- Bruce Schneier http://dischordia.blogspot.com http://www.angryherb.net |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA Details Risks to Astronauts on Mission to Hubble | Scott M. Kozel | Space Shuttle | 174 | May 14th 04 09:38 PM |
Don't Desert Hubble | Scott M. Kozel | Space Shuttle | 54 | March 5th 04 05:38 PM |
NASA Engineers Support Hubble | Dale | Amateur Astronomy | 10 | February 10th 04 04:55 AM |
Why Hubble was cancelled, and what to do now | Greg Kuperberg | Policy | 36 | February 9th 04 11:43 PM |
Hubble: RIP | Joe S. | Amateur Astronomy | 20 | January 18th 04 03:21 AM |