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

Aw Crap....Now the White House Wants Hubble Gone



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 22nd 05, 06:20 AM
Andrew Lotosky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 22nd 05, 06:49 PM
Terrell Miller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 22nd 05, 07:16 PM
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.
  #6  
Old January 23rd 05, 04:02 PM
bob haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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  
Old March 2nd 05, 11:24 PM
Revision
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old March 3rd 05, 01:21 AM
JazzMan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old March 3rd 05, 01:57 AM
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old March 3rd 05, 01:58 AM
Herb Schaltegger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

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 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:45 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.