A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Hubble to be abandoned



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #12  
Old January 18th 04, 06:24 AM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Scott Lowther wrote:
It doesn't matter *how* the servicing is done or from where using what
launcher, just so's it's done economically. I mean, jeez. A Shuttle HST
mission costs $500M.


Remember that the shuttle cost is almost all fixed annual overhead. The
cost of *adding* one more flight to existing shuttle operations is nowhere
near $500M; last I heard, it was estimated at $50-100M, depending on how
much custom preparation is needed.

The Hubble-specific side of preparations, which isn't trivial, is the same
regardless. (If it can be streamlined with another vehicle, it can be
streamlined with the shuttle.) Except that lots of little bits of
existing support equipment and operations procedures are shuttle-specific,
and modifying or rebuilding them is an extra cost of using something else.

Pushing this off the shuttle and saying "use something else" is either
major false economy, or an attempt to kill the mission without actually
quite saying so. It actually doesn't cost that much to use the shuttle
for it; I doubt greatly that you can do it much more cheaply on something
else, all other things being equal.

The way I read it is that O'Keefe sees the safety argument as a great
excuse to head the astronomers off at the pass, firmly eliminating any
possibility that he will later be lobbied for extended Hubble operations,
more servicing flights, more improvements and extensions, etc. He might
have been inclined to go ahead with the one planned servicing flight...
but if he permits one visit, that ruins his silver-bullet argument that
reliably kills all later pleas for more money. So even that one flight
has got to go; the grief he'll take over canceling it will pay off in
avoiding later hassles.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |
  #13  
Old January 18th 04, 06:41 AM
OM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 23:12:15 GMT, Scott Lowther
wrote:

Get four hundred thousand people (worldwide) to subscribe to the HST download service at,
say, ten dollars per year, then your servicing missions are paid for.


....What's ****ing ironic about this is that I read this while I'm
vampiring a clipart service website, snagging all their thumbnails and
small-sized samples, and along comes the first and only reason I'd
ever subscribe to an image service.

Not that it'll happen, mind you. It's too ****ing logical...

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr
  #14  
Old January 18th 04, 06:42 AM
OM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 17:37:41 -0700, Charles Buckley
wrote:

What would it really cost to use Soyuz to boost Hubble in
the 2008 timeframe? Can they service the gyro's with Soyuz,
or will it require an additional launch from another source?


....Here's a question: are the current Soyuz versions EVA-capable?

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr
  #15  
Old January 18th 04, 07:57 AM
Scott Lowther
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Henry Spencer wrote:

Pushing this off the shuttle and saying "use something else" is either
major false economy, or an attempt to kill the mission without actually
quite saying so.


But then...

The way I read it is that O'Keefe sees the safety argument as a great
excuse to head the astronomers off at the pass,


Well, there ya go. If using the Shuttle for HST repair is an unsafe
thing to do, given how creaky the shuttle system is, then Use Something
Else.

--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address
  #16  
Old January 18th 04, 08:31 AM
Scott Lowther
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Henry Spencer wrote:

The
cost of *adding* one more flight to existing shuttle operations is nowhere
near $500M; last I heard, it was estimated at $50-100M, depending on how
much custom preparation is needed.


Keep in mind... this is *NASA* we're talkign about. They can take a $50M
mission and turn it into a billion dollars. That's what happens when you
have a government monopoly. Turn Hubble into a commercial concern, and
open up servicing to competition, and you're set.


The Hubble-specific side of preparations, which isn't trivial, is the same
regardless. (If it can be streamlined with another vehicle, it can be
streamlined with the shuttle.)


If it could... would it? If somebody was watching pennies because their
bonus was absed on profit, then, yes. If not, then not.


--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address
  #17  
Old January 18th 04, 09:32 AM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Scott Lowther wrote:

Oh for... see, this is what I was afraid of. Granted, something like HST cannot
last forever, but it seems we're sacrificing something....



So, fly repair missions with something other than Shuttle.


Okay.. what do you know that the Air Force has that _we_ don't know about?

Pat

  #18  
Old January 18th 04, 10:51 AM
Darren J Longhorn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 02:32:35 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:



Scott Lowther wrote:

Oh for... see, this is what I was afraid of. Granted, something like HST cannot
last forever, but it seems we're sacrificing something....



So, fly repair missions with something other than Shuttle.


Okay.. what do you know that the Air Force has that _we_ don't know about?


No, no, think Navy:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/spauiser.htm
;-)

  #19  
Old January 18th 04, 11:50 AM
Dave Michelson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

OM wrote:

...Here's a question: are the current Soyuz versions EVA-capable?


And can they even get up to Hubble's altitude?

IIRC, Hubble nominally orbits at 550+ km. Soyuz's ceiling is only 425 km,
which sets the maximum useful altitude for ISS.

--
Dave Michelson


  #20  
Old January 18th 04, 12:06 PM
Chosp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Michael Gallagher" wrote in message
...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html

Not good news; here's hoping Bush follows through with the replacement
telescope!


There is no replacement telescope.
NGST (James Webb Telescope) will only improve
its vision in some of the infrared. It is an infrared
only instrument.
There is no replacement in visible light.
Most importantly there is no replacement in
the ultraviolet where earthbound telescopes
can't see at all.
They compliment each other. One does not
replace the other.



 




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 Is Not Giving Up On Hubble! (Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 2 May 2nd 04 01:46 PM
Congressional Resolutions on Hubble Space Telescope EFLASPO Amateur Astronomy 0 April 1st 04 03:26 PM
Don't Desert Hubble Scott M. Kozel Space Shuttle 54 March 5th 04 05:38 PM
Don't Desert Hubble Scott M. Kozel Policy 46 February 17th 04 06:33 PM
Hubble images being colorized to enhance their appeal for public - LA Times Rusty B Policy 4 September 15th 03 10:38 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:07 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.