Space Shuttle, Not Robot, Should Be Used to Service Telescope

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
"Henk Boonsma" wrote in message
news:1102669048.acaa7ec8af44b12a5879d73af8d1a1c5@t eranews...

"Neil Halelamien" wrote in message
roups.com...

Here's the actual NAS press release:
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/ne...1?OpenDocument


In an earlier NG post I predicted the cost would be too high. I've been
proven right (again).



Umm, no offense, but that was an easy call.

Many here made the same call.



Predicting a cost overrun is like dynamiting fish in a
barrel..

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 18:28:31 +0000 (UTC), Eric Chomko
wrote:

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 11:20:53 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Brian
: Gaff" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
: in such a way as to indicate that:

:
: Well, we surely all realise that using Astronauts is the most
reliable way
: to service the telescope, and we also know there would be no shortage
of
: volunteers to go.

: Also (ironically, given how the robot folks are always telling us much
: more cost effective they are) the cheapest.

Well since we have been on Mars with only robots, I think that they may
have a point.

I don't know about you, but I find it much easier to mourn the loss of a
robot than I do people.

Eric

I find the risk acceptable.
I think NASA's new security directives seem like a waste of time
and reeks of paranoia.
If another shuttle fails then it will probably be a new problem
not adressed yet. It's the things you don't think about that kill
you.

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

wrote in message
oups.com...
The unknown here is that if a manned flight were ok'ed but by the time
that flight could be taken out of mothballs and scheduled it might be
2007 , by that time Hubble may be a 'dead duck'.
One would think that a relacement 'Hubble' would be the most cost
effective way to go.

Well yeah that is a better option than spending a billion on a robot with
1% chance of success. The Webb Telescope is under construction now,
which to me is a sort of Hubble successor, though not beloved as the
Hubble is. It will function in the infra-red band and will be located at
a LaGrange point, which is not accessible for human maintenance visits.
The Webb Telescope has to unfold itself once it arrives on station, which
worries the hell out of me but for now I have to trust the designers to
get that part of it right (since no post flight lens-swaps, etc will be
possible.)

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:38:22 -0600, Revision k@tdot-com wrote:


wrote in message
oups.com...
The unknown here is that if a manned flight were ok'ed but by the time
that flight could be taken out of mothballs and scheduled it might be
2007 , by that time Hubble may be a 'dead duck'.
One would think that a relacement 'Hubble' would be the most cost
effective way to go.

Well yeah that is a better option than spending a billion on a robot with
1% chance of success. The Webb Telescope is under construction now,
which to me is a sort of Hubble successor, though not beloved as the
Hubble is. It will function in the infra-red band and will be located at
a LaGrange point, which is not accessible for human maintenance visits.
The Webb Telescope has to unfold itself once it arrives on station, which
worries the hell out of me but for now I have to trust the designers to
get that part of it right (since no post flight lens-swaps, etc will be
possible.)



A infrared elescope will have a lesser public appeal than one
that works in the visual range. Which is why I don't think
it replaces Hubble in the public's eye.

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Brian Thorn ) wrote:
: On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 18:28:31 +0000 (UTC),
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:


: : Also (ironically, given how the robot folks are always telling us much
: : more cost effective they are) the cheapest.
:
: Well since we have been on Mars with only robots, I think that they may
: have a point.

: Not really. We went to the moon with robots first, too. But the
: astronauts who followed did several orders of magnitude more surface
: exploration than the robots, while their cost was not several orders
: of magnitude more than the robots.

True. But a manned mission to the moon was two weeks, a manned mission to
Mars will be two years. There is a whole new meaning to life support when
dealing with years rather than weeks. Surely a unmanned return mission to
Mars is necessary prior to sending people, and a lot cheaper as well. I'm
inclined to agree with you regarding the moon; no sense in spending lots
of resources on unmanned travel there. Speaking of which, didn't everyone
back in the late 60s honestly believe that we'd have some sort of
permanent presence (like we do in space on ISS) on the moon before
actually going to Mars? It doesn't, necessarily, act as a precursor to
the other, but it would seem that having done so little on the moon and so
long ago; it would make sense to return to the moon before going on to
Mars. I mean since we found nothing on Mars that would necessitate an
immediate return. Why not return to the moon for more deatil exploration?

: I don't know about you, but I find it much easier to mourn the loss of a
: robot than I do people.

: Of course we all do. But humans themselves travelling the cosmos have
: an infinitely greater ability to inspire. Witness the millions in the
: free world who stopped what they were doing to watch John Glenn's
: first launch, or Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon. Viking and the
: MERs simply can't compare.

I am not saying that robots should ONLY be used. I am saying that they
should be used first, as a proof of concept. I believe that we have been
doing just that.

: "The meek shall inherit the Earth. The rest of us will go to the
: stars."

Well if you believe Carl Sagan, then we are made of star stuff. So you
might want to say, "...go back to the stars".

Eric

: Brian

John Thingstad ) wrote:
: On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 18:28:31 +0000 (UTC), Eric Chomko
: wrote:

: Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: : On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 11:20:53 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Brian
: : Gaff" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
: : in such a way as to indicate that:
:
: :
: : Well, we surely all realise that using Astronauts is the most
: reliable way
: : to service the telescope, and we also know there would be no shortage
: of
: : volunteers to go.
:
: : Also (ironically, given how the robot folks are always telling us much
: : more cost effective they are) the cheapest.
:
: Well since we have been on Mars with only robots, I think that they may
: have a point.
:
: I don't know about you, but I find it much easier to mourn the loss of a
: robot than I do people.
:

: I find the risk acceptable.

There are degrees of risk.

: I think NASA's new security directives seem like a waste of time
: and reeks of paranoia.

There is nothing quite like going back into space after a disaster to
quell such paranoia.

: If another shuttle fails then it will probably be a new problem
: not adressed yet. It's the things you don't think about that kill
: you.

Well thinking a bout then, alone, doesn't fix them. You can know about a
problem and it can still kill you. There is ALWAYS some risk.

Eric

: --
: Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

"Charles Buckley" wrote in message
...
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
"Henk Boonsma" wrote in message
news:1102669048.acaa7ec8af44b12a5879d73af8d1a1c5@t eranews...

"Neil Halelamien" wrote in message
roups.com...

Here's the actual NAS press release:
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/ne...1?OpenDocument


In an earlier NG post I predicted the cost would be too high. I've been
proven right (again).



Umm, no offense, but that was an easy call.

Many here made the same call.



Predicting a cost overrun is like dynamiting fish in a
barrel..

It isn't a cost overrun. It was too expensive an option to begin with. That
was also the point of my prediction.

Henk Boonsma wrote:
"Charles Buckley" wrote in message
...

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

"Henk Boonsma" wrote in message
news:1102669048.acaa7ec8af44b12a5879d73af8d1a1c 5@teranews...


"Neil Halelamien" wrote in message
egroups.com...


Here's the actual NAS press release:
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/ne...1?OpenDocument


In an earlier NG post I predicted the cost would be too high. I've been
proven right (again).



Umm, no offense, but that was an easy call.

Many here made the same call.



Predicting a cost overrun is like dynamiting fish in a
barrel..


It isn't a cost overrun. It was too expensive an option to begin with. That
was also the point of my prediction.




No one believed the option was gonna be at the price they through
out originally... no one..

They threw out a number in August:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Aug10.html

" NASA officials said O'Keefe told Goddard's Hubble team that the
mission would cost between $1 billion and $1.6 billion, which could make
it considerably more expensive than the $800 million to $1 billion spent
on space shuttle trips to the telescope, the method used to service
Hubble in the past.

But Diaz, speaking to reporters in a telephone news conference, said
planners have seen "a wide range of estimates" and are far from sure
what the eventual price might be. "We expect to have a dialogue with
Congress about the budget," he said. "

That range is an incremental, but even NASA had zero faith in it..

I have to ask the question why NASA doesn't give Burt Rutan some
fraction of that money to go fix the telescope.

"Explorer" wrote in
oups.com:

I have to ask the question why NASA doesn't give Burt Rutan some
fraction of that money to go fix the telescope.

HST will die in the 2007-08 timeframe, so that puts a pretty strong
deadline on any repair effort.

Rutan will be doing quite well just to get his suborbital SpaceShip Two
flying before then. He cannot save HST, no matter how much money NASA gives
him.