NASA Details Risks to Astronauts on Mission to Hubble

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

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

CAPE CANAVERAL -- NASA for the first time Friday detailed its reasons
for a controversial decision to scrap a servicing mission to the Hubble
Space Telescope, saying the flight would entail higher risk to
astronauts.

Those aboard a crippled shuttle in open space could only survive a month
at most, significantly cutting time available to stage a rescue mission,
the agency said.

Ground teams would face an "unprecedented double workload" to ensure a
second shuttle would be ready for timely flight, and it would be
dangerous to carry out spacewalks to move astronauts on a stranded
shuttle to a rescue ship.

"This was a response to the Hubble discussion that's been in the media
lately," said former astronaut John Casper, who now is a shuttle program
manager.

Casper said NASA felt it "needed to articulate a little bit better" the
reasons for canceling a planned Hubble servicing flight in mid-2006 --
"or at least identify the risks."

NASA's thinking on the matter was outlined in a new version of its
Return-To-Flight Implementation Plan, which outlines efforts to respond
to recommendations from Columbia accident investigators.

The investigators ordered NASA to develop a way to carry out orbital
inspections and repairs of the type of damage that doomed Columbia's
crew in February 2003. It also told NASA to "explore all options" for
providing future crews with safe havens in orbit.

NASA now plans to fly shuttles only to the station. Stranded crews could
await a rescue flight at the outpost for more than two months.

The agency had planned to fly a fifth servicing mission to the Hubble
telescope. But the agency cancelled the flight in January, saying it was
too dangerous to carry out in light of board recommendations.

Anonymous NASA white papers circulated earlier this year, though, said a
Hubble mission would be as safe "as ISS missions that fail to dock" at
the station.

NASA's updated Return-To-Flight plan includes a written rebuttal. In it,
the agency outlined "additional risks" of flying missions not destined
for the station. Among them:

# A reduced safe haven capability. Shuttle crews could stay on the
station for up to 68 days in an emergency, time that would allow NASA to
consider all options for a rescue mission.

Crews headed to Hubble or elsewhere would have to be rescued within two
to four weeks.

# A double workload for ground teams. A shortened launch window for a
second shuttle would force NASA to simultaneously prepare two ships for
launch "to ensure timely rescue capability." Two "highly complex"
missions would have to be carried out at the same time.

The amount of time to investigate the cause of whatever failure prompted
the rescue mission also would be limited. And NASA would have no time to
modify the second shuttle to avoid whatever failure crippled the
orbiting shuttle.

The agency's bottom line: Any flight to Hubble or elsewhere "is clearly
riskier than a flight to the station," NASA deputy shuttle program
manager Wayne Hale said.

There, "you have friends that have air and electricity and food and
water and all the necessary means to hang out and give you options to
fix the problem," he said. "That's just common sense."

[end of article]

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in message
...

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

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

CAPE CANAVERAL -- NASA for the first time Friday detailed its reasons
for a controversial decision to scrap a servicing mission to the Hubble
Space Telescope, saying the flight would entail higher risk to
astronauts.

It sounds like a rationalization. They flew the shuttle before ISS. They
complain about double work to get a second shuttle ready, but if there is no
rescue mission, they could launch the second shuttle to ISS. They were
planning missions to ISS. Isn't it NASA's job to work.

They wouldn't be able to repair the second shuttle before launching it, but
their downtime between disasters is so long, that not even ISS could save
them. ISS has the Soyuz as a backup. Is there any chance of a Soyuz backup
for a Hubble mission?

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.

"Mike Rhino" wrote in
:

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in message
...

http://www.floridatoday.com/news/spa...estoryN0501SHU
TTLE.htm

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

CAPE CANAVERAL -- NASA for the first time Friday detailed its reasons
for a controversial decision to scrap a servicing mission to the
Hubble Space Telescope, saying the flight would entail higher risk to
astronauts.

It sounds like a rationalization.

In general, you are right. The reasoning in this document is not the
reasoning that led to the decision, but rather the reasoning to justify the
decision after-the-fact. Let's look at this statement from NASA's report
(p. 1-21):

quote
Because the rescue window for an autonomous mission is only two to four
weeks, NASA would be forced to process two vehicles for launch
simultaneously to ensure timely rescue capability. Any processing delays to
one vehicle would require a delay in the second vehicle. The launch
countdown for the second launch would begin before the actual launch of the
first vehicle.
/quote

This implies that any pair of shuttle launches within a 2-4 week interval
would require that the countdown for the second begin before the launch of
the first. This is untrue. The launch countdown begins 72 hours prior to
launch. Historically, eleven shuttle launches have occurred within 2-4
weeks of the previous launch, and *none* of them required simultaneous
countdowns.

They flew the shuttle before ISS.
They complain about double work to get a second shuttle ready, but if
there is no rescue mission, they could launch the second shuttle to
ISS. They were planning missions to ISS. Isn't it NASA's job to
work.

It is. However, in NASA's defense, the KSC workforce is considerably
diminished from the days when NASA was able to launch two shuttle flights
within a 2-4 week period. The last such pair was almost nine years ago
(STS-73 and 74 in 1995). Doing so with today's smaller workforce would be a
stretch.

They wouldn't be able to repair the second shuttle before launching
it, but their downtime between disasters is so long, that not even ISS
could save them. ISS has the Soyuz as a backup. Is there any chance
of a Soyuz backup for a Hubble mission?

No. A Soyuz launched from Baikonur cannot reach HST's inclination. The
proposed Soyuz pad at Kourou is not planned to accommodate manned Soyuz
launches. Rescuing a 7-person HST crew would require at least three Soyuz
launches, and the Russians do not have the capability to launch that many
in a 2-4 week period.

--
JRF

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

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.


--
JRF

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

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
"Mike Rhino" wrote in
:

They wouldn't be able to repair the second shuttle before launching
it, but their downtime between disasters is so long, that not even ISS
could save them. ISS has the Soyuz as a backup. Is there any chance
of a Soyuz backup for a Hubble mission?

No. A Soyuz launched from Baikonur cannot reach HST's inclination. The
proposed Soyuz pad at Kourou is not planned to accommodate manned Soyuz
launches. Rescuing a 7-person HST crew would require at least three Soyuz
launches, and the Russians do not have the capability to launch that many
in a 2-4 week period.

Do you need a 7 man crew to fix the Hubble? Reducing the crew size would
reduce the death toll should something go wrong.

...
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.


What a bunch of worthless pussies we've become.

The ISS is the millstone around NASA's neck. After all the hype and effort
involved in its construction none of its leaders seem capable of standing
back and applying rational analysis to the situation that has evelved. If I
were the US president I would not just withdraw ISS support but actively
support the destruction of the station so that no country can waste its
valuable resources. Start agan with a clean slate. Mind you, there is a VERY
strong argument that un-manned space activity is far more scientifically
productive (actually the argument should be conceded). Best spend the money
to invent the warp drive or else we will be forever limited to marginal
(from a biological perspective) operations in the solar system.

Stephen Bolton wrote:

The ISS is the millstone around NASA's neck. After all the hype and effort
involved in its construction none of its leaders seem capable of standing
back and applying rational analysis to the situation that has evelved.

Of course they are capable of applying rational analysis. It's just that
their goals are rather different from yours. The bureaucrats and contractors
want to preserve their budgets and jobs. The politicians want to get votes.
Neither of these imply that the space station must make any sort of sense for
science or space exploration/exploitation.

Paul

Joann Evans wrote:

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:



The agency's bottom line: Any flight to Hubble or elsewhere "is clearly
riskier than a flight to the station," NASA deputy shuttle program
manager Wayne Hale said.

There, "you have friends that have air and electricity and food and
water and all the necessary means to hang out and give you options to
fix the problem," he said. "That's just common sense."

[end of article]



Wow. What did we ever do before ISS...?




Play Russian Roulette..

Seriously though..


A lot of this seems like rationalization for not going to Hubble.
Which is a somewhat misleading statement. The reality is that they
are trying to rationalize the decision to complete ISS.

If there was no ISS mission, there would be not Shuttle now, at all.
It would be permamently grounded. They are not keeping Shuttle going
on any technical merit of Shuttle, nor are they allowed to ground it
because of an outstanding project. Basically, they have trimmed Shuttle
down to only dealing with the sole reason for it's remaining
existance.

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message
...
Stephen Bolton wrote:

The ISS is the millstone around NASA's neck. After all the hype and
effort
involved in its construction none of its leaders seem capable of
standing
back and applying rational analysis to the situation that has evelved.

Of course they are capable of applying rational analysis. It's just that
their goals are rather different from yours. The bureaucrats and
contractors
want to preserve their budgets and jobs. The politicians want to get
votes.
Neither of these imply that the space station must make any sort of sense
for
science or space exploration/exploitation.

Paul

I agree. There are more than a few reasons why NASA maintains the status quo
at all costs. Completing the ISS actually does NOT accomplish nothing - it
keeps your job if you are working for NASA! But again, a rational analysis,
with the goal of supporting scientifically worth well activities, would lead
to an immediate and total withdrawl of support for ISS. And there should be
a new descriptor for the management that stay quiet like little mice while
billions of dollars are wasted - GONE.
This has been a wasted generation in manned spaceflight. At least the
un-manned results have been spectacular, providing nothing less that another
scientific revolution in cosmology.

Steve

Steve