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?

"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.

"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.

"Mike Rhino" wrote in
:

"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.

Any HST servicing mission worth the name will involve at least four EVAs,
which means two EVA teams (4 people). Add the IVA and the CDR and that gets
you to six. So you can reduce it from seven to six, but probably no further
without gutting the mission.


--
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:
Any HST servicing mission worth the name will involve at least four EVAs,
which means two EVA teams (4 people). Add the IVA and the CDR and that gets
you to six. So you can reduce it from seven to six, but probably no further
without gutting the mission.

At any point in time, you have 2 EVA crewmembers, the IVA and a CDR. A crew
member may be too tired to do 2 EVAs in a row member but on the day after,
can't he act as an IVA ?

EVA1 EVA2 IVA
day1 1 2 3
day2 3 4 1
day3 1 2 4
day4 3 4 2

You could do the mission with 4 "mission specialists" and one CDR. Total of 5.

It isn't a question of number of people dead if there is an accident. Whether
it is 3 5 or 7 doesn't make much of a difference from the point of view of
media coverage of the accident.

However, by reducing the number of people, you can extend on-orbit survivability.

Furthermore, before reaching HST altitude, the shuttle can determine its
health and stay at lower orbit and start saving from day 2, greatly extending
its on-orbit duration capability.

I find the excuses (they are just excuses) given by NASA lack credibility.

However, there was a recent article in the New York Times (sorry URL escapes
me at the time) where the write listed a whole bunch of research project that
had already been canned by NASA due to Bush's election speech last January.

What has really happened is that NASA is cutting projects left and right, but
still has nowhere near enough money to build that mars spaceship. So the end
result is that NASA is downsizing itself out of existance.


Safety is not an issue. As long as NASA implements all of CAIB technical
recommentations, the Shuttle will be usable to HST. Where there is a will,
there is a way.

NASA apologists use to say that it was impossible to EVA to fix tiles. Didn't
take long for NASA engineers to change their tune and now it will happen.

If tasked to go to Hubble safely, I am certain NASA will find a way to do it.
If NASA cannot make Shuttle safe, it cannot make CEV or whetever safe either.

Recall that on Apollo 13, had the explosion damaged the heat shield, it would
also have been toast. Would this make all capsules as unsafe as the Shuttle ?

"Mike Rhino" wrote in message ...
"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.


You know, I just thought of something... Oil divers... You know, the
guys who are paid $100,000+ a year because they have just enough loose
nuts to volunteer (in exchange of an appropriate paycheck in
compensation for the absolute lack of insurance companies willing to
sell life packages to them) to dive to a 1000 feet or more, breathing
helium, oxygen and some other gaseous seasoning for weeks, and who
have one of the highest rate for death/number of active worker...

Then again, it's black goo... Something we can put in our horseless
carriages... Which we'll run out of one day or the other... But that's
another story...

It's really a shame that some human lives are more expandables for
petrolum ressources than to expand the reaches of the human race...

In the mean time, start breeding horses, cause it's the same people
with a total lack of long-term vision who have steered the space
program into an abyss, who are making energy policies... (This is a
bipartisan blame, no specific party finger-pointed here)

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
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.

Hmm.... That's getting a bit persnickity Jorge.

While they don't require simultaneous formal countdowns, they do have
to start launch preps (I.E. aiming to launch in a particular time
frame), or accept the increased risks of a rushed processing/countdown
sequence.

I can't find the related material in the original report
(http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/58541main_RTF_rev2.pdf), but I suspect the
Fla Today reporter is using 'countdown' in a more generic sense.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

(Derek Lyons) wrote in
:

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
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.

Hmm.... That's getting a bit persnickity Jorge.

While they don't require simultaneous formal countdowns, they do have
to start launch preps (I.E. aiming to launch in a particular time
frame), or accept the increased risks of a rushed processing/countdown
sequence.

But that's not particular unprecedented. They've done simo launch preps
eleven times before.

I can't find the related material in the original report
(http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/58541main_RTF_rev2.pdf), but I suspect the
Fla Today reporter is using 'countdown' in a more generic sense.

I wasn't quoting Florida Today; I quoted pages 1-21 and 22 in the actual
report. (pages 53-54 of the PDF). The exact words:

"The launch countdown for the second launch would begin before the actual
launch of the first vehicle."

For a pair of launches 2-4 weeks apart, this statement is demonstrably
untrue.


--
JRF

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

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.