Hubble may be parked at 2500 KM

jeff findley wrote

If this is true, why is NASA considering boosting it to 2,500km?
Ditching it in the Pacific would seem to be the best plan if the dead
batteries would absolutely prevent its being revived in the future.

2,500 km preserves the Smithsonian Option, if only theoretically,
and it saves NASA from putting Hubble to death in an obvious way.
You can bet that there would be cameras around to catch the reentry
and lots of unfavorable commentary.

The deorbiting option would have all the public appeal of taking a
shotgun to Bambi in front of NASA HQ, while the disposal-orbit option
at least moves the problem way into the future, Not On Their Watch.
Kicking the can down the road is not always a bad thing to do.

while the disposal-orbit option at least moves the problem way
into the future, Not On Their Watch.

Initial checks indicate that "way into the future" is many
thousands of years, maybe into the hundreds of thousands.

Time enough to make other plans.

"Allen Thomson" wrote in message
m...
| while the disposal-orbit option at least moves the problem way
| into the future, Not On Their Watch.
|
| Initial checks indicate that "way into the future" is many
| thousands of years, maybe into the hundreds of thousands.
|
| Time enough to make other plans.
And more to the point, they can then hope it will be forgotten as well. I
still think that there would be plenty of takers for a service mission crew,
though I suppose the simple logistics of losing another Shuttle could be a
problem when trying to fulfil US commitments for the ISS, which they want to
keep going for life science research for the eventual goals already noted.

However, it will be interesting to see what happens if we get a change of
administration at the Whitehouse in November.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________






---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free, so there!
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.593 / Virus Database: 376 - Release Date: 20/02/04

Brian Gaff wrote:

"Allen Thomson" wrote in message
m...
| while the disposal-orbit option at least moves the problem way
| into the future, Not On Their Watch.
|
| Initial checks indicate that "way into the future" is many
| thousands of years, maybe into the hundreds of thousands.
|
| Time enough to make other plans.
And more to the point, they can then hope it will be forgotten as well. I
still think that there would be plenty of takers for a service mission crew,
though I suppose the simple logistics of losing another Shuttle could be a
problem when trying to fulfil US commitments for the ISS, which they want to
keep going for life science research for the eventual goals already noted.

However, it will be interesting to see what happens if we get a change of
administration at the Whitehouse in November.

Brian


A post in another thread indicated that the astronauts were not
interested in a manned mission to simply decommision or collect
the Hubble telescope (HST). There is astronaut support for a mission
to extend the useful life of the HST, which could include deorbit
or parking orbit boost system. The announced CEV schedule does
not support using this system before critical HST systems are
expected to fail, and the shuttle is the only current manned system
that could perform a servicing mission. A practical unmanned mission
would be limited to deorbit or parking orbit boost.

The funding for HST ground control will remain an issue, regardless
of who is in the White House. As the RTF date continues to slip,
reaching ISS complete before the CAIB "life limit" becomes more
difficult. If no further RTF complications or schedule slides occur,
Hubble's systems last longer than expected, some nonpublic funding
source is identified for HST ground control, and there is enough
popular support to give congress cover to mandate such a mission,
a servicing flight _might_ be possible, though not likely.

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:54:15 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

However, it will be interesting to see what happens if we get a change of
administration at the Whitehouse in November.

Just want to point out something that's been bugging me about your
recent posts...

It's "White House", not "Whitehouse." :-)

Brian

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:04:55 +0000 (UTC),
(Eric Chomko) wrote:

The timidity of this adminstration regarding astronauts as compared to
combat troops is a little baffling. I think they forget that astronauts,
also, are volunteer. No one is forcing them into space.

By all accounts, the Administration had little to do with the Hubble
decision, other than to follow the CAIB's recommendation of not
continuing Shuttle past 2010 without recertification. This
Administration selected a new manned spacecraft rather than expensive
Shuttle recertification. I think the odds are good that a Gore
Administration would have made the same choice (just without the
long-term Moon goal.)

The fear of losing astronauts isn't at all limited to the current
Administration.

Brian

In article ,
Brian Thorn wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:54:15 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:
...at the Whitehouse in November.

It's "White House", not "Whitehouse." :-)

I'm sure the Brits should get a special dispensation on this, since
they're the reason why it's white. :-)

(For those unaware of this bit of history: the President's house was
originally natural stone color. But after the Royal Marines burned
Washington during the War of 1812, the rebuilders couldn't get the soot
off the somewhat-porous stone. So they whitewashed it instead, and it
became the White House as a result.)
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

In article ,
Eric Pederson deZ to respond wrote:
...As the RTF date continues to slip,
reaching ISS complete before the CAIB "life limit" becomes more
difficult...

Remember that there is a hidden assumption the "at the planned flight
rate". The shuttle is flying well below its maximum sustainable rate; the
only obstacle to *adding* a Hubble repair flight to the schedule (as
opposed to substituting it for an already-planned flight) is money.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

Brian Thorn ) wrote:
: On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:54:15 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
: wrote:

: However, it will be interesting to see what happens if we get a change of
: administration at the Whitehouse in November.

: Just want to point out something that's been bugging me about your
: recent posts...

: It's "White House", not "Whitehouse." :-)

Maybe the confusion started with the fact that the "President in the White
House" is different than the "resident in the Whitehouse"?

Eric

: Brian

Brian Thorn ) wrote:
: On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:04:55 +0000 (UTC),
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:

: The timidity of this adminstration regarding astronauts as compared to
: combat troops is a little baffling. I think they forget that astronauts,
: also, are volunteer. No one is forcing them into space.

: By all accounts, the Administration had little to do with the Hubble
: decision, other than to follow the CAIB's recommendation of not
: continuing Shuttle past 2010 without recertification. This

The CAIB decision is not law it is as you say, a recommendation. Further,
the siggestion to abandon HST was NOT part of the recommendation. Policy
after the CAIB recommendation is NOT the recommendation.

: Administration selected a new manned spacecraft rather than expensive
: Shuttle recertification. I think the odds are good that a Gore
: Administration would have made the same choice (just without the
: long-term Moon goal.)

I was reading that the Moon goal was first stated by Bush Sr. back in
1989. What happened to that and what makes us believe that a Bush Jr.
decision is going to be taken more seriously?

: The fear of losing astronauts isn't at all limited to the current
: Administration.

No doubt. But the lack of fear of losing troops by this administration
makes me question the whole thing.

Eric

: Brian