|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
HST: why considered "dead" without Shuttle visits?
In article ,
Derek Lyons wrote: No, Hubble *was* meant for maintenance in space, although as usual (repeating a mistake made on Skylab), they cheaped out and decided that some portions of it wouldn't break and hence wouldn't need to be set up for maintenance... It's not cheaping out, it's designing for the real world. It's very difficult to provide every component with clear access, and large (spacesuit operable) connectors and fasteners etc... If you had infinite volume available the problem becomes much simpler, but the designers/builders of Hubble didn't have infinite volume. Unfortunately for this theory, some of the problems occurred in places where there were no volume constraints (e.g., no provision for replacing the magnetometers, which were external). People simply made assumptions, some of which turned out to be wrong, about which things would need fixes. On Skylab it was even worse, with major areas of the exterior lacking in handholds because they were put only in places where somebody could *prove* that they would be needed. There is designing for the real world, and then there is designing for an imaginary world in which your predictions are always right and there is no need to take even simple precautions when the predictions say they are unnecessary. NASA is very big on predictions, but is not consistently attentive to the possibility that the predictions might be wrong. They do get this right sometimes -- the ISS airlock gear includes "contingency toolboxes", with an assortment of general-purpose gear to "provide a generic capability to react to unforeseen situations" -- but not always. -- MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
HST: why considered "dead" without Shuttle visits?
There is designing for the real world, and then there is designing for an
imaginary world in which your predictions are always right and there is no need to take even simple precautions when the predictions say they are unnecessary. In other areas of human endeavour, this is called, e.g., defensive driving or indeed defensive engineering. -- the ISS airlock gear includes "contingency toolboxes", with an assortment of general-purpose gear to "provide a generic capability to react to unforeseen situations" -- but not always. Possibly triggered by that little "problem" some Mir cosmonauts had when they barely managed to pry open a stuck hatch in time? Jan |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Calculation of Shuttle 1/100,000 probability of failure | perfb | Space Shuttle | 8 | July 15th 04 09:09 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | April 2nd 04 12:01 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Manifest | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 2 | February 2nd 04 10:55 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 2nd 04 03:33 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 12th 03 01:37 AM |