How do we keep Hubble up there?

Eric Chomko wrote:
Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: "Jeff Findley" wrote:


snip


But Hubble isn't broken. It needs PM and we are opting not to do that, as
if the cost were too high or the risk too great. That is coming from a
position of meekness and if THAT is where the new space initiative is
headed, then it is doomed.

True leadership would dicate doing the Hubble maintenance and finishing
ISS. Give the people that work for you some credit!


I am not a fan of the current administration, by any stretch of the
imagination, but will have to come down on their side on this issue.

The new space initiative is not about pushing the boundries to be
pushing the boundries. It is about applying a strategy and applying
resources to meet the strategic goals outlined. It is about applying
rationality to procurement, assigning missions, and supporting said
missions.

I am coming from the other perspective that Shuttle would have been
grounded permamently had ISS been completed, or had the international
implications not been so great. If you apply the numbers, Shuttle is
neither economical, nor is it safe. There is already a 40% chance of
losing another Shuttle in it's remaining flights and there is no
compelling reason to keep pushing that boundry for something that is
beyond the end of it's life.

The cost _is_ too high! A robotic mission is $2+ billion, and a manned
mission using the shuttle is "only" $1+ billion. It just ain't worth it,
IMO. Peter Drucker once said that strategic planning is primarily the
process of "sloughing off the past". Hubble is 20+ years old, time to
move on.

Eric Chomko wrote:


But Hubble isn't broken. It needs PM and we are opting not to do that, as
if the cost were too high or the risk too great. That is coming from a
position of meekness and if THAT is where the new space initiative is
headed, then it is doomed.

True leadership would dicate doing the Hubble maintenance and finishing
ISS. Give the people that work for you some credit!

Why not build a replacement for Hubble?

This seems to be the most rational course.

jt

The cost _is_ too high! A robotic mission is $2+ billion, and a manned
mission using the shuttle is "only" $1+ billion. It just ain't worth it,
IMO. Peter Drucker once said that strategic planning is primarily the
process of "sloughing off the past". Hubble is 20+ years old, time to
move on.

Eric Chomko wrote:


But Hubble isn't broken. It needs PM and we are opting not to do that, as
if the cost were too high or the risk too great. That is coming from a
position of meekness and if THAT is where the new space initiative is
headed, then it is doomed.

True leadership would dicate doing the Hubble maintenance and finishing
ISS. Give the people that work for you some credit!

Everybody inhale, look up, and blow.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in
:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 11:32:21 -0700, in a place far, far away, Tim
Killian made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

The cost _is_ too high! A robotic mission is $2+ billion, and a manned
mission using the shuttle is "only" $1+ billion.

The marginal cost of the Shuttle mission would only be a couple
hundred million. The cost that has to be considered is the
opportunity cost of not using it for a station assembly flight
(including the expected value if it were to be lost on that mission).

Actually, NASA's estimate of the cost of a shuttle servicing mission was in
the $1.7-2.4 billion range (as reported by the GAO). But that figure
includes items such as extending HST operations and sustaining engineering,
implementing autonomous TPS inspection/repair and rescue mission
capability, and (the single biggest item) the cost of delaying shuttle
phase-out by three months. In fact, the marginal costs of the flight itself
were pretty much lost in the noise of the above (as one would expect).

The estimate did include the impact of the three-month delay on the ISS
supply chain, but it did not, AFAIK, include the expected value if the
shuttle were to be lost on the HST servicing flight.

The GAO was skeptical of NASA's numbers (as they always are), but the tone
of their comments indicate they consider NASA's estimate to be low, not
high.

The validity of NASA"s estimate (and GAO's assessment of that estimate) are
certainly debatable. But one thing that jumped out at me was that a very
large percentage of the shuttle costs were post-2009, while the costs of
the robotic mission must be paid almost entirely in advance (i.e. pre-
2007). So even if the total costs wind up the same (and they won't - the
robotic mission has already ballooned over $2 billion and will continue to
do so as long as it exists). So time-value-of-money would tend to favor the
shuttle 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.

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 11:32:21 -0700, in a place far, far away, Tim
Killian made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

The cost _is_ too high! A robotic mission is $2+ billion, and a manned
mission using the shuttle is "only" $1+ billion.

The marginal cost of the Shuttle mission would only be a couple
hundred million. The cost that has to be considered is the
opportunity cost of not using it for a station assembly flight
(including the expected value if it were to be lost on that mission).

Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:
: Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: : "Jeff Findley" wrote:
:

: snip

:
: But Hubble isn't broken. It needs PM and we are opting not to do that, as
: if the cost were too high or the risk too great. That is coming from a
: position of meekness and if THAT is where the new space initiative is
: headed, then it is doomed.
:
: True leadership would dicate doing the Hubble maintenance and finishing
: ISS. Give the people that work for you some credit!
:

: I am not a fan of the current administration, by any stretch of the
: imagination, but will have to come down on their side on this issue.

: The new space initiative is not about pushing the boundries to be
: pushing the boundries. It is about applying a strategy and applying
: resources to meet the strategic goals outlined. It is about applying
: rationality to procurement, assigning missions, and supporting said
: missions.

I think you confuse sound fiscal policy, in general, with going back to
the moon and onto Mars.

: I am coming from the other perspective that Shuttle would have been
: grounded permamently had ISS been completed, or had the international
: implications not been so great. If you apply the numbers, Shuttle is
: neither economical, nor is it safe. There is already a 40% chance of
: losing another Shuttle in it's remaining flights and there is no
: compelling reason to keep pushing that boundry for something that is
: beyond the end of it's life.

Be that as it may, where is the shuttle's replacement? I would suspect by
now that we would have at least an idea and a prototype to fly as a
replacement.

I just think that the focus is all wrong and we seem to be moving too slow
or even backward, when we should be moving forward.

Eric

Tim Killian ) wrote:
: The cost _is_ too high! A robotic mission is $2+ billion, and a manned
: mission using the shuttle is "only" $1+ billion. It just ain't worth it,
: IMO. Peter Drucker once said that strategic planning is primarily the
: process of "sloughing off the past". Hubble is 20+ years old, time to
: move on.

Move on to what? The innovation guru, that you cite, would certainly have
words that if we are too afraid to fix Hubble, then we are too afraid to
return to the moon and go onto Mars, especially since we have no new
crafts. I want to move on, too. But to what?!

Eric

: Eric Chomko wrote:


: But Hubble isn't broken. It needs PM and we are opting not to do that, as
: if the cost were too high or the risk too great. That is coming from a
: position of meekness and if THAT is where the new space initiative is
: headed, then it is doomed.
:
: True leadership would dicate doing the Hubble maintenance and finishing
: ISS. Give the people that work for you some credit!
:

Docky Wocky ) wrote:
: Everybody inhale, look up, and blow.


Oh, that's just a lot of hot air!