Space Shuttle, Not Robot, Should Be Used to Service Telescope

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 01:09:51 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

One would think that a relacement 'Hubble' would be the most cost
effective way to go.

There is an argument for that. The Kodak blank is still out there
someplace.

But they'd have to mis-grind it to the same specification (spherical
abberation and all) as Hubble 1, since the instruments on the ground
were built to automatically compensate for the flaw. Now try telling
Congress you're spending $1G for a deliberately flawed telescope...

Anyway, I think someone recently pointed out that the Kodak blank no
longer exists.

In any case, keep in mind a Hubble mission was in the works and well along
before Columbia changed everything.

The conspiracy theorist in me still suspects that the Hubble SM-4
cancellation is a ploy to get Congress to back off the tougher
mandates of the CAIB. The outrageously expensive, poorly justified
robot mission (now pushing four times the full cost of Shuttle
mission, or ten times the incremental cost) sure does make reinstating
SM-4 look attractive to the beancounters. Once Congress, inevitably,
orders NASA to reinstate SM-4, the door is open to NASA asking that
lots of other painful restrictions be eased.

Retire the Shuttle by 2010? Well, we would, but you demanded we fly
once more to Hubble, so that will push retirement into 2011, and if
you let one more mission in, how about letting us fly these other
three also, rounding out the Fiscal Year nice and neatly.

Stand-alone repair capability? That's gonna be tough, time-consuming
and pricey and we'll need to use Safe Haven instead in the meantime.
But since you're saying we can fly to Hubble without it, maybe we
should just give up on the idea altogether and save the money...

If Congress mandates SM-4, NASA gets to start chipping away at the
other CAIB recommendations and they save their darling Hubble in the
process. If not, NASA can foot -drag the ridiculously overpriced
Hubble Robot until Hubble dies and the point is moot, they put an end
to their most expensive science satellite, and they get to blame it
all on the need for astronaut safety. It's a win-win for NASA.

Brian

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 01:09:51 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

One would think that a relacement 'Hubble' would be the most cost
effective way to go.

There is an argument for that. The Kodak blank is still out there
someplace.

But they'd have to mis-grind it to the same specification (spherical
abberation and all) as Hubble 1, since the instruments on the ground
were built to automatically compensate for the flaw. Now try telling
Congress you're spending $1G for a deliberately flawed telescope...

Actually my proposal has been to refly the original experiment packages from
Hubble.

Sure, they're not up to date, but I'm sure some researchers would love to
have the time.

Launch it into GSO and run it from there.


Anyway, I think someone recently pointed out that the Kodak blank no
longer exists.

That would be a bigger problem. :-)


In any case, keep in mind a Hubble mission was in the works and well
along
before Columbia changed everything.

The conspiracy theorist in me still suspects that the Hubble SM-4
cancellation is a ploy to get Congress to back off the tougher
mandates of the CAIB.

Could be.


Brian

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 04:18:17 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:


But they'd have to mis-grind it to the same specification (spherical
abberation and all) as Hubble 1, since the instruments on the ground
were built to automatically compensate for the flaw. Now try telling
Congress you're spending $1G for a deliberately flawed telescope...

Actually my proposal has been to refly the original experiment packages from
Hubble.

I think major portions of them have already been scavenged for later
instruments, particularly WF/PC-1. So that's a no-go.

Brian

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 20:13:50 -0600, Bill the Cat wrote:


As are WFPC-3 and the other replacement instruments, plus new gyros and
batteries - all built for the HST SM-04 mission.

About all that's left to build would be a new hull and new solar arrays.

And all the internal avionics, computers, the momentum wheels, the
comm system, the secondary mirror, the magnetometers...

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:
Of course we all do. But humans themselves travelling the cosmos have
an infinitely greater ability to inspire. Witness the millions in the
free world who stopped what they were doing to watch John Glenn's
first launch, or Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon.

Witness the millions who *didn't* stop for Conrad, or any of the
others. Witness the ongoing legacy of Apollo in the form of people
(many of which should know better) who believe that if it's not an
impressive and showy stunt, then there is no point in enduring the
dangers and hardships.

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

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Bill the Cat wrote:

One would think that a relacement 'Hubble' would be the most cost
effective way to go.

There is an argument for that. The Kodak blank is still out there
someplace.

As are WFPC-3 and the other replacement instruments, plus new gyros and
batteries - all built for the HST SM-04 mission.

About all that's left to build would be a new hull and new solar arrays.

And a new power system, and a new control system, and new pointing
sensors, and all the cabling to tie them together, and all the
integration and testing.

Doable, possibly worth doing, but non-trival to say the least.

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

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"Neil Halelamien" wrote in message
ups.com...
Here's the actual NAS press release:
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/ne...1?OpenDocument


In an earlier NG post I predicted the cost would be too high. I've been
proven right (again).

"Henk Boonsma" wrote in message
news:1102669048.acaa7ec8af44b12a5879d73af8d1a1c5@t eranews...

"Neil Halelamien" wrote in message
ups.com...
Here's the actual NAS press release:
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/ne...1?OpenDocument


In an earlier NG post I predicted the cost would be too high. I've been
proven right (again).


Umm, no offense, but that was an easy call.

Many here made the same call.

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
...

"Henk Boonsma" wrote in message
news:1102669048.acaa7ec8af44b12a5879d73af8d1a1c5@t eranews...

"Neil Halelamien" wrote in message
ups.com...
Here's the actual NAS press release:

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/ne...1?OpenDocument


In an earlier NG post I predicted the cost would be too high. I've been
proven right (again).


Umm, no offense, but that was an easy call.

Many here made the same call.

Ok I'll make another prediction then: the Shuttle mission to Hubble will go
ahead, with another Shuttle on standby.

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:23:26 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In an earlier NG post I predicted the cost would be too high. I've been
proven right (again).


Umm, no offense, but that was an easy call.

Many here made the same call.

Well, it was an easy call that it would be higher than the cost of a
Shuttle mission, and higher than early predictions. Whether or not it
is *too* high remains to be seen.