Bush cancels Hubble telescope rescue mission

In article ,
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:


They [the Russians] can't reach HST orbit anyway, and won't be able to do so within the
timeframe needed.

This presumes a Shuttle truly stuck at Hubble, with no OMS capability to
lower its own orbit to something that Soyuz can reach. But the most
likely causes of Shuttle destruction are engine failure during ascent,
undetected thermal protection failure during re-entry, and landing gear
failure. "Safe haven" at ISS helps none of these.

The question is whether we want Shuttle only to support ISS political
obligations, or whether we also want to do some useful work with it.

"richard schumacher" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:


They [the Russians] can't reach HST orbit anyway, and won't be able to
do so within the
timeframe needed.

This presumes a Shuttle truly stuck at Hubble, with no OMS capability to
lower its own orbit to something that Soyuz can reach.

No, this presumes a Soyuz can't make the plane change necessary, regardless
of the altitude.

But the most
likely causes of Shuttle destruction are engine failure during ascent,
undetected thermal protection failure during re-entry, and landing gear
failure. "Safe haven" at ISS helps none of these.

The question is whether we want Shuttle only to support ISS political
obligations, or whether we also want to do some useful work with it.

richard schumacher wrote:

What part of NO shuttle mission shall not include a "safe haven" route
to the ISS do you not understand?


The "safe haven" dictum was a political decision. What part of
"political" do you not understand? If you're saying that an astronaut
hotel is more valuable than doing astronomy, then we simply disagree
about what is important.


One astronaut's life is more important than the entire Hubble program.

The ISS is NOT an "astronaut hotel," it's a safe haven in case a Shuttle
is so damaged accidentally it cannot return safely to earth.

Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrated because of accidental damage to its
left wing. It could not rendezvous with the ISS due to orbital
mechanics. The astronauts were therefore doomed and didn't know it.

The CAIB Report stated that from now on, astronauts must have the
capability to inspect their Shuttle for damage.

If the Shuttle is found to be damaged to the point that re-entry is
impossible, but it can't rendezvous with the ISS, the astronauts will
have no alternative but to say goodbye to their families.



--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

richard schumacher wrote:

In article ,
OrionCA wrote:


On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 09:27:57 -0600, richard schumacher
wrote:


http://www.space.com/news/hubble_budget_050121.html

"The White House has eliminated funding for a mission to service the
Hubble Space Telescope from its 2006 budget request and directed NASA to
focus solely on de-orbiting the popular spacecraft at the end of its
life, according to government and industry sources."


No surprise here. Bush gets all his science from the christian bible.

Time to write our congresspeople to direct NASA to save Hubble.

All future Shuttle missions must include the capability to reach the
ISS in case of a major emergency that precludes re-entry. Hubble is
in an orbit that the three remaining Shuttles can't attain and still
reach the ISS. Ergo, no Hubble resupply missions are planned.


That is an arbitrary choice. A Shuttle mission to Hubble is not
significantly more dangerous than to ISS; true, there's no "safe haven"
at Hubble (and as we see repeatedly ISS is not all that reliable
itself), but the Shuttle's engines have to fire longer to reach ISS. A
"safe haven" is useless if a failure leaves the Shuttle unable to reach
it. Regardless of destination the safest approach is to keep a rescue
Shuttle or Soyuz ready to fly within a week. The real reason to limit
Shuttle flights is to maximize the chances of completing US
contributions to the astronaut hotel called ISS.

There are only three shuttles. If you keep one on hot standby to act as
a rescue mission, then yes, the ISS cannot be maintained or completed.
But the ISS has enjoyed bipartisan support and international support.
The U.S. is constantly dissed for "acting unilaterally". The other
nations that contribute to the ISS wouldn't want to see the U.S.
arbitrarily doom it.



--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Henry Spencer wrote:

OrionCA wrote:

Webb is an IR OPTIMISED space telescope but will have some visible
light capability...

I don't recall it having any... and it certainly has no UV
capability.


The last I saw, it bottoms out at around 600 nm, somewhat into the
visible but well short (or long, depending on your point of view)
of the UV.

richard schumacher wrote in
:

In article ,
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

They [the Russians] can't reach HST orbit anyway, and won't be able
to do so within the timeframe needed.

This presumes a Shuttle truly stuck at Hubble, with no OMS capability
to lower its own orbit to something that Soyuz can reach.

The altitude isn't the problem. The inclination is. Baikonur is at 45
degrees latitude but cannot launch to inclinations less than 51.6 degrees
due to range safety limits. HST is in a 28.45 degree inclination orbit.

The question is whether we want Shuttle only to support ISS political
obligations, or whether we also want to do some useful work with it.

I agree, and I think the HST mission should be reinstated.

--
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 Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:24:53 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Steven
L." made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

One astronaut's life is more important than the entire Hubble program.

That's insane.

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:26:42 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Steven
L." made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


But the ISS has enjoyed bipartisan support and international support.

Yes, unfortunately.

The U.S. is constantly dissed for "acting unilaterally".

Even when it doesn't.

Distribution:

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:14:54 -0800, in a place far, far away, OrionCA
: made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
: way as to indicate that:


: NASA, in case you hadn't noticed, is not exactly awash in money.

: Actually, by any rational measure, NASA *is* awash in money.
: Unfortunately, it's also awash in largely pointless (at least from the
: standpoint of advancing us in space, such as ISS) projects that remain
: politically sacrosanct, that suck up more money than it has.

Yes, I take it you include the recent Mars and Saturn missions in that, or
do you limit your complaints to manned space program but lack the guts to
appear politically partisan? Or is the latter simply based upon ignorance
on your part?

Eric

Steven L. ) wrote:


: richard schumacher wrote:

: What part of NO shuttle mission shall not include a "safe haven" route
: to the ISS do you not understand?
:
:
: The "safe haven" dictum was a political decision. What part of
: "political" do you not understand? If you're saying that an astronaut
: hotel is more valuable than doing astronomy, then we simply disagree
: about what is important.


: One astronaut's life is more important than the entire Hubble program.

You make a case for no manned space program.

: The ISS is NOT an "astronaut hotel," it's a safe haven in case a Shuttle
: is so damaged accidentally it cannot return safely to earth.

That is one of its functions but shouldn't be the only one.

: Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrated because of accidental damage to its
: left wing. It could not rendezvous with the ISS due to orbital
: mechanics. The astronauts were therefore doomed and didn't know it.

: The CAIB Report stated that from now on, astronauts must have the
: capability to inspect their Shuttle for damage.

: If the Shuttle is found to be damaged to the point that re-entry is
: impossible, but it can't rendezvous with the ISS, the astronauts will
: have no alternative but to say goodbye to their families.

If both ISS and shuttle are capable of EVAs, then I suggest we at least
try that before we give up.

Eric

: --
: Steven D. Litvintchouk
: Email:

: Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.