Hubble to be abandoned

Derek Lyons wrote:
(George William Herbert) wrote:
There are several ex-nukes who have contributed to alt.war.nuclear
over the years...

At least over here on the seaborne side of the house 'nukes' are the
guys who operate the reactor. 'Weaponeers' work the missile launch
and fire control systems.

I figured using fishie-speak around air- and space-heads might
not be understood clearly, so I used less precise terminology.

I own more vessels than I own spacecraft. Sigh.


-george william herbert

From Peter Stickney:
(George William Herbert) writes:
Peter Stickney wrote:
The First Rule of Nuke Stuff. Those who know don't post. Those who
post don't know.

That has been grossly exaggerated.

Those who know often post; so far, nobody who knows has
posted inappropriate material which was not either otherwise
declassified or rendered non-sensitive by the passage of time.

There are several ex-nukes who have contributed to alt.war.nuclear
over the years...

You are right, George. It's rather hard to put "Nobody who has had to
go through the processing, briefing, and indoctrination required to
reach the levels where such knowledge is certain is going to blather
it all over the planet to people unknown in a global forum - The only
stuff you'll find that's not an outhouse rumor is available through
unclassified, open sources, and is available to all the public." into
a simple sentence. Such is the problem with pithy aphorisms.

Lots of nuke history has been declassified. Posted earlier in this
thread is a link to the article "Where They Were":

http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/19...d99norris.html

....which links to:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/19991020/

....which links to:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/19991020/03-01.htm

There's plenty of info on US nukes aimed at China, if you dig deep
enough. (I expect that there's even info out there to answer the -104
question.)


Regarding the issue of violating national security, I would expect
Thoreau to advise us that we have an obligation to weigh the greater
good of the world as a whole when deciding which bits of info to share
and which to withhold.

Just because certain elements of one national government want info
kept secret doesn't automatically mean that it should.


~ CT

From Herb Schaltegger:
Andrew Gray wrote:

In article , Derek Lyons wrote:
(George William Herbert) wrote:

There are several ex-nukes who have contributed to alt.war.nuclear
over the years...

At least over here on the seaborne side of the house 'nukes' are the
guys who operate the reactor. 'Weaponeers' work the missile launch
and fire control systems.

Now there's a job title that sounds like you should get a jumpsuit and a
cape.

In the USAF, the officers in the silos are called Missile Launch Officers
(or they were back in the day when that was to have been my MOS . . . long
story . . .); they were often referred to as "missileers" informally.

To get *really* informal, the common term I've heard is "conehead".

On that note, here's a fun site that shows a Beldar model rocket that
someone in Minnesota built:
http://www.vatsaas.org/rtv/misc/misc.aspx


~ CT

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...

You do both know, don't you, that the latest test crew comprises one
test pilot and one dog? The dog is there to bite the test pilot if
the pilot even touches the switches and the test pilot is there to
feed the dog.

Variation on a common theme in automation these days. The typical Japanese
car plant also has two employees, a human and a dog. The dog guards the
plant, the human feeds the dog.

On or about Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:41:36 -0800, Mary Shafer made the sensational claim that:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 05:46:04 GMT, LooseChanj
wrote:
I saw one of those Gulfstreams obviously doing a simulated shuttle landing
from the parking lot of the KSC headquarters building. Nothing quite prepares
you for the sight of an airplane headed almost straight *down*.

It's really not straight down at all. It's about 30 deg. (A normal
airliner glide slope is 3 deg, just for a reference.) It sure does
look like it's straight down, though, particularly if you're looking
at it head-on.

I was exaggeratting just a bit, but damn it sure did look like one hot dog
landing.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen

LooseChanj wrote:

I was exaggeratting just a bit, but damn it sure did look like one hot dog
landing.


This reminds me of a Lear jet landing I saw at our airport- forewarned
to watch it by one of my coworkers who was a pilot. The Lear started
making a normal approach, then suddenly dived at the very end of the
runway, before pulling out at the last second and touching down in
around the first hundred feet of the runway, then braked violently to a
halt- using about a quarter of the 6,500 foot runway in total. "He used
to fly Phantom IIs off of a carrier back in the Navy...." my coworker
stated. I was impressed.

Pat

Looks like Hubble is running for President in 2004!

-------------------------
SAVE HUBBLE FOR KIDS SAKE!

http://www.Hubble2004.com

What Can I do NOW to help SAVE Hubble Space Telescope?
The best way to get your voice heard is in chorus with others, as a
group we can make sure the Hubble Space Telescope will be maintained
for the "Worlds" benefit. NASA has said that the telescope is too
"risky" to maintain, but at the same time they support sending
astronauts to Mars as their current and past "robotic" missions are
repeatedly having serious technical problems.

We're starting a GLOBAL petition that will take the voices of people
from all over the world and send them to the US Congress to pass a
resolution to allow the Hubble to provide imagery until the mission is
complete in 2011. At that time, its expected that a new telescope
will replace Hubble.
-------------------------

(Edward Wright) wrote in message . com...
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ...

If you abandon a crippled
Shuttle in orbit, with no way to make a controlled reentry, it's
going to make an uncontrolled reentry. Over 100 tons of metal,
toxic propellants, etc. will eventually come to Earth, possibly
over inhabited areas.

Note that this scenario is also true for Space Station missions,
which NASA seems to consider worthy of the risk.

You are correct; the crippled shuttle would have to be undocked from
ISS before the rescue shuttle could dock.

And could be redocked afterward. Not the same thing at all.

No, the shuttle cannot be redocked unmanned.

I'm sure Eileen Collins would disagree -- but who said the Shuttle had
to be unmanned? Damaged tiles would prevent the Shuttle from
reentering safely, but they would not prevent pilots from entering the
Shuttle and using RCS thrusters to move it. Undocking and redocking is
a minor technical problem, not an insurmountable obstacle.

Even if moving a Shuttle was an insurmountable problem, you're
overlooking something else. NASA doesn't necessarily need a "rescue
shuttle." The stranded crew could return home via Soyuz, which uses a
different docking port. Evacuating an entire Shuttle crew might take
several flights, but it could be done, as long as they had enough
life-support supplies.

I'd like to save Hubble, too, but I don't think NASA will take the
political, public relations, and safety risks associated with a
Shuttle servicing mission. Exaggerating the danger of sending
astronauts to ISS won't convince anyone to send astronauts on a
dangerous mission to Hubble.

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
...

this may be urban myth, but a long time ago I read that part of the
"Saber
Dance" thing was because a specific old-timer at the McDonnell plant was
supposed to be installing nuts upside down for some reason, but he'd
been
there twenty years and he knew damn well you don't install nuts
back'ards.
So under certain flight profiles an aileron would get hung up on the
"properly" installed nut. Apparently they never told the poor schlub how
many pilots he'd killed.

The other problem offurred with F-86Fs and F-86Hs built, I believe, at
North American's Inglewood plant. There was a connection in the
aileron linkage that, because of the danger of the linkage binding
when the wing flexed at high speeds, needed to be assembled in an
unusual, non-standard manner. (This fault, BTW, is what killed Joe
MacConnel, the #1 USAF/UN Ace from the Korean War, while testing the
F-86H) Some guy on the line figured that the drawings were wrong,
'cause you just don't put a bolt in that way, and did the hookup the
way he thought it should be done.

that's what I was thinking of, just got the wrong Saber. Thanks, Pete.


--
Terrell Miller


"It's one thing to burn down the **** house and another thing entirely to
install plumbing"
-PJ O'Rourke

Alain Fournier wrote:

You have already tried. We have a wall around are city to protect us. Until
now it has never failed :-)

Yes, it worked quite well in 1759 ;-)

--
Dave Michelson

Charlie A. wrote:


What Can I do NOW to help SAVE Hubble Space Telescope?
The best way to get your voice heard is in chorus with others, as a
group we can make sure the Hubble Space Telescope will be maintained
for the "Worlds" benefit.


I can see for Earth's benefit; but what other "Worlds" benefit from Hubble?


NASA has said that the telescope is too
"risky" to maintain, but at the same time they support sending
astronauts to Mars as their current and past "robotic" missions are
repeatedly having serious technical problems.


I wouldn't consider the two rovers to be doing at all bad; I was frankly
amazed that they both got down in one piece, and am having a field day
checking up on what they are doing on a day-to-day basis, which is more
than I did for most Shuttle missions, and in regards to the ISS, I feel
a peek at what's going on can be done each month without missing much of
interest. Considering that the whole MER program cost about as much as
around one and a half Shuttle missions; I'd say we got a far better deal
for our money than we got on the vast majority of Shuttle flights,
barring some goodies such as Hubble, Galileo, ... and other "robotic"
missions...which Hubble itself is if you think about it. There isn't
anybody on the thing except when it's being serviced.


We're starting a GLOBAL petition that will take the voices of people
from all over the world and send them to the US Congress to pass a
resolution to allow the Hubble to provide imagery until the mission is
complete in 2011. At that time, its expected that a new telescope
will replace Hubble.



And I assume that all further funding for such missions comes from the
United Nations? If the whole world reaps the benefits, then the whole
world can pony up the cash for it.

Pat