NASA's O'Keefe Dropped On His Head As An Infant??

"Steven Litvintchouk" wrote in message
ink.net...


Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:

(astroman) wrote in inimitable style:


January 29, 2004
NASA to Review Plan to Phase Out Hubble
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


[.....]


O'Keefe had defended his decision earlier this month to cancel all
space shuttle missions to the Hubble, which has revolutionized the
study of astronomy with its striking images of the universe. He had
cited the risk to the astronauts on a Hubble mission and President
Bush's plans to send humans to the moon, Mars and beyond as the reason
for NASA's change of focus.


As much effort as it took to get the Hubble working correctly and as
many
spectacular results it has yielded, this is an investment worth keeping.

Not possible.

Not true.

IIRC, the new safety rules for the Space Shuttle stipulate that it can
only be flown in orbits that permit an emergency rendezvous with the
International Space Station.

The CAIB passed no laws. It made recommendations.
Any of which can be waived by O'keefe should he change his mind.


To rendezvous with the Hubble, the shuttle would be in an orbit that
precludes rendezvous with the Space Station.

That is not a problem.


The fact that the Shuttle can now only be flown in orbits compatible
with the Space Station makes it even more worthless than it was before.

It was not useless before. Just too expensive.

"Chosp" wrote in message
news:1FvSb.31923$F15.4763@fed1read06...

"Steven Litvintchouk" wrote in message
ink.net...


Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:

(astroman) wrote in inimitable style:


January 29, 2004
NASA to Review Plan to Phase Out Hubble
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


[.....]


O'Keefe had defended his decision earlier this month to cancel all
space shuttle missions to the Hubble, which has revolutionized the
study of astronomy with its striking images of the universe. He had
cited the risk to the astronauts on a Hubble mission and President
Bush's plans to send humans to the moon, Mars and beyond as the reason
for NASA's change of focus.


As much effort as it took to get the Hubble working correctly and as
many
spectacular results it has yielded, this is an investment worth
keeping.

Not possible.

Not true.

Then allow me to rephrase for him. "Not viable under current CAIB flight
recommendations."


IIRC, the new safety rules for the Space Shuttle stipulate that it can
only be flown in orbits that permit an emergency rendezvous with the
International Space Station.

The CAIB passed no laws. It made recommendations.
Any of which can be waived by O'keefe should he change his mind.

While the CAIB passed no laws, Congress very much wants NASA and O'Keefe to
follow that report to the letter. To do otherwise would jeopardize their
funding, which Congress determines, remember?

Has it occurred to anyone that this might, just might, be O'Keefe's way of
saying that the CAIB restrictions on missions not going to the ISS are too
bloody restrictive? Of all the arguments flying both ways on this, nobody
has mentioned that possibility.



To rendezvous with the Hubble, the shuttle would be in an orbit that
precludes rendezvous with the Space Station.

That is not a problem.

Yes, actually, it is, because NASA would need a repair kit in place on the
Orbiter that could repair any damage to the outer hull that she suffers.
This is, to say the least, a significant pain in the neck, considering tiles
are custom-fit on the bird, not to mention problems with replacing RCC
panels in orbit.

To top it off, NASA has to have a rescue plan in place. With the ISS, it's
easy - dock 'em at the station, share supplies, ready another Shuttle, and
use BDRs and Progress ships to send up supplies when necessary. For the
Hubble mission, they'd need to have a second Shuttle sitting on the pad and
ready to go in the event of problems with the first one. This is beginning
to stretch the capacity of NASA into impossibility. This would undoubtedly
be a major budgetary issue.



The fact that the Shuttle can now only be flown in orbits compatible
with the Space Station makes it even more worthless than it was before.

It was not useless before. Just too expensive.

Here we agree entirely. IIRC, though, wouldn't replacing the SRBs with
liquid-fueled boosters go a long way towards reducing operational costs?

Second question (for you or anyone else who might know) - for missions where
that huge cargo capacity isn't necessary, could an Orbiter carry additional
fuel bunkerage in its cargo bay? On something like the Hubble repair
mission, might they be able to carry enough fuel to provide the delta-v to
reach the ISS, or would another 20-25 tons of fuel not really be sufficient
for that?

--Jason