Re: Shuttle launch delayed until July



Jorge R. Frank wrote:

Pat Flannery <flanner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1175v63ea0sr485@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:



Meanwhile...has the Shuttle Hubble servicing mission returned?: http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050429/BREAKIN
GNEWS/50429007



No, it hasn't returned... read *everything* Griffin said. He is *not* committing to do an HST mission; all he has committed to do (quite rightly, IMO) is to re-examine the decision after return-to-flight.

It's a lot more alive today than it was a few months ago though, isn't it?

The decision to start advance work on the mission *now* was based on two things: first, the latest delay in return-to-flight means that if NASA waits until after return-to-flight to start working on the mission, they won't be ready to fly in time to save HST. Second, Congress earmarked $291 million in NASA's FY05 budget for HST servicing, and Griffin doesn't want to get into trouble by not spending it before the fiscal year is out.



He could just give it back, you know... the Hubble mission just went from "absolutely no" to "well...maybe" in one fell swoop.



That should cause some interesting remarks on the part
of the CAIB recommendation team, which meets for the last time on
Monday IIRC. 


You're confusing CAIB with RTFTG (aka Stafford-Covey).


Yeah, I figured that out after I posted and found out the meeting is presently hanging in limbo- my mistake.
I get a sneaking feeling the reason the meeting is presently hanging in limbo is the combination of the ET tank test results and the new take on a possible Hubble mission.
Considering what I've read about the split in the RTFTG regarding how NASA's handling all this, I don't think NASA would have any problem at all with that meeting getting postponed until after STS 114 flies.
they were dropping hints around a week back that they intended to fly no matter what the RTFTG said, or what the members of the CAIB thought.

The CAIB disbanded in 2003 after publishing their report. It's RTFTG that will issue the final "report card" on how well NASA is complying with the CAIB recommendations.

The HST work has no bearing on RTF at all; Griffin has said all the work will be at GSFC, and not involving personnel also working RTF.

The CAIB generally supports a shuttle HST servicing mission. Privately, many of them are quite annoyed at O'Keefe for repeatedly blaming the CAIB recommendations for the cancellation of HST SM-04, when in fact they intended no such thing.


They did say that NASA should develop a effective on-orbit repair capability if non-ISS missions were planned. Around a week or so back the astronauts stated their concerns regarding trusting an in-flight repair during reentry rather than seeking refuge on the ISS until a rescue Shuttle could arrive.
In the case of a flight to the ISS, you al least have the option of extending the crew's survival time if they can reach the station after a ascent problem or in-flight emergency (fire, etc.). In the case of a non-ISS mission that's not the case- you lose the ability to abandon a severely damaged Shuttle that is beyond its own repair capabilities (say major TPS damage, or a explosion in an OMS pod) and seek refuge on the ISS. You can have another Shuttle always ready for a fairly quick response mission, but that is going to be costly, and also interfere with with the processing and loading of cargos for the next planned mission.
There is also another problem- what if a Shuttle suffers a problem during ascent or on-orbit, and you think your rescue Shuttle may have the same problem? Do you launch it or not? If the Soviets had sent Soyuz 2 up the next day (as it was planned for the original docking mission) in an attempt to rescue Komarov from Soyuz 1, it might have unfolded its solar panels correctly and gotten him... but it still would have killed him and its own crew on return to Earth, because it had the same parachute storage canister defect as Soyuz 1.
So say they launch a Shuttle to Hubble, and some foam sheds off the tank and damages the wing so severely that you have a pretty good suspicion that it won't make it through reentry, on-orbit repairs or not?
Do you then launch a rescue Shuttle with the next tank that came off the assembly line- that was built identically to the one that just shed foam?

Pat
.