Re: MSNBC - How a 'safe haven' could help save Hubble
From: Eric Chomko (echomko_at__at_polaris.umuc.edu)
Date: 12/09/04
- Next message: Eric Chomko: "Re: MSNBC - How a 'safe haven' could help save Hubble"
- Previous message: Tkalbfus1: "Re: Mars 2014 - One Way"
- In reply to: Tom Kent: "Re: MSNBC - How a 'safe haven' could help save Hubble"
- Next in thread: Brian Thorn: "Re: MSNBC - How a 'safe haven' could help save Hubble"
- Reply: Brian Thorn: "Re: MSNBC - How a 'safe haven' could help save Hubble"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 18:18:36 +0000 (UTC)
Tom Kent (teeks99stuff@yahoo.com) wrote:
: Bill the Cat <bill@the.cat> wrote in
: news:Xns95B9E469E7398billthecat@216.196.97.130:
: > And *any* video-based system is going to require image-recognition
: > software that is several orders of magnitude more complex than a
: > lidar-based system requires. That, not the hardware, is going to be
: > the main cost driver in such systems - and it's also a big source of
: > technical risk. So it makes a lot of sense to invest a little more in
: > the hardware for the gain of greatly simplifying the software.
: >
: >> (Not that what they go to the hubble with will
: >> be, but it could be.....that's kinda where dart was heading)
: >
: > So how about following DART's lead, and using an expendable satellite
: > as the target vehicle, rather than risking HST?
: Exactaly my point....don't carry big heavy hardware when you can do it with
: software that doesn't weigh anything. That's exactaly why we need to do
: this now, and why its worth $2.2 billion, so we can have that software and
: use it on all sorts of future missions.
Risk. HST has been serviced twice via the shuttle as designed. Sending a
robot may not work, screw up HST and make a shuttle mission necessary at
best or moot at worst.
: The reason to do this to HST is because it needs fixing anyway, not only
: are you getting a chance to test out this new software (and other pieces of
: the puzzle) but you get to save an asset that otherwise would be lost.
: Since you're going to spend the $2.2 billion anyway, why not get something
: out of it?
I think you are ignoring the risk factor. A robot mission to HST would be
a prototype mission. It may work just fine. But what if it doesn't?
Eric
: Tom
- Next message: Eric Chomko: "Re: MSNBC - How a 'safe haven' could help save Hubble"
- Previous message: Tkalbfus1: "Re: Mars 2014 - One Way"
- In reply to: Tom Kent: "Re: MSNBC - How a 'safe haven' could help save Hubble"
- Next in thread: Brian Thorn: "Re: MSNBC - How a 'safe haven' could help save Hubble"
- Reply: Brian Thorn: "Re: MSNBC - How a 'safe haven' could help save Hubble"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|