Re: Death Sentence for the Hubble?

From: Eric Chomko (echomko_at__at_polaris.umuc.edu)
Date: 02/17/05 

Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 22:12:30 +0000 (UTC)

Charles Buckley (rijrunner@friiSTOPSPAM.com) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:
: > Charles Buckley (rijrunner@friiSTOPSPAM.com) wrote:
: > : Eric Chomko wrote:
: > : > Charles Buckley (rijrunner@friiSTOPSPAM.com) wrote:
: > : > : Eric Chomko wrote:
: > : > : > Charles Buckley (rijrunner@friiSTOPSPAM.com) wrote:
: > : > : > : David M. Palmer wrote:
: > : > : > : > In article <379vl2F58tlqnU1@individual.net>, Max Beerbohm
: >
: > : > : Generally, sudden halts in construction projects are bad. They can
: > : > : sometimes allow things backlogged to catch up, but that is not the case
: > : > : here. They have the parts and are ready to roll. Arbitrarily stopping
: > : > : construction to do a sideline task in a life extension program on
: > : > : something that has already been extended is not really something that
: > : > : makes a large amount of sense, or even a small amount. Shuttle is there
: > : > : for ISS now. Nothing else.
: > : >
: > : > Right, and that is a political decision. HST was designed to be repaired
: > : > by the shuttle. The decision to not fix it now is politcal in favor of
: > : > ISS. Where is each mission based out of? Maryland - blue state. Texas -
: > : > red state. I'll let you guess which one is which.
: >
: >
: > : This one is not even close to red/blue.
: >
: > : ISS has 10+ years of international construction and backlogged equipment
: > : that has to be flown to meet existing obligations. Hubble is a piece of
: > : equipment well past it's original lifecycle.
: >
: > But Hubble isn't borken and ISS will get built. Is it worth trashing
: > Hubble for single launch? A true leader would do both, fix Hubble and
: > finish ISS.

: No. A true leader will actually weigh consequences and act. Not every
: task needs to be done. And "it would be nice to" is a horrible decision
: process. As is "hey, as long as this is flying, let's do one thing with
: this that has zero bearing on anything else we are doing".

Still you make no case where ISS is inherently more valuable than Hubble.
None! Further, given the number of shuttle missions left (27), the
numbers 27-0 vs. 26-1, against and for Hubble, respectively; one can
conclude is ISS really worth that much more than Hubble?

I sure hope that once ISS is done and regardring Hubble, when it dies, we
don't hear, "we should have fixed Hubble", because ISS was a waste.

: > : It's a *PROJECT MANAGEMENT* decision. If you take 2 shuttles (of the
: > : 2 in operation in 2007, IIRC) out of shuttle processing for 2 months,
: > : then you have a 3-6 month break in ISS construction as they will
: > : have to prep two shuttles for non-ISS flights, then send the rescue
: > : shuttle back through processing to load the payload and refly. It
: > : simply does not make sense to divert resources to an ancillary task.
: >
: > Sure it does. It makes as musch sense as what they are doing on ISS. What
: > are they doing on ISS? The Hubble produced loads of astronomical science.
: >

: Key word "produced"

Can you say WRT ISS the word "producing"?

: It is well past the end of its life. It makes *no sense* to
: redirect limitted assets towards an ancillary goal when they have
: a very hard firm committment to meet their non-negotiable agreements.
: ISS is going to be completed to meet our international goals. Shuttle
: is going to be put back into production for that sole purpose.

Yes, I know and I question that descision.

: > : This is especially important in that there is a finite end to the
: > : Shuttle. It is not an arbitrary end. They will only fly through the
: > : current certification cycle. They are operating within the constraints
: > : of the CAIB and that was a bipartisan commission.
: >
: > Yes, I have the book. I read it. No where does it say not to fly to
: > Hubble. They warn about the age of the fleet, etc. Fine, the fleet is old.
: > But to claim that one, albeit differently configured, shuttle of the 27
: > missions remaining can't be sent to Hubble because of the ISS places too
: > much importance on ISS and not enough on Hubble. THAT is political.
: >

: 2 mission actually.. you have to count the rescue shuttle as that is
: also one taken out of production and has all the ancillary tasks also
: assigned..

: It says a) fly through through to a given date and b) meet these
: criteria on flying. Guess what.. one of those criteria is seriously
: compromised when you throw shuttle flights to Hubble in addition to
: those already backlogged to ISS. 27 flights. Flight rate of 6 per
: year, plus a slippage of a 2 flight cycle to allow for repair and
: other supply issues will hit that 2010 date.

We're looking for one mission to Hubble! Just one! Not missions. One!

: Eric, do the math..

: 2005: 3 flights
: 2006: 6 flights
: 2007: 6 flights
: 2008: 6 flights
: 2009: 6 flights

Right, so 2006 should be 5 ISS flights and one HST flight. The rest of
your table is correct. Is or is not the payload for an HST repair ready to
go? Do we have a trained crew? Yes and yes!

: 27 flights. And, even those won't do everything, IIRC.

Everything on ISS is not even know! THAT is part of the problem.

: And, looking at the manifest, they are thinking only 5 a
: year.. which effectively means *zero* room for slippage.
: None. There is no 2 month gap in the ISS construction, much
: less room for a 3-4 month gap for Hubble.

The one thing I have learned about manifests over the past 24 years is
that they change and sometimes drastically.

: > : ISS is political. It is also politically the *only* reason Shuttle
: > : is even considered worth flying. Hubble is, at best, a side issue
: > : to anyone paying the bills. No matter what party they belong to.
: >
: > You obviously don't live in Maryland or anywhere near it. I wonder what
: > would be said in Texas if ISS was to be canned in lieu of the Hubble? Care
: > to guess?

: There is no "in lieu of" even possible. If they fly shuttle, at all, it
: will be to ISS. No ISS, no Shuttle. That is as pointless as charge as I
: have ever heard of. Hubble never even entered into the equation of
: whether to refly shuttle.

Yes, yes, I am aware of the JSC-centric point-of-view. One NASA means JSC
first, and it is becoming overly obvious.

Eric

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bush cancels Hubble telescope rescue mission
    ... The point is that Hubble will continue to get used if repaired. ... you tell me why ISS is more important than Hubble? ... The closest thing is a shuttle. ... :>: Where did the money the Hubble repair mission was going to ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Bush cancels Hubble telescope rescue mission
    ... >But none compete with Hubble. ... Where did the money the Hubble repair mission was going to ... >To ISS, as I understand it. ... the new general purpose Shuttle bucket. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: WHATS NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 04 Feb 05 Washington, DC
    ... Will somebody please tell him the ISS _does_ ... HUBBLE: WILL EARTH'S MOST PRODUCTIVE SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENT DIE? ... It was designed to be serviced by the shuttle. ... only regretted that scientists were ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: WHATS NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 04 Feb 05 Washington, DC
    ... Will somebody please tell him the ISS _does_ ... HUBBLE: WILL EARTH'S MOST PRODUCTIVE SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENT DIE? ... It was designed to be serviced by the shuttle. ... only regretted that scientists were ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Death Sentence for the Hubble?
    ... :> Still you make no case where ISS is inherently more valuable than Hubble. ... Further, given the number of shuttle missions left, the ...
    (sci.astro)
Loading