| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Gregory L. Hansen" |
| Date: |
09 Dec 2004 04:06:10 PM |
| Object: |
Why aren't they repairing Hubble? |
I've been reading that NASA doesn't want to send astronauts up to repair
the Hubble Space Telescope because it's too dangerous. Then robotic
missions were discussed. Then a panel said a robotic mission can't go
before 2010 and astronauts should be sent. And maybe ISS can be used as a
base camp in case the astronauts have trouble, and so on.
But I've never seen it explained what is the nature of the danger.
They've been up there several times already to service it! Has something
changed since then? Is there any special danger that isn't faced every
time anyone goes into any orbit for any reason?
--
"The result of this experiment was inconclusive, so we had to use
statistics." (Overheard at international physics conference)
.
|
|
| User: "Micro Auto Poster" |
|
| Title: Re: Why aren't they repairing Hubble? |
09 Dec 2004 04:17:43 PM |
|
|
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:cpai8i$nh8$2@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
I've been reading that NASA doesn't want to send astronauts up to repair
the Hubble Space Telescope because it's too dangerous. Then robotic
missions were discussed. Then a panel said a robotic mission can't go
before 2010 and astronauts should be sent. And maybe ISS can be used as a
base camp in case the astronauts have trouble, and so on.
But I've never seen it explained what is the nature of the danger.
They've been up there several times already to service it! Has something
changed since then? Is there any special danger that isn't faced every
time anyone goes into any orbit for any reason?
--
"The result of this experiment was inconclusive, so we had to use
statistics." (Overheard at international physics conference)
It IS too dangerous to go to the Hubble, the space shuttle has design flaws,
so they are going to put men on Mars instead.
(what are they going to do? look at rocks? that is all you can do on Mars!)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frithiof Andreas Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Why aren't they repairing Hubble? |
10 Dec 2004 08:29:46 AM |
|
|
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:cpai8i$nh8$2@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
But I've never seen it explained what is the nature of the danger.
They've been up there several times already to service it! Has something
changed since then? Is there any special danger that isn't faced every
time anyone goes into any orbit for any reason?
The Odd's of surviving were probably changed because of the Columbia
disaster.
And, I believe, there is a new and better space telescope in the pibeline.
Weighing the risk, the expense and the benefits I should think NASA decided
that it was not worth the effort.
It's Not Unlike when my 6-year-old USD 400 Dishwasher stopped working - to
get "the guy" to look at it would be at least USD 120, *THEN* there would be
an UNSPECIFIED amount for Parts on top of that; So the thing went to the
dump and I shelled another USD 400 for a much better model.
The only difference is that people are more emotional about Hubble ;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Why aren't they repairing Hubble? |
10 Dec 2004 08:43:14 AM |
|
|
Frithiof Andreas Jensen wrote:
The Odd's of surviving were probably changed because of the Columbia
disaster.
Yes, the odds are very good because they stopped flying those
Abominations. A bird that doesn't fly, doesn't die.
And, I believe, there is a new and better space telescope in the pibeline.
Which can be launched by an unmanned vehicle.
If you think about it objectively, given the state of propulstions
technology, there is really no good case for a manned space program at
this time. The most profitable uses of space has been the GPS and a
variatey of communication sattelites. Habitats in space do not look good
at this time. We would want to put the habitats in high orbit. Right now
ISS Out-House One is in low orbit so that the tiled Abomination can
reached it. The space shuttle has truly been an anchor weighing down the
manned program.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Why aren't they repairing Hubble? |
09 Dec 2004 04:47:42 PM |
|
|
"Gregory L. Hansen" wrote:
I've been reading that NASA doesn't want to send astronauts up to repair
the Hubble Space Telescope because it's too dangerous. Then robotic
missions were discussed. Then a panel said a robotic mission can't go
before 2010 and astronauts should be sent. And maybe ISS can be used as a
base camp in case the astronauts have trouble, and so on.
But I've never seen it explained what is the nature of the danger.
They've been up there several times already to service it! Has something
changed since then? Is there any special danger that isn't faced every
time anyone goes into any orbit for any reason?
"Man in Space" is ***** from Not A Space Agency.
What major crapout comes next - International Space Station Freedom
FUBAR Space Hole One suddnely discovering its food is gone because
some genetic throwback diversity hire faked a spreadsheet inventory?
Not A Space Agency doesn't deliver.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Why aren't they repairing Hubble? |
09 Dec 2004 05:42:36 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
What major crapout comes next - International Space Station Freedom
FUBAR Space Hole One suddnely discovering its food is gone because
some genetic throwback diversity hire faked a spreadsheet inventory?
Not A Space Agency doesn't deliver.
They will have to depend on Vladimir's Delivery Service. This is what it
has come to. To get to and from ***** Can One we have to depend on the
Russians.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lar m" |
|
| Title: Re: Why aren't they repairing Hubble? |
09 Dec 2004 09:18:45 PM |
|
|
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:31s69kF3fppg6U1@individual.net...
Uncle Al wrote:
What major crapout comes next - International Space Station Freedom
FUBAR Space Hole One suddnely discovering its food is gone because
some genetic throwback diversity hire faked a spreadsheet inventory?
Not A Space Agency doesn't deliver.
They will have to depend on Vladimir's Delivery Service. This is what it
has come to. To get to and from ***** Can One we have to depend on the
Russians.
Bob Kolker
That brings up another question, what do the do with the Poo? and the dirty
laundry?
Better to eat less than to generate too much poo.....
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Why aren't they repairing Hubble? |
09 Dec 2004 05:56:20 PM |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
But I've never seen it explained what is the nature of the danger.
They've been up there several times already to service it! Has something
changed since then? Is there any special danger that isn't faced every
time anyone goes into any orbit for any reason?
Can you spell risk-aversive? Sure you can. NASA management is scared
shitless that another Columbia will happen. The track record for the
Space Shuttle is dismal. About one in 25 missions ends in disaster.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Resnick" |
|
| Title: Re: Why aren't they repairing Hubble? |
10 Dec 2004 08:20:43 AM |
|
|
robert j. kolker wrote:
Can you spell risk-aversive? Sure you can. NASA management is scared
shitless that another Columbia will happen. The track record for the
Space Shuttle is dismal. About one in 25 missions ends in disaster.
I agree that NASA management has become too risk-averse, but I
vigorously disagree that the Shuttle has a dismal safety record. Please
complare the Shuttle accident rate with the rate for other experimental
aircraft, please. I believe you will find the Shuttle is highly safe in
comparison.
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
CWRU School of Medicine
tanspose 'op' for mail
.
|
|
|
| User: "EjP" |
|
| Title: Re: Why aren't they repairing Hubble? |
10 Dec 2004 08:50:49 AM |
|
|
Andy Resnick wrote:
robert j. kolker wrote:
Can you spell risk-aversive? Sure you can. NASA management is scared
shitless that another Columbia will happen. The track record for the
Space Shuttle is dismal. About one in 25 missions ends in disaster.
I agree that NASA management has become too risk-averse, but I
vigorously disagree that the Shuttle has a dismal safety record. Please
complare the Shuttle accident rate with the rate for other experimental
aircraft, please.
The Space Shuttle has been flying for over 20 years, and the design
was largely frozen by the mid-70's. It's not fair to keep classifying
it as an "experimental aircraft". You don't do PR stunts like
sending teachers up on experimental aircraft.
The shuttle was supposed to usher in an era of safe an affordable
space transport and instead it's mind-bogglingly expensive and
has proven far less safe than promised.
Of course there are risks involved in space travel, but
the fact is NASA performance was reprehensible in both
cases, where they chose to ignore urgent warning of
significant saftey issues.
-E
I believe you will find the Shuttle is highly safe in
comparison.
.
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Why aren't they repairing Hubble? |
10 Dec 2004 09:04:18 AM |
|
|
EjP wrote:
Of course there are risks involved in space travel, but
the fact is NASA performance was reprehensible in both
cases, where they chose to ignore urgent warning of
significant saftey issues.
The NASA management lied to the public, lied to congress and worst of
all, they lied to the people who fly the shuttle. That is an ueber
Mortal Sin for which the perps will burn in Hell forever and ever. The
agency is corrupt and incompetent and really should be abolished.
Development of lifting vehicles should go to the military for limited
objective missions. Perhaps a spin off corporation that produces
unmanned lifters for puting up com-sats can be arranged. Grandiouse
schemes for Conquering the Galaxy are totally beyond the reach of this
putrid, febrile and mostly dead organization. Its best people have left,
and they cannot get any new blood. NASA is moribund.
The era of jut-jawed clear-eyed hero-astronuats is over, if it ever was
at all.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Resnick" |
|
| Title: Re: Why aren't they repairing Hubble? |
10 Dec 2004 12:51:00 PM |
|
|
EjP wrote:
Andy Resnick wrote:
robert j. kolker wrote:
Can you spell risk-aversive? Sure you can. NASA management is scared
shitless that another Columbia will happen. The track record for the
Space Shuttle is dismal. About one in 25 missions ends in disaster.
I agree that NASA management has become too risk-averse, but I
vigorously disagree that the Shuttle has a dismal safety record.
Please complare the Shuttle accident rate with the rate for other
experimental aircraft, please.
The Space Shuttle has been flying for over 20 years, and the design
was largely frozen by the mid-70's. It's not fair to keep classifying
it as an "experimental aircraft". You don't do PR stunts like
sending teachers up on experimental aircraft.
You correctly point out NASA's inescapable paradox: a government agency,
beholden to the public and forced to literally entertain the
nonscientific masses, conflicts squarely with the mission to perform
life-threatening actions. Perhaps militarizing NASA is not such a bad
thing- military aircraft fail regularly, and this is accepted by both
military management, political figures, and the public, which funds the
activities.
The shuttle was supposed to usher in an era of safe an affordable
space transport and instead it's mind-bogglingly expensive and
has proven far less safe than promised.
This is again the essential part of the paradox: NASA is forced to
concoct 'exciting' schemes to insure congressional funding (i.e. space
research is supposed to provide... pick one of the following: super
materials, super drugs, colonies on other planets, cures for cancer,
aids, flying cars, ...). One is led very quickly to the central
question: should the government fund research?
Of course there are risks involved in space travel, but
the fact is NASA performance was reprehensible in both
cases, where they chose to ignore urgent warning of
significant saftey issues.
I agree with your points, I just wish to emphasize that the fault lies
with the bureaucrats, not with the technical teams. It is well known
that shuttle launches are driven by political pressures, not by
technical issues. What is unfortunate is the most capable leave NASA
because they no longer wish to be associated with a dysfunctional
agency- witness also the current difficulties faced by the CIA, FBI,
NSA, Lawrence Livermore, .. in obtaining qualified technical people.
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
CWRU School of Medicine
tanspose 'op' for mail
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why aren't they repairing Hubble? |
10 Dec 2004 04:02:35 PM |
|
|
In article <cpcr6i$nrs$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>, Andy Resnick <axr67@op.cwru.edu> writes:
EjP wrote:
Andy Resnick wrote:
robert j. kolker wrote:
Can you spell risk-aversive? Sure you can. NASA management is scared
shitless that another Columbia will happen. The track record for the
Space Shuttle is dismal. About one in 25 missions ends in disaster.
I agree that NASA management has become too risk-averse, but I
vigorously disagree that the Shuttle has a dismal safety record.
Please complare the Shuttle accident rate with the rate for other
experimental aircraft, please.
The Space Shuttle has been flying for over 20 years, and the design
was largely frozen by the mid-70's. It's not fair to keep classifying
it as an "experimental aircraft". You don't do PR stunts like
sending teachers up on experimental aircraft.
You correctly point out NASA's inescapable paradox: a government agency,
beholden to the public and forced to literally entertain the
nonscientific masses, conflicts squarely with the mission to perform
life-threatening actions. Perhaps militarizing NASA is not such a bad
thing- military aircraft fail regularly, and this is accepted by both
military management, political figures, and the public, which funds the
activities.
The shuttle was supposed to usher in an era of safe an affordable
space transport and instead it's mind-bogglingly expensive and
has proven far less safe than promised.
This is again the essential part of the paradox: NASA is forced to
concoct 'exciting' schemes to insure congressional funding (i.e. space
research is supposed to provide... pick one of the following: super
materials, super drugs, colonies on other planets, cures for cancer,
aids, flying cars, ...). One is led very quickly to the central
question: should the government fund research?
Of course there are risks involved in space travel, but
the fact is NASA performance was reprehensible in both
cases, where they chose to ignore urgent warning of
significant saftey issues.
I agree with your points, I just wish to emphasize that the fault lies
with the bureaucrats, not with the technical teams. It is well known
that shuttle launches are driven by political pressures, not by
technical issues. What is unfortunate is the most capable leave NASA
because they no longer wish to be associated with a dysfunctional
agency- witness also the current difficulties faced by the CIA, FBI,
NSA, Lawrence Livermore, .. in obtaining qualified technical people.
Some people have the ability to manipulate the material world and make
things happen. Some (mostly) other people have the ability to
manipulate other people. Long term experience indicates that:
1) Given a human institution not subject to external cometitive
pressures, over time the control and decision making power is going to
get concentrated in the hands of the people of the second kind.
2) Once this happens, the best people of the first kind start
leaving.
Just a natural process in action.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Creighton Hogg" |
|
| Title: Re: Why aren't they repairing Hubble? |
10 Dec 2004 01:13:23 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004, Andy Resnick wrote:
EjP wrote:
Andy Resnick wrote:
robert j. kolker wrote:
Can you spell risk-aversive? Sure you can. NASA management is scared
shitless that another Columbia will happen. The track record for the
Space Shuttle is dismal. About one in 25 missions ends in disaster.
I agree that NASA management has become too risk-averse, but I
vigorously disagree that the Shuttle has a dismal safety record.
Please complare the Shuttle accident rate with the rate for other
experimental aircraft, please.
The Space Shuttle has been flying for over 20 years, and the design
was largely frozen by the mid-70's. It's not fair to keep classifying
it as an "experimental aircraft". You don't do PR stunts like
sending teachers up on experimental aircraft.
You correctly point out NASA's inescapable paradox: a government agency,
beholden to the public and forced to literally entertain the
nonscientific masses, conflicts squarely with the mission to perform
life-threatening actions. Perhaps militarizing NASA is not such a bad
thing- military aircraft fail regularly, and this is accepted by both
military management, political figures, and the public, which funds the
activities.
The shuttle was supposed to usher in an era of safe an affordable
space transport and instead it's mind-bogglingly expensive and
has proven far less safe than promised.
This is again the essential part of the paradox: NASA is forced to
concoct 'exciting' schemes to insure congressional funding (i.e. space
research is supposed to provide... pick one of the following: super
materials, super drugs, colonies on other planets, cures for cancer,
aids, flying cars, ...). One is led very quickly to the central
question: should the government fund research?
Of course there are risks involved in space travel, but
the fact is NASA performance was reprehensible in both
cases, where they chose to ignore urgent warning of
significant saftey issues.
I agree with your points, I just wish to emphasize that the fault lies
with the bureaucrats, not with the technical teams. It is well known
that shuttle launches are driven by political pressures, not by
technical issues. What is unfortunate is the most capable leave NASA
because they no longer wish to be associated with a dysfunctional
agency- witness also the current difficulties faced by the CIA, FBI,
NSA, Lawrence Livermore, .. in obtaining qualified technical people.
Well I think the reason why I get cranky is not because people lost their
lives travelling in space, but because it looks like it was from a known
issue that was never addressed.
NASA currently has a budget of ~15$ billion a year. The spaceshuttle
projects received about 1.5$ billion a year. With that much money and
almost thirty years of time, why wasn't a new version of the space shuttle
ever built?
I know it's somewhat unfair to compare the x-prize winner to the
spaceshuttle, but why was SpaceShip One designed, tested, constructed, and
launched for about 1.5% of the *annual* space shuttle budget?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Resnick" |
|
| Title: Re: Why aren't they repairing Hubble? |
10 Dec 2004 02:06:17 PM |
|
|
Creighton Hogg wrote:
<snip>
Well I think the reason why I get cranky is not because people lost their
lives travelling in space, but because it looks like it was from a known
issue that was never addressed.
NASA currently has a budget of ~15$ billion a year. The spaceshuttle
projects received about 1.5$ billion a year. With that much money and
almost thirty years of time, why wasn't a new version of the space shuttle
ever built?
I know it's somewhat unfair to compare the x-prize winner to the
spaceshuttle, but why was SpaceShip One designed, tested, constructed, and
launched for about 1.5% of the *annual* space shuttle budget?
Of course they died from a known issue- lots of people die in auto
accidents from known issues, also: drinking and driving, driving too
fast, worn out tires. The question is "what level of risk is acceptable?"
Why was Shapeship One built for a fraction of the cost? That's an easy
one- paperwork. Government red tape. Congressional earmarked projects.
Meeting ISO/SCM specifications. Documentation. Reports. Look at the
detailed budget- it's publicly available- see where the money gets
siphoned off to.
The central issue for NASA is "what is NASAs mission?" The original
mission- manned exploration of space- has vaporized over the past 30
years by benign neglect. NASA needs a reason to exist, as opposed to a
10-year plan. What is NASA's mission? The current palaver:
"NASA’s mission is to:
To understand and protect our home planet
To explore the universe and search for life
To inspire the next generation of explorers
…as only NASA can."
is frankly, offensive drivel.
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
CWRU School of Medicine
tanspose 'op' for mail
.
|
|
|
| User: "Creighton Hogg" |
|
| Title: Re: Why aren't they repairing Hubble? |
10 Dec 2004 02:20:30 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004, Andy Resnick wrote:
Creighton Hogg wrote:
=20
<snip>
Well I think the reason why I get cranky is not because people lost thei=
r=20
lives travelling in space, but because it looks like it was from a known=
=20
issue that was never addressed.
NASA currently has a budget of ~15$ billion a year. The spaceshuttle=20
projects received about 1.5$ billion a year. With that much money and=
=20
almost thirty years of time, why wasn't a new version of the space shutt=
le=20
ever built?
I know it's somewhat unfair to compare the x-prize winner to the=20
spaceshuttle, but why was SpaceShip One designed, tested, constructed, a=
nd=20
launched for about 1.5% of the *annual* space shuttle budget?
Of course they died from a known issue- lots of people die in auto=20
accidents from known issues, also: drinking and driving, driving too=20
fast, worn out tires. The question is "what level of risk is acceptable?"
=20
I guess though that question leads to "what level of risk is acceptable=20
given what's being accomplished?" I'm not convinced that there aren't=20
more efficient, better ways for NASA to be doing things, but then again=20
you already made the point earlier that the shuttle missions are largely=20
politcal in nature.
Why was Shapeship One built for a fraction of the cost? That's an easy=20
one- paperwork. Government red tape. Congressional earmarked projects.=20
Meeting ISO/SCM specifications. Documentation. Reports. Look at the=20
detailed budget- it's publicly available- see where the money gets=20
siphoned off to.
I'll have to do that. I saw a "simplified" budget, not the one that goes=
=20
into all the gory details.
The central issue for NASA is "what is NASAs mission?" The original=20
mission- manned exploration of space- has vaporized over the past 30=20
years by benign neglect. NASA needs a reason to exist, as opposed to a=20
10-year plan. What is NASA's mission? The current palaver:
=20
"NASA=92s mission is to:
To understand and protect our home planet
To explore the universe and search for life
To inspire the next generation of explorers
=85as only NASA can."
=20
is frankly, offensive drivel.
Indeed. Fundamentally, it's the fact that so much money and effort is=20
going to something that doesn't seem worth it that ticks me off. For=20
example, spending almost 2$ billion to build a robotic mission that might=
=20
repair Hubble? That's more than it originally cost to build *and* the=20
money to do it might get taken out of the budget for Hubble's replacement!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Resnick" |
|
| Title: Re: Why aren't they repairing Hubble? |
13 Dec 2004 07:36:51 AM |
|
|
Creighton Hogg wrote:
<snip>
I'll have to do that. I saw a "simplified" budget, not the one that goes
into all the gory details.
Here's what I have seen:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=14585
Presumably it's in the final budget. Some of my personal favorites:
An increase of $1,000,000 to the National Technology Transfer Center at
Wheeling Jesuit University to transfer and adapt the Walter Reed Army
Medical Center's HealthForces program, into medically underserved rural
areas. (OBPR funds)
An increase of $750,000 for the University of Northern Iowa for the
GeoTREE project. (Earth Science funds)
An increase of $2,000,000 for improvements to the Cooper Library at the
University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina. (Education funds)
An increase of $1,000,000 to the College of Charleston, South Carolina
for the School of Science and Mathematics. (Education funds)
<snip>
Indeed. Fundamentally, it's the fact that so much money and effort is
going to something that doesn't seem worth it that ticks me off. For
example, spending almost 2$ billion to build a robotic mission that might
repair Hubble? That's more than it originally cost to build *and* the
money to do it might get taken out of the budget for Hubble's replacement!
I agree, it's very frustrating.
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
CWRU School of Medicine
tanspose 'op' for mail
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Why aren't they repairing Hubble? |
10 Dec 2004 08:37:39 AM |
|
|
Andy Resnick wrote:
robert j. kolker wrote:
Can you spell risk-aversive? Sure you can. NASA management is scared
shitless that another Columbia will happen. The track record for the
Space Shuttle is dismal. About one in 25 missions ends in disaster.
I agree that NASA management has become too risk-averse, but I
vigorously disagree that the Shuttle has a dismal safety record. Please
complare the Shuttle accident rate with the rate for other experimental
aircraft, please. I believe you will find the Shuttle is highly safe in
comparison.
The agency publicly posted the odds of an accident were one in ten
thousand. They lied. The Shuttle is surely not a prototype. Who would
want to build a fleet of tiled abominations with 30 tons freeboard? The
Shuttle has been with us since what? 1981. That is 24 years. Has it
gotten any safer?
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Henry" |
|
| Title: Re: Why aren't they repairing Hubble? |
10 Dec 2004 02:20:28 PM |
|
|
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:31tqnpF3f00k7U1@individual.net...
Andy Resnick wrote:
robert j. kolker wrote:
Can you spell risk-aversive? Sure you can. NASA management is scared
shitless that another Columbia will happen. The track record for the
Space Shuttle is dismal. About one in 25 missions ends in disaster.
I agree that NASA management has become too risk-averse, but I
vigorously disagree that the Shuttle has a dismal safety record. Please
complare the Shuttle accident rate with the rate for other experimental
aircraft, please. I believe you will find the Shuttle is highly safe in
comparison.
The agency publicly posted the odds of an accident were one in ten
thousand. They lied. The Shuttle is surely not a prototype. Who would
want to build a fleet of tiled abominations with 30 tons freeboard? The
Shuttle has been with us since what? 1981. That is 24 years. Has it
gotten any safer?
Whether or not the shuttles have gotten less safe due to aging, NASA must
now face the difference between the early safety projections (99.99%
success) and the demonstrated safety so far (about 98% success). Desk-bound
managers and test pilots have different opinions about the significance of
that difference.
.
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Why aren't they repairing Hubble? |
10 Dec 2004 03:59:20 PM |
|
|
Richard Henry wrote:
Whether or not the shuttles have gotten less safe due to aging, NASA must
now face the difference between the early safety projections (99.99%
success) and the demonstrated safety so far (about 98% success). Desk-bound
managers and test pilots have different opinions about the significance of
that difference.
Categorical Imperative: Never, ever lied to the test pilot. Ever. That
is a most profound breach of trust and a Betrayal.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Why aren't they repairing Hubble? |
13 Dec 2004 09:16:12 AM |
|
|
The Hubble double could be launched via old fasion rocket for a
fraction of the first .
It's cheeper to let russians launch a new one and it's allready drawn
up.
BUY the plans !!!!
I;ll give 4 mil for the plans with evry ut and bolt and the same pices
made in the same places supliers list ,,,build our own for 25 mil.
Build our own ground station for 2 mil.
Add a spectomiter and a side earthview cam so I can view rocks in
the dark with a supperconductor photon detector ...
Ill kik in 1/2 .
Nasa wants TOOO much to put a pig in space
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ruskie trusty rockets for hire can send a cow with solar pannels for
ears up for less than I sent on food last year.
$ 4 mil would biuld the Hubble and 2 mil would send it ot orbit ,,if
you could take the plans to Trusy Ruskie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Why aren't they repairing Hubble? |
10 Dec 2004 09:58:19 AM |
|
|
"robert j. kolker" wrote:
Andy Resnick wrote:
robert j. kolker wrote:
Can you spell risk-aversive? Sure you can. NASA management is scared
shitless that another Columbia will happen. The track record for the
Space Shuttle is dismal. About one in 25 missions ends in disaster.
I agree that NASA management has become too risk-averse, but I
vigorously disagree that the Shuttle has a dismal safety record. Please
complare the Shuttle accident rate with the rate for other experimental
aircraft, please. I believe you will find the Shuttle is highly safe in
comparison.
The agency publicly posted the odds of an accident were one in ten
thousand. They lied. The Shuttle is surely not a prototype. Who would
want to build a fleet of tiled abominations with 30 tons freeboard? The
Shuttle has been with us since what? 1981. That is 24 years. Has it
gotten any safer?
Keep the engines, replace the Space Scuttle with a aerocowling. You
now have a use-once heavy lifter with adequate net payload - with an
extra tonne or two beyond that for not recycling the SSBs (that cost
more to recover and refurbish than to fabricate). If you want
*****-tronauts aboard for some reason, add an Apollo capsule. If you
will permit me a Star Trekism, "dunsels ride and return in steerage."
If you shitcan everything except the SSBs and add Apollo, you can
duplicate the Space Scuttle program's entire summed payload to date in
three launches,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/nasa3.htm
at a small fraction of the Space Scuttle cumulative price using 100%
proven technology off-the-shelf.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Resnick" |
|
| Title: Re: Why aren't they repairing Hubble? |
10 Dec 2004 12:59:04 PM |
|
|
robert j. kolker wrote:
Andy Resnick wrote:
robert j. kolker wrote:
Can you spell risk-aversive? Sure you can. NASA management is scared
shitless that another Columbia will happen. The track record for the
Space Shuttle is dismal. About one in 25 missions ends in disaster.
I agree that NASA management has become too risk-averse, but I
vigorously disagree that the Shuttle has a dismal safety record.
Please complare the Shuttle accident rate with the rate for other
experimental aircraft, please. I believe you will find the Shuttle
is highly safe in comparison.
The agency publicly posted the odds of an accident were one in ten
thousand. They lied. The Shuttle is surely not a prototype. Who would
want to build a fleet of tiled abominations with 30 tons freeboard?
The Shuttle has been with us since what? 1981. That is 24 years. Has
it gotten any safer?
Bob Kolker
I am not an expert in risk analysis. I do wonder how one could project
failure odds based on zero data points (i.e. before the shuttle ever
launched). The shuttle was designed to a specification that was
political in nature, and obsolete before construction began. One may
approach rocket launches in two ways:
1) Every launch is unique, and thus experimental.
2) Rocket launches are well-understood and predictable.
Option (2) appears to be the standard for non-human (satellite)
launches. How often do they fail? What's the failure rate on an
Ariane? A Titan? A Proton? Pegasus? Delta? You don't hear much about
them because the cost is monetary only, and insured.
Option (1) is the standard for human missions. It is justifiable and
politically expedient.
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
CWRU School of Medicine
tanspose 'op' for mail
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Why aren't they repairing Hubble? |
09 Dec 2004 04:14:38 PM |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
I've been reading that NASA doesn't want to send astronauts up to
repair
the Hubble Space Telescope because it's too dangerous. Then robotic
missions were discussed. Then a panel said a robotic mission can't
go
before 2010 and astronauts should be sent. And maybe ISS can be used
as a
base camp in case the astronauts have trouble, and so on.
Isn't the ISS in an entirely wrong orbit?
But I've never seen it explained what is the nature of the danger.
Me neither.
They've been up there several times already to service it! Has
something
changed since then? Is there any special danger that isn't faced
every
time anyone goes into any orbit for any reason?
I too, fail to see the difference between going to Hubble instead of
going to the ISS. Is the shuttle so dangerous that it cannot be used as
it was designed for?
You should remember what the shuttle was billed as, something that can
go into space and repair sattelites [among other things]?
--
"The result of this experiment was inconclusive, so we had to use
statistics." (Overheard at international physics conference)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Why aren't they repairing Hubble? |
09 Dec 2004 07:15:38 PM |
|
|
In article <1102630478.703865.189790@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Eric Gisse <fsegg@uaf.edu> wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
I've been reading that NASA doesn't want to send astronauts up to
repair
the Hubble Space Telescope because it's too dangerous. Then robotic
missions were discussed. Then a panel said a robotic mission can't
go
before 2010 and astronauts should be sent. And maybe ISS can be used
as a
base camp in case the astronauts have trouble, and so on.
Isn't the ISS in an entirely wrong orbit?
Yes. But I guess you have to do something with it.
But I've never seen it explained what is the nature of the danger.
Me neither.
Good. I wondered whether I just wasn't paying attention.
They've been up there several times already to service it! Has
something
changed since then? Is there any special danger that isn't faced
every
time anyone goes into any orbit for any reason?
I too, fail to see the difference between going to Hubble instead of
going to the ISS. Is the shuttle so dangerous that it cannot be used as
it was designed for?
You should remember what the shuttle was billed as, something that can
go into space and repair sattelites [among other things]?
Seems to hurt the case for humans in space if humans don't go into space
to do the things that can only be done by humans.
--
"A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree
with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance
our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Resnick" |
|
| Title: Re: Why aren't they repairing Hubble? |
10 Dec 2004 08:16:24 AM |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
I've been reading that NASA doesn't want to send astronauts up to repair
the Hubble Space Telescope because it's too dangerous. Then robotic
missions were discussed. Then a panel said a robotic mission can't go
before 2010 and astronauts should be sent. And maybe ISS can be used as a
base camp in case the astronauts have trouble, and so on.
But I've never seen it explained what is the nature of the danger.
They've been up there several times already to service it! Has something
changed since then? Is there any special danger that isn't faced every
time anyone goes into any orbit for any reason?
The danger is purely political, and arises from terrified bureaucrats.
NASA has permanently lost its mission and direction. It's sad,
really... the astronauts want to fly, the technical corps want to fly,
but the SES-level politicos are too timid in the face of the nanny state.
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
CWRU School of Medicine
tanspose 'op' for mail
.
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Why aren't they repairing Hubble? |
10 Dec 2004 08:24:35 AM |
|
|
Andy Resnick wrote:
The danger is purely political, and arises from terrified bureaucrats.
NASA has permanently lost its mission and direction. It's sad,
really... the astronauts want to fly, the technical corps want to fly,
but the SES-level politicos are too timid in the face of the nanny state.
When you consider that a *****-bag congress controls the money NASA gets,
you can understand why the management of NASA is whimpish. If congress
so ordained, all space activity could be transferred to the military.
I am afraid the days of the heroic astronaut are over and done.
When Dan Goldin, that feather merchant, became head of NASA (he no
longer is) you knew that NASA, as an effective agency (if it ever was
such) was dead and smelly.
What has NASA given the manned space effort. ISS *****-House-One, the
world's only orbiting outhouse complete with insufficient rations to
keep the occupants alive.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ad" |
|
| Title: Re: Why aren't they repairing Hubble? |
09 Dec 2004 06:43:09 PM |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
I've been reading that NASA doesn't want to send astronauts up to repair
the Hubble Space Telescope because it's too dangerous. Then robotic
missions were discussed. Then a panel said a robotic mission can't go
before 2010 and astronauts should be sent. And maybe ISS can be used as a
base camp in case the astronauts have trouble, and so on.
But I've never seen it explained what is the nature of the danger.
They've been up there several times already to service it! Has something
changed since then? Is there any special danger that isn't faced every
time anyone goes into any orbit for any reason?
Lose a few thousand men in Iraq and they don't bat an eyelid. Lose half
a dozen on the Shuttle and they scream blue murder. Go figure. Have the
astronauts refused to go up? I don't think so. It's all political.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Why aren't they repairing Hubble? |
09 Dec 2004 07:22:59 PM |
|
|
ad wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
I've been reading that NASA doesn't want to send astronauts up to repair
the Hubble Space Telescope because it's too dangerous. Then robotic
missions were discussed. Then a panel said a robotic mission can't go
before 2010 and astronauts should be sent. And maybe ISS can be used as a
base camp in case the astronauts have trouble, and so on.
But I've never seen it explained what is the nature of the danger.
They've been up there several times already to service it! Has something
changed since then? Is there any special danger that isn't faced every
time anyone goes into any orbit for any reason?
Lose a few thousand men in Iraq and they don't bat an eyelid. Lose half
a dozen on the Shuttle and they scream blue murder. Go figure. Have the
astronauts refused to go up? I don't think so. It's all political.
If you have seen the news recently you know that a mudfoot called out
REMF Sec. Def. Rumsfeld on a podium in public and made it stick.
***** only goes so far. Marines are Semper Fidelis but not Semper
Stultus.
As for Washington as a whole and in parts, "stultus est sicut stultus
facit."
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Why aren't they repairing Hubble? |
09 Dec 2004 09:16:34 PM |
|
|
Disasembly is imposible .
Not all parts can be serviced in space.
Its not a tune up but a pull and rebuild job.
The new bigger better eye in space is just a few years away and
promisses to be more productive.
You cant send up 100 idiots and let them work 5 weeks .
1 ,,if you can fix that then you can fix a car on the road without
knowing what to replace and you wount have the parts because you wount
know whats wrong till you get inside .
The car is worth 100 bucks , fixed its worth 120 . will you spend
200 to fix it ??
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Fergerson" |
|
| Title: Re: Why aren't they repairing Hubble? |
13 Dec 2004 09:49:06 AM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
ad wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
I've been reading that NASA doesn't want to send
astronauts up to repair
the Hubble Space Telescope because it's too dangerous.
Then robotic
missions were discussed. Then a panel said a robotic
mission can't go
before 2010 and astronauts should be sent. And maybe
ISS can be used as a
base camp in case the astronauts have trouble, and so on.
But I've never seen it explained what is the nature of
the danger.
They've been up there several times already to service
it! Has something
changed since then? Is there any special danger that
isn't faced every
time anyone goes into any orbit for any reason?
Lose a few thousand men in Iraq and they don't bat an
eyelid. Lose half
a dozen on the Shuttle and they scream blue murder. Go
figure. Have the
astronauts refused to go up? I don't think so. It's all
political.
Of course it is; see below.
If you have seen the news recently you know that a
mudfoot called out
REMF Sec. Def. Rumsfeld on a podium in public and made it
stick.
Except it was a put-up job; the grunt and the sergeant in
charge of selecting questioners were coached by the embedded
reporter Edward Pitts:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashcp.htm
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
