You are not logged in.
One would think that after over a year there would be sufficient new material to extend the essay.
He may keep the Voyagers alive for them to see the heliopause.
Well, I hope so. We won't be back in that vicinity anytime soon.
This from Dr. Scott Horowitz, ATK Thiokol's spinster. He favors going with what you got.
GN, you're just banging your head against the wall. Maybe Griffin doesn't know there is a properly ground mirror in storage. Maybe he doesn't know that an observing instrument had to be removed from the Hubble so NASA could fix its fuzzy focus.
The last of the great mirrors is doomed to rot in the shed.
-------
NASA calculates that if Hubble were to re-enter without direction, there is a 1/10,000 chance that the resulting debris would strike someone. That works out to a probability of one life saved per $3 trillion spent. If life-saving is the mission, $300 million could do a lot more good spent on tsunami relief, body armor for the troops, highway safety barriers, childhood vaccinations, swimming lessons, take your pick.
Humanitarian and scientific budgets cannot be directly compared, because they serve different objectives. However the proposed Hubble deorbit budget is NOT a scientific expense; its purpose is to save lives, and thus it must be considered a humanitarian expense, and judged accordingly. A reasonable estimate is that one life is saved for every $3,000 spent on Tsunami relief. At that rate, the decision to waste $300 million in potentially useful humanitarian funds on deorbiting Hubble amounts to the willful killing of roughly 100,000 people – mostly children. It is irresponsible, irrational, and immoral in the extreme.
So which is it? You said the comparison should not be made but you went ahead and made it anyway. And then, you compared the cost of of de-orbiting Hubble as being equivalent to the death of 100,000 people! Do you think NASA
would give that $300 million to your favorite charity? Specious.
Locked meaning it is still viewable? Where? Some of you guys really put some time into it.
But so many more are unaware or dismissive.
For all the wonder that Opportunity has brought to the scientific community and the world in general, it has done nothing that a single human couldn't do in a few hours of hiking. The rover has been there for over a year, a person could do everything it's done and more in less than a day.
That's something of a shared feeling. I can understand why NASA was so cautious while they were unwrapping the rovers because they were, as one of the guys put it, "priceless."
But when a tally is taken of all of the recent rovers; pathfinder, spirit, etc., and the probes to come; third generation rover(s), nukes, flyers, balloons, return samples, kites, drillers, snakes, whatever, what do you have at the end of the day, besides billions of dollars of spent robotics?
Well, you do have quite a bit of science accomplished, but the larger questions will remain unanswered until a geologist shows up. And the infrastructure and vehicle needed to get the geologist there won't exist.
It's big and getting bigger. This isn't about religion. This is historical. People, all sorts of people, have simply stopped what they were doing and have gone to Rome.
You won't see this happen again.
I agree! There no point in going to the moon to harvest one resource, while we are there. We need to make it a point to harvest what ever resources are on the moon whether it be water, helium, platinum, aluminum, iron, silicone, glass, etc. Since it easier to refine those metal on the moon than trying to bring that ore back to the Earth to refine it, we need to develop a foundry on the moon to refine it too. Once we have a foundry on the moon to refine it, then we need to setup manufacturing system to make something out of those metals that could be marketed for sale or there no point in doing it either.
Infrastructure, infrastructure, where to begin? Were NASA to be granted an extra $10 billion, would they know what to do with it?
Liberal? Married priests, nyet, gay marriage, nyet, female priests, nyet, birth control, nyet, physics, nyet.
Slapstick! It'll getcha everytime.
From what I have read here, the current Hubble has developed a few problems that cannot be addressed by a routine shuttle overhaul. Let it go, build a Hubble II with the major elements that already exist. Use an expendable rocket, launch it to a higher orbit and get 10 years out of it.
Is that too simple?
What could they possibly mean? He's lived beyond design specifications and had a very rich life. He has traveled the earth, never compromising his conservative beliefs and is still loved by millions of lesser mortals. If he isn't at peace with his God now, he never will be. Are the prayers an attempt to resuscitate his failing health and make him well, until the next crisis arrives? Are they intended to deliver his soul from the fires of Hell or Purgatory? Are they fond farewells?
Just now, on MSNBC, someone in authority suggested that people should "intensify" their prayers, because normal prayers are not having an impact. Prayers are notoriously unreliable, but if you feel the need, pray for the survival of Western Civilization.
Zubrin sent everyone this;
Some people within the aerospace establishment understand that the development of a heavy lift vehicle is essential for a successful Lunar program, but wish to postpone consideration of the issue for political reasons. This is very unfortunate. One of the cheapest options to create an HLV is by converting the Shuttle.
The Shuttle launch stack has the same takeoff thrust as a Saturn V, and if we delete the orbiter and add a hydrogen/oxygen upper stage, we can create a launch vehicle with similar capability.
However, under NASA's current plans, only about twenty-five more Shuttle launches are contemplated, and absent a plan for Shuttle conversion to an HLV, much of the industrial infrastructure for manufacturing key Shuttle system components (such as external tanks) will soon be dismantled. Recreating such capabilities after they have been lost will cost the taxpayers billions.
What's he talking about? The Shuttle stack has the same take off thrust as the Saturn V? How long can it maintain that thrust, or is that not a factor? Is lift equal to thrust X burn time?
In the QQ mission plan, a Crew Excursion Vehicle (CEV) with a
propulsive capability for Trans Earth Injection (TEI) is launched to orbit where it rendezvous with an Earth Departure Stage (EDS) capable of delivering it to Low Lunar Orbit (LLO, i.e. perform TLI + Lunar Orbit Capture, or LOC burn). Separately from this, a Lunar Surface and Ascent Module (LSAM) is launched to orbit, and then another EDS,
which then rendezvous, after which the EDS delivers to LSAM to LLO. The CEV performs a rendezvous with the LSAM in LLO, after which the crew transfers to the LSAM for an excursion to the Lunar surface. The crew then ascends in the LSAM to rendezvous with the CEV in LLO. The crew transfers to the CEV which performs Trans Earth Injection and direct entry and landing at Earth.
That came in my mail today. Could it be the most acronym infested paragraph ever?
SpaceNut, thanks.
Looking at the FY2006 request, Space Operations gets $6.763 billion. NASA gets about $16.5 billion, leaving $9.737 billion for other ventures. Do you have any idea of where that goes?
Who knows how it will end up? The prevailing feeling here is that there's no point in a Hubble mission, that you can only paste tape on it, milk it for another four years. Smart money would assemble a new one, good for ten years, and launch it into a higher orbit.
I have heard that the LaGrange points have collected some dust, over the billions of years. Is that a clean enough area to deploy telescopes?
NASA Urged to Spend Funds on Hubble Fix
WASHINGTON (March 11) - Two congressmen urged NASA's acting administrator Wednesday to ensure that all of the $291 million appropriated to NASA in the Fiscal Year 2005 Omnibus Bill is spent on servicing the Hubble Space Telescope.
In a letter to Acting NASA Administrator Frederick Gregory, Reps. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and Alan Mollohan, D-W.Va., asked him not to eliminate the possibility of a manned repair mission.
"Significant progress has been made toward a robotic servicing mission for the Hubble, and we expect NASA to continue that progress, although not limiting the mission only to a robotic option," the letter states. They noted that they expect to see a design review and operating plan soon.
The Hubble Space Telescope is managed and operated by the Goddard Space Flight Center in Hoyer's district and Mollohan is the top Democrat on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice, and Commerce.
While NASA has sent several repair missions, experts say another is needed because the batteries and gyroscopes probably will fail between mid-2007 and 2010. But after the 2003 crash of the space shuttle Columbia, a manned mission to repair Hubble has been in question.
Pink slips everywhere.
There was a recent Spacerep article (I think) that listed at least some of NASA's many programs and how much was going to be cut and others that would see an increase in funding. Perhaps someone has saved that piece of mail.
And I'm trying to establish an accurate list of NASA's activities. There is another forum unrelated to this one, that has members complaining that NASA should do space right or not do it at all. It's a common perception among the general population.
That roster from Spacerep would be nice to post over there. It would surprise a lot of them.
NASA's agenda list, very spare
Maintaining the Shuttle infrastructure
Maintaining the ISS infrastructure
Monitoring Mars rovers and orbiters
Monitoring Cassini
Monitoring a Mercury probe
Monitoring Stardust
Monitoring Deep Impact
Monitoring Hubble
Project Constellation
A few cheaper faster designs
Icy Moons mission, cut
Those are just the very visible activites of NASA. NASA has a lot of irons in the fire that don't geet any publicity .
If you could add what you know, and I know you know a great deal more than me, it would be greatly appreciated.
Another thing - My sisters are well educated and smart. One of them stopped by recently and the conversation took an unexpected turn to Bush and the Hubble. Her reaction was visceral. She didn't know that Bush had done the right thing (for all of the wrong reasons). This is common out there, a lot of very bright people don't know what's going on.
And take a look at this place, newmars. There's only a handful of people who take the time to read it, let alone join it.
<span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>Wal-Mart Wants Truckers to Have 16-Hour Workdays</span>
By LESLIE MILLER, AP
WASHINGTON (March 9) - Wal-Mart and other retailers are lobbying Congress to extend the workday for truckers to 16 hours, something labor unions and safety advocates say would make roadways more dangerous for all drivers.
Rep. John Boozman, an Arkansas Republican whose district includes Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s headquarters in Bentonville, is sponsoring a bill that would allow a 16-hour workday as long as the trucker took an unpaid two-hour break. The proposal is expected to be offered as an amendment during debate over the highway spending bill on Wednesday.
"Truckers are pushing harder than ever to make their runs within the mandated timeframe,'' Boozman said. "Optional rest breaks will reduce driver layovers and improve both safety and efficiency.''
Current rules limit drivers' workdays to 14 hours, with only 11 consecutive hours of driving allowed, union leaders and safety advocates say. That gives truckers three hours to eat, rest or load and unload their trucks.
Critics of the proposal accuse Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, of trying to fatten its profits by forcing truckers to spend more time waiting at the loading dock without getting paid.
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters "hasn't gotten one complaint from drivers saying they don't have time for a break or a meal,'' the union's vice president, John Murphy, said at a news conference Tuesday.
Joan Claybrook, president of the safety advocacy group Public Citizen, said drivers could end up starting their workday at 8 a.m. and quitting at midnight.
"This is a sweatshop-on-wheels amendment,'' Claybrook said. "The last thing we need is for tired truckers to become even more fatigued and threaten the safety of those around them on the roads.''
The current rule had been struck down in federal court because it didn't take into account truck drivers' health. In October, Congress reinstated the rule for one year. If the Boozman proposal is adopted, it would retain the 16-hour workday regardless of any new rule.
Nearly 5,000 people were killed in large truck crashes in 2003, and those vehicles were three times more likely to be involved in fatal crashes than passenger cars, according to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration.
Wal-Mart spokesman Erik Winborn said the proposal has broad support among the trucking industry and other retailers.
"We support it because we feel it would actually enhance safety rather than hurt safety,'' said Winborn, whose company employs about 7,000 truck drivers.
Wal-Mart employees were Boozman's top contributors in 2003-04, giving him $48,152 for his re-election campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Wal-Mart and its employees gave $44,500 to Boozman for his first successful bid for Congress in 2001-02, the last year corporations could give to congressional candidates.
Can you believe that crap? Walmart is capitalism run amok.
The lunar poles have an abundance of craters. Once a spinning surface is established, by humans or bots, there is little to do but stare.
Do you think that erecting telescopes on the Moon would be exciting for kids, probably your kids?
I found this published on a musicians' bb. I don't know who he/she is and would not identify him/her even if I did know. I have excised the first sentence.
The President's speech a year ago that set us on this vaguely defined drive to go to the Moon again, and to Mars after that, basically upset the entire funding structure within NASA. The Exploration Directorate was founded as the result of a massive internal reorganization. Suddenly if you wanted your research to survive, you had to compete for funding with the rest of NASA and the academic community - ALL of it; not just your specialty - and make it relevant to manned space flight. Most of us in the computer research field had been aiming more towards the robotic planetary missions prior to that.
Everyone in my division spent most of last year in a panic writing proposals for funding. The work we already had funding for was neglected while we tried to figure out what the new management wanted to hear.
At the same time, existing programs that were funding ongoing research got cut to shreds. Their funds essentially got shoveled into the Return To Flight drive (get shuttle and station back on their feet).
The upshot is we're sacrificing NASA's long-term future work to fund the completion of the ISS. Note that the article mentions 4 NASA research centers as having to cut staff - Ames (ARC), Dryden (DFRC), Glenn (GRC) and Langley (LARC). These are the places where basic research and advanced development are done. The manned flight centers (Kennedy, Johnson, Marshall) are not hurting anywhere near as badly. And JPL is looking good, what with the spectacular successes of the current Mars rovers and Cassini, and more Mars probes in the pipeline for launch later this year.
Management at the research centers has been dealt a bad hand. They have to cut the civil service workforce significantly to meet their new budgets. The response to the first buyout offer at Ames was underwhelming - something like an order of magnitude less than they were aiming for.
Meanwhile, on my contract, at last report something like 20% of us are going to lose our jobs, because the work we had been doing is no longer funded. No one is saying which 20% will have to go just yet. A few are being told now; the rest of us will find out down the road.
To us contractors, "layoff" means exactly the same as in the real world. The civil service workforce has its worries too, but they can't be let go on short notice like we can.
The Columbia disaster should have served as a wake-up call that NASA could no longer do business as usual, that the US would have to decide whether it was serious about space. From where I sit, I still don't see a sustained long-term commitment. I see an administration that is willing to fulfill its obligations to the other nations in the ISS project, and then let NASA wither away to pay for tax cuts.
And if it isn't already clear... this rant represents my personal opinions, and not my employer's, or NASA's either.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.h … ml?id=1006
I downloaded it but was denied access.
I'm dropping into the middle of your conversations here. Cindy has already fired shots at me twice for asking questions that caused a topic to deviate from its course.
GC answered a question I had.and posted this:
No reuseable engines? http://www.pratt-whitney.com/prod_space … _cobra.asp
I think this would do the trick... able to handle the requisit 50 flights before overhaul, and excelent reliability. At least some componets of it have been test fired.
http://www.pratt-whitney.com/prod_space … ce_rlx.asp
Not sure about the fate of the RLX project, which may have gone out with SLI. It would also serve well for the application.
And make a reuseable version of this, http://www.space.com/busines....-1.html … ...-1.html
Able to withstand at least 25 flights, and we'd be in business.
Cobra would be good for 50 flights? Ten flights out of any engine is mass transportation compared to any other engine being used today. But, maybe I'm wrong about that.
Say cobra engines are retired after 12 fights. I imagine NASA would pick apart the first one just because they are nervous (and rightly so). What can be done with cobra configurations and maybe some boosters?
It took five f-1 engines to get two men on and one circling the Moon. Chemistry being what it is, I doubt the combustion of h2 and o2 today is any different than it was in the days of Apollo. What about the today's technologies? Would a new moon mission weigh less? Would there be any merit in sending a fueled return vehicle on a prior launch?
This is from Pratt-Whitney:
Engine Characteristics
Thrust (vac): 200,000 - 1,000,000 lb
Dry weight (at 600k thrust): 8,000 lb
Specific impulse (vac): 455 sec
Cycle: Staged combustion
Propellants: Liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen
Mixture ratio: 5.5:1 - 6.5:1
Shutdown reliability: 0.9995
Catastrophic reliability: 0.999995
Mission Life: > 100 missions
Time between overhauls: > 50 missions
Scheduled maintenance per flight: < 100 man-hr
Turnaround between flights: < 16 hr
Is that believable? How do they know what reliability it has? Is that too good to be true?
Thanks GC. There is so much to learn here. It took the free time I had and a couple of days to just to read the heavy lift topic and some of the links. Then I was chasing the new shuttle topic. And because I was born so long ago, I won't remember half of it.
So that cobra engine, the engine
My questions would drag this off topic, even though they may pertain to the shuttle. The cobra looks near heavy lift and I'm going over there.
I'm just going to jump in here with a question.
Large NTR engines would be expensive to develop and build, while reuseable H2/O2 engines are being developed right now
I didn't know anyone was pursuing reuseable engines any more, that any advances would be incremental in nature and would not be worth the effort.
If you give God the glory, you got to give God the blame.
If everything goes as planned, that is, the shuttles are returned to flight and the ISS is completed (ha), there will be a period of time where the US will not have a manned platform. NASA will retire the shuttle like a poor cousin and be happy to be rid of it. The US will have to book flights with the Russians. Life is good. More whiskey.
2004 was a banner year for NASA and perhaps we have all been spoiled. The rovers on Mars are in good health and will be run until their wheels fall off. Barring a catastrophe, Cassini is good for at least four years and probably longer if past experience holds sway. Other than that and some smaller cheaper designs, NASA doesn't seem to have any forward momentum. If handed an extra $10 billion, would they know what to do with it?
That new CEV vehicle, a mini-shuttle, what's that good for? Do we need it to get to the ISS, to the moon? If the ISS cannot be completed why build a ferry system designed, in part, to service it? For that we have Soyuz.
Heavy lift, do we have it? If we don't is it possible to do some crude, very, very crude assembly in LEO of medium lift pieces? Would that require a completed ISS or is the ISS just getting in the way? Are there spacecraft pieces that are designed to auto dock with each other? The Russians seem to have a basic docking system, if they have one why construct another?
Is China really interested in the ISS? Should we sell it to them? Perhaps we should give the keys to the ESA. Here, take it.
The shuttle's launch platform is probably as close to perfection as it will ever be. The solid fuel boosters are the most scrutinized boosters that have seen the light of day. The new external tank has a couple of heaters, among other improvements, and the amazing engines have not suffered a turbine loss (catastrophic). The shuttle c might not be quite heavy lift enough, but would two launches suffice? Could the two packages mate on their own and be on their way?
It makes no sense to maintain the shuttle's infrastructure but could part of it be used for the CEV, if and when? Is anything salvageable besides the hangars?