You are not logged in.
Ya but not quite the same animal,
"JWST is a large, infrared-optimized space telescope. It will have an 18-segment, 6.5-meter primary mirror and will reside in an L2 Lissajous orbit. JWST is scheduled for launch in 2011."
Both are here on this site Space Telescope Science Institute
http://www.stsci.edu/resources/
Well here's another NASA flip flop on the issue of the
NASA Extends TRMM Operations Through 2004 Hurricane Season
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/au … M_ops.html
Last month NASA announced that it and JAXA had agreed to end the mission and deorbit the spacecraft in a controlled reentry in the next year.
It was only last month adn now they have found some money to continue using it. Daaa...
Just wait and they will change there mind again.
Here is some more wiggle from Nasa on the ciab recommendations for future shuttle flights.
Shuttle backups likely for 2 launches
NASA wants proof fixes work
Only problem with the train track conducting electricity from solar cells is the fact that Mars is made of Iron... which conducts electricity granted not as good as copper or gold or other metals. One would need to insulate the tracks from the planet to make it work.
I think you will like this article also on telescopes then.
"Universities plan to build largest telescope
Scientists say device will produce better images than Hubble"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5613702/
Also would not the extrasolar planets atmospheric compositions be best studied for a space telescope rather than an Earth based one.
Part of this deals with the possibility of Hubble 2 utilizing the built equipment from the 5th Hubble cancelled repair mission.
One could probably only take posession of the Nasa built modules only. Which means a lot of shared resources are needed from the other partners.
So any purchase would have to keep in mind lots of upgrade to make it a worth while purchase. Such that you would not need to pay the partners for those services.
So back to the question of home rule or representation from afar.
I guess the question comes back to support for those that are there. If no support from Earth and they feel like they are ignored. Then probably they will ignore Earth rule as well and feel that they can do it for themselves.
This was a UN treaty during the Apollo era or was it a collective super power one?
A UN treaty though has a error in that non member can chose to ignore all such items. In fact members can sort do that if it can present its side to get waivers from punishment from the others.
So for the same 1 billion as a shuttle flight we could get a new scope with deorbit stage, hopefully better gyro's with all the upgrade gear that was to be used and even utilizing the museum held backup mirror we could be back up there looking at the stars again. Probably in the same amount of time as it would take to get the orbotic mission, which could be a failure since untested before Hubble would come down. Sounds more probable to do than the Hubble rescue at this point. But that also sets a standard of continual replacement for all probes which do cost alot rather than repair if they were nearer to the station. If other stations were in orbit the safe haven would also be a mute point also.
The price tag for space is an important item but not the only one. You also must have multiple providers for competition but also more destinations to offer for those willing to fork over the cash for being a tourist.
Do not forget that there are at least two other teams equaly as close to doing test launches.
Also winning the prise will probably be the end even if the teams are successful with the multiple turn around times.
There just does not seem to be a profit to generate the interest level required for any of the teams to start booking tourist flights just yet.
There are other teams that are more interested in getting more tourist activity than to winning the prise also very close to doing flights as well.
If one of these companies or groups were to design an appropriate CEV capsule for Nasa purchase to be used on SDV, Atlas And On Delta's. Now that would be a great feat or coup for that company or group.
Here is the UPI link for the same article Analysis: Costs could sink Hubble rescue title but with other details.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=200 … 5953-9102r
The backup shuttle was due to the CAIB recommendations for future shuttle flights.
Now if we were not locked into the shuttle and had another manned rocket configuration to fly. This would be a non issue of repair or to let it drop into the ocean with out a deorbit booster. But since some are crying chicken little on the deobit possibility not being stable at end of life and also due to the lack of another telescope to takes its place of the same capabilities it has become a can of worms.
You two both blow me away with the numbers but did I see only a one way trip for this rocket and lander to the moon or did I miss something about the lander.
The only problem with the retiring of the shuttle for 2010 and having the CEV operational for manned flight is that it is not expected to be man rated until 2014.
Are we all willing to have so many years with no space flights just look at how we are after only almost 2 years.
Since there is expected to be a fly off between two competitors, I assume Boeing and Lockheed for the CEV starting some time near or before 2008. Personally I would buy the first to get a complete man rated unit by the 2008 date.
I Know that was under the assumption that no shuttle flights in 2003 for the most part and in 2004 with none until 2005 mid year should show an account surplus under shuttle refurbishment between flights category. At about a billion per flight with perhaps 8 missed flights.
Net balance Nasa Shuttle accounts of approximate 7 billion at least after upgrades to two shuttles.
So we will have a great big pile of SRBs and External tanks with no where to go if the shuttle is grounded forever. Due to contracts rather than purchase as you go from the given manufacturer. Everything should have stopped and only the necessary design rework for the external tank foam shedding should have been active.
As for closing and laying off those that work on External tanks and SRBs. When production levels drop it is normal practice to reduce the levels of full time staff.
Which recently means in the electronic manufacturing field is to fire all the temps or shared leased agency employees followed by permanent staff. Also contracts are usually curtailed or severely lowered and or cancelled even if a fine is levied.
There is usually only a temporary loss of skills or talent and temps are usually screened for the job search for the required skills needed.
The CAIB certification if used beyond 2010 was not spelled out for the set of requirements that would indicate a pass. With all the work that has been done one could claim each time it is re certified to fly.
I think though that everybody is hedging around whether the countries of the world want to be independent and isolative, or that some would want to have a unified world. Free from fear...
This may be just one more reason not to end involvement in the ISS and to either extend the useful life of the shuttle or of some SDV, due in part to the larger lift capability and for continualed changes to the ISS that could be made in some foreseeable future by any of the partner nations.
When one looks at cost of an Item it will always boil down to Material versus labor. Labor is almost always the higher of the two.
So to drive cost down first you must lessen the amount of labor required to construct the rocket. Then it comes down to automation of build and changes to use cheaper material.
Even if we ever get the shuttle going again we can only launch from the cape, but we can land in a few other places. Then we need to wait for refurb in between launches leaving only the next closed from refurb to fly.
Seems like the russians and the ESA do have a leg up on the US.
For One quicker launches between rockets no waiting for refurb, Launch capability from multiple sites and a much lower cost per rocket as compared to simular expendables from the big two some of Boeing and Lockheed.
Shuttle C cargo only, could be done very cheaply from a design stand point but from a continous launch of multiple units very costly. Cargo pod plus engines, External tank are expendable only the srb's would be recovered.
SDV manned version would mean the expense of design for the CEV capsule and to orbit stage engines. The capsule could be placed at the top of the external tank with orbit stage and main engines could be a pod on the side of the tank or directly beneath the tank.
Capsule could be some what reusable depending on design or just the inside electronics could be place into a new shell each time for re-use.
NASA Selects Future Mission Concepts For Study
http://www.nasa.gov/home....ts.html
NASA selects astronomy mission proposals for study
http://www.spacetoday.net/getsummary.php?id=2489
One of the nine proposals, the Hubble Origins Probe, would use two instruments, the Wide Field Camera 3 and the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph, originally planned for use on the Hubble Space Telescope.
I wondered just how long the russian were going to put up with Nasa and non payment for soyuz utilized to keep the ISS going. Not that much longer according to the AP. Russia Wants Payment for Space Trips
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....station
I wondered just how long the russian were going to put up with Nasa and non payment for soyuz utilized to keep the ISS going. Not that much longer according to the AP. Russia Wants Payment for Space Trips
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....station
Well If you plan for a large volume of space movement between the earth and moon then you can create it. Firstly the movement of NASA personnel, construction personnel, mining personnel, scientific personnel, and business activities including space tourism could be created to reduce the overall costs to ferry personnel from the earth to the moon that would provide a lower cost base.
So under the catagory elite you have specialists from NASA personel, scientist and the rich Space tourist.
From the working class you have mining and construction.
Until we can get more from this second group of more common people into space nothing will change.
Well one approach to high rising cost of Rockets from the big guy's is to tell them that we wish to have a price break. I'M sure they will laugh but if one is not given start shopping else where for what is needed. Even funding an upstart company for there designing of what is needed and or giving them working designs to which they would like to purchase for less would spear on competition in the industry.
I know, I'M way out there...