Hubble mistake - Action needed

jadeheart · 2004-02-09 18:32:28

Very interesting. I read it but it wasn't clear to me just what was the political reason for O'Keefe's view. Did anybody else glean it from the article?

Is it a political decision, or a monetary one? Not spending that extra shuttle flight on HST allows it to go to ISS.

But if, as the engineer's paper says, it isn't any less safe to do HST as it is ISS, what is the reason for not doing HST? What is O'Keefe thinking? How will he answer the questions raised by this paper?

clark · 2004-02-10 05:42:51

The papers say it's just as safe to go service the Hubble as it would be to go to the ISS.

What's really being avoided in this discussion is how safe it is to use the Shuttle, period. In any capacity.

The Shuttle is not safe, or at least not as safe as everyone would like. Now, if you have a car with patched tires, do you take it out for a spin anymore than you have to? The Shuttle needs to be retired ASAP, and saving the Hubble would be great, but it's not worth the added risk.

Bill White · 2004-02-10 06:44:50

The papers say it's just as safe to go service the Hubble as it would be to go to the ISS.
What's really being avoided in this discussion is how safe it is to use the Shuttle, period. In any capacity.
The Shuttle is not safe, or at least not as safe as everyone would like. Now, if you have a car with patched tires, do you take it out for a spin anymore than you have to? The Shuttle needs to be retired ASAP, and saving the Hubble would be great, but it's not worth the added risk.

All of which is why I advocate looking into other ways to finish ISS and grounding the orbiter now. $35 billion (that big red swath) is a large number to spend for a lame duck system.

Ad Astra posted the thought that Cheney wanted exactly this yet NASA balked. Cowing's "insider" reports mention none of this and since the process behind the "space vision" has been far from transparent thus far, all we can do is speculate.

RobertDyck · 2004-02-10 06:48:28

I have argued that assembly of ISS can be completed with Delta IV or Atlas V rockets. It would require a 3-tonne, remotely piloted space tug to pull the modules to rendezvous and dock with ISS, but that should be easy to develop. I read on this message board that the Russians offered to use a Progress unmanned cargo ship to deliver ISS modules, and that already has a 3-tonne service module plus radar, a docking connector, as well as rendezvous and automatic docking software. Progress-M has a total mass of 7.45 tonnes, but that includes storage for 1.2 tonnes of fuel for ISS and 1.34 tonnes of supplies in a pressurized cargo module. A Proton or Delta IV Large can lift an entire module, but adding a Progress spacecraft would reduce the mass of module that can be lifted. That would require repackaging ISS delivery flights, which would be inconvenient.

However, servicing Hubble will still require the Shuttle, and that should be the primary reason for restoring Shuttle to flight. I'm not sure but I think there is only one more service mission scheduled for Hubble; once that is complete, THEN we can retire Shuttle.

::Edit:: Progress could theoretically have the fuel and cargo modules removed, just keep the 2.95 tonne service module, radar and docking collar, and control systems. But that would change the balance requiring modification to flight software. Furthermore, not all ISS assembly missions are complete modules; some are pallets of parts like solar panels and truss segments. That would require a robot hand similar to CanadArm or CanadArm2 to grapple and pull it to ISS. Although the fuel module is designed to deliver fuel to ISS, I don't think the fuel tanks of the service module are designed to be refilled on-orbit, so leaving such a tug docked to ISS as a reusable device would require significant modification. With proper modification it could be refuelled by the fuel module of a standard Progress, but such a tug would have to be developed. The Russians could easily develop such a tug, but couldn't America develop it just as easily?

clark · 2004-02-10 07:13:17

Robert,

Progress could theoretically have the fuel and cargo modules removed, just keep the 2.95 tonne service module, radar and docking collar, and control systems. But that would change the balance requiring modification to flight software. Furthermore, not all ISS assembly missions are complete modules; some are pallets of parts like solar panels and truss segments. That would require a robot hand similar to CanadArm or CanadArm2 to grapple and pull it to ISS. Although the fuel module is designed to deliver fuel to ISS, I don't think the fuel tanks of the service module are designed to be refilled on-orbit, so leaving such a tug docked to ISS as a reusable device would require significant modification. With proper modification it could be refuelled by the fuel module of a standard Progress, but such a tug would have to be developed. The Russians could easily develop such a tug, but couldn't America develop it just as easily?

I apologize about quoting you here, but I want to be specific, what kind of companies, or even which companies, can do something like this?

Sorry, maybe this will help... here is what I was thinking. Evaluate the entire ISS flight load neccessary to complete ISS. Examine where alternate Shuttle flight loads might be creatively placed on other launch systems. Identify those flight loads which, for all practical purposes, can only be delivered by Shuttle flights. Those flight loads that can only be delievered by the Shuttle, accelerate their development and move up their time table for delievery to ISS (where and when possible). All other identified flight loads that *might* be handled by a non-Shuttle launch, we table, or slow down. We then identify the requirements for the remaining flight loads to get these to ISS. Then we either give some aerospace firms some money to figure it out, or give it to some up-start aerospace companies with some new ideas to try out.

This might allow for an accelerated retirement of the Shuttle, it buys us some breathing room if we have problems with the Shuttle fleet, and it gives us some more alternate access ( ) to space.

RobertDyck · 2004-02-10 07:28:30

I apologize about quoting you here, but I want to be specific, what kind of companies, or even which companies, can do something like this?

The only specific companies I could say would be capable of doing this, are companies that have already proven they can. The Russian company Korolev builds the Progress spacecraft, and the Canadian company [http://www.mdrobotics.ca]MDRobotics built CanadArm and CanadArm2. Those arms are also known as the Remote Manipulator System (RMS) on the Shuttle, and the Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS). A joint venture between these two companies could build the tug.

Bill White · 2004-02-10 15:15:27

This [http://www.spacedaily.com/news/hubble-03a.html]article, written in August 2003, suggests that a Hubble "workbench" could be added to the nose of a Soyuz. If launched from Kouru, the Soyuz and the workbench could reach Hubble and perhaps make the necessary repairs.

Has anyone seen further information on this idea?

Also, how large (dimensions) and heavy (mass) are the pieces needed to repair Hubble, if SM-4 were flown?

Bill White · 2004-02-25 12:32:31

Zubrin and Hubble - a Mars Society email arrived today in my In-Box.

Among other points, Sean O'Keefe gets accused of putting a "gag order" on engineering reports that disagree with the political agenda.

Wall Street Journal Blasts Hubble Desertion Decision
February 24, 2004
For further information about the Mars Society, visit our website at [http://www.marssociety.org]www.marssociety.org.
In an article printed in the Wall Street Journal February 20, WSJ science editor Sharon Begley blasted NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe's decision to abandon the Hubble Space Telescope. Begley's article was based on interviewing numerous scientists, astronauts, congressmen, and engineers, including Mars Society president Robert Zubrin. In the course of these interviews she assembled an overwhelming case showing that the Hubble desertion decision is unjustified.
Begley's article requires one point of clarification. The
information refuting O'Keefe's contention that ISS missions are safer than Hubble missions which Zubrin supplied Begley were not Zubrin's own calculations, but NASA calculations supplied to him by brave Shuttle program engineers in defiance of a gag order from NASA headquarters. Other NASA engineers have also chosen to defy O'Keefe to in order to provide the public with accurate information on this
issue; and a set of NASA documents carrying similar information to some of that published by Zubrin was posted with the authors' names removed on the New York Times website in association with an article on Hubble by Times science reporter Dennis Overbye on February 7.
It is unfortunate that Mr. O'Keefe has decided that it within his purview as a manager to insist that NASA engineers withhold analysis that does not support his opinions. It was precisely such managerial insistence on dictating technical reality to engineers that prevented any effective action to avert the Shuttle Columbia tragedy. This illegitimate exercise of management authority was harshly condemned afterwards by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. In response,
Mr. O'Keefe pledged to discontinue the practice. Apparently, that has not occurred.
Some excerpts from Begley's Wall Street Journal article follows.
Crews May Be Able To Rescue the Hubble With Little Safety Risk By Sharon Begley
20 February 2004
The Wall Street Journal
WHEN NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe announced that the space shuttle would make no more flights to the Hubble Space Telescope, he condemned Hubble to a lingering death from loss of battery power and failing gyroscopes, probably by 2007. Because Mr. O'Keefe said his decision was based on safety, stunned Hubble fans were left in a bind. It's tough to argue that solving even the most profound mysteries of the cosmos is worth the lives of a shuttle crew.
The cost, however, may not be that high. Engineers inside and outside NASA, including former astronauts, have lit into the claim that Hubble-bound flights are riskier than those to the International Space Station, the only destination Mr. O'Keefe wants on the shuttle's itinerary. His reasoning: Only the station can provide a "safe haven" where a shuttle crew could await rescue or repair potentially lethal damage incurred during launch, as happened to Columbia a year ago when foam tore into its skin.
That argument isn't washing in the tightknit community of former astronauts. "Give me a break," says one who is now in
academia. "You're not going to launch the shuttle again unless you think you've fixed the problem that took out Columbia, so that one [requiring safe haven] won't happen again. What will get you next time is a problem that keeps you from reaching ISS at all. That makes a mission to Hubble no riskier than one to the ISS."
IT MIGHT EVEN be safer. NASA's own analyses show that a greater risk comes from impacts by micrometeor or orbital debris. The station's orbit is riskier on this score. Using NASA data, aeronautical engineer Robert Zubrin, president of the Mars Society, calculates that on the last shuttle flight to the station the probability of a fatal collision with a micrometeor or space junk was 1 in 250; on the last mission to Hubble, it was 1 in 414.
Hubble-bound missions are also safer as measured by the risk of engine failure during launch. Hubble missions usually carry a lighter payload than most station missions. They, therefore, need less thrust to get anyplace,which affects their abort capability.
For a station-bound mission to execute an abort-to-orbit, in which the shuttle parks in orbit while a safe landing plan is worked out, all three main engines must fire for 282 seconds, calculates Dr. Zubrin. But for a Hubble mission to abort to orbit, the engines have to fire for only 188 seconds. That's 94 more seconds of safety. Hubble missions look even better if your goal is a return-to-launch-site abort. Whatever its destination, the shuttle's main engines must fire for no more than 232 seconds if it is to glide back to Cape Canaveral. If its engines failed between 232 and 282 seconds, a station-bound flight could not execute either kind of abort (to orbit
or to Florida), calculates Dr. Zubrin. That's a potentially deadly 50-second window. But Hubble missions have the window from 188 to 232 seconds in which either abort can be performed.
"Safety is a red herring for politics and money," says the ex-
astronaut. "Engineers within NASA have let the agency down by not coming forward to point out the flaws in this decision." ?
One whispering campaign alleges that new ground-based telescopes can make equally impressive discoveries and that Hubble's best years are behind it
But the new telescopes will not observe in the many wavelengths (especially ultraviolet) that Hubble does, and so will lack its breadth. It's hard to top Hubble's record of discovery, from helping to find a mysterious "dark energy" speeding up the universe's expansion to spying the raw materials for planets around stars. And with the spectrograph and camera the shuttle was supposed to deliver in mid-2006, "Hubble's best years were going to be ahead of it," says
Dr. Beckwith.
There's one more oddity about Mr. O'Keefe's safety calculus. "If we're afraid to fly to Hubble, what does that say about missions to the moon and Mars that President Bush has called for?" asks Rep. Mark Udall, Democrat of Colorado.
If we aren't going to be serious about those destinations, the
rationale for shuttle flights to the space station -- learning how long-duration spaceflight affects human physiology -- is pointless.

Strong stuff, this part:

It is unfortunate that Mr. O'Keefe has decided that it within his purview as a manager to insist that NASA engineers withhold analysis that does not support his opinions. It was precisely such managerial insistence on dictating technical reality to engineers that prevented any effective action to avert the Shuttle Columbia tragedy.

clark · 2004-02-25 12:49:54

I think they are reffering to the anonymous authored documents sent out by someone from NASA.

The bottom line is it is risky, in any mission scenerio, to launch the Shuttle. We have to finish the ISS, and unfortunetly the Shuttle is the only thing that can complete it... for now. We don't *need* to fix Hubble, so it is an unneccessary risk to send a Shuttle to it.

I think this issue would be more damning, and I would yell along with everyone if O'Keefe simply says no alternatives are being explored to save the Hubble. But they are saying that they would be open to a non-Shuttle mission to Hubble, if a plan can be devised.

Is Hubble worth losing one of our last remaining Shuttles and her crew for? I don't think so. [shrug]

Bill White · 2004-02-25 13:38:58

I think they are reffering to the anonymous authored documents sent out by someone from NASA.
The bottom line is it is risky, in any mission scenerio, to launch the Shuttle. We have to finish the ISS, and unfortunetly the Shuttle is the only thing that can complete it... for now. We don't *need* to fix Hubble, so it is an unneccessary risk to send a Shuttle to it.
I think this issue would be more damning, and I would yell along with everyone if O'Keefe simply says no alternatives are being explored to save the Hubble. But they are saying that they would be open to a non-Shuttle mission to Hubble, if a plan can be devised.
Is Hubble worth losing one of our last remaining Shuttles and her crew for? I don't think so. [shrug]

Actually I agree with you about the fight to save Hubble. The more interesting question is how ineptly the politics is being played By NASA on this.

A whole new Hubble isn't so ridiculously expensive either. The whole controversy dies if NASA simply proposes to launch a replacement Hubble via EELV, with the capability to accept robot docking. I saw an interesting comment somewhere that the mirrors needed to read license plates from DoD sats are larger than the Hubble mirror - a spare Hubble may not be that expensive. Right now $24 billion is projected for 24 orbiter flights between now and 2010. A billion per flight so not flying to Hubble saves a billion dollars.

Ask Congress to build Hubble II funded with the savings from cancelling the Hubble repair mission. Install the 2006 upgrades on Hubble II which have already been paid for, right?

Zubrin, however, is right about the spectrum issues, Hubble cannot be easily replaced by ground based or even the James Webb telescope.

The real battle is on credibility. Dana Rohrbacher calling to de-fund all NASA climatic research (because global warming is so obviously a bogus issue) doesn't help GOP credibility. Claims that James Webb is "just as good" or that ground based telescopes are "just as good" hurt credibility in a similiar way.

Moving on, if shuttle flights are so risky, 25 flights to finish ISS by 2010 seems wildly unrealistic. And therefore, we may have the orbiter around longer than we thought:

As House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) said (yesterday?):

Let's begin by looking at the Shuttle program - the program that obviously is of most concern to you. At first blush, the President's proposal terminates the Shuttle program in 2010. That is a wise decision. There is simply no way to affordably fund new initiatives without tapping the money now consumed by the Shuttle program.
Moreover, it is time to develop a safer, more efficient, more up-to-date, more versatile vehicle. Finally, the White House was simply and understandably unwilling to spend the billions necessary to recertify the Shuttle to fly after 2010 - a requirement laid down by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board and accepted by NASA.
But it turns out that the Shuttle decision is a little more fluid than it first appears. NASA says the Shuttle will continue to fly until the construction of the International Space Station is completed, and 2010 is simply the target date for that milestone.
Can the Station be completed by 2010? That seems like a stretch. As we all know, the Shuttle now is not scheduled to resume flight until at least next March. (That's a decision I applaud, by the way. Administrator O'Keefe has kept his word that safety and safety alone will determine when the Shuttle launches again.) That's already a delay in the schedule on which the 2010 date was developed.

If Hubble repair is unsafe then proposals to maintain a fast paced operational tempo for ISS construction seem illusionary. A safe haven at ISS will save the lives of astronauts (priceless!) yet abandoning a shuttle in orbit will stop ISS construction cold.

Therefore, expect extensions to ISS completion, which leads to delays in transferring funds to Constellation/CEV which delays man-rating CEV which delays the return to the Moon which creates greater exposure of the entire program to the whims of the American political process.

With Sean O'Keefe (and George Bush) making pronouncements from on high (without a transparent process) credibility suffers even if it is the right decision, like with Hubble, IMHO. And that prevents the broad based bi-partisanship ownership of America's space policy, which will be needed to sustain any program through political transition.

Unless of course, Jeffrey Bell has nailed the "real" Bush agenda.

clark · 2004-02-25 14:06:23

It seems as if Bush created a problem, a stress, via his closed door proclimation related to finishing the ISS and retiring the Shuttle. Now why would they do that?

In order to fly the Shuttle beyond 2010, it has to go through a recertification. That's billions and billions to just make us feel confident that the ship we are going to soon sink (after ISS) is space worthy.

So we need to finish the ISS by 2010 to avoid the cost of recertification. Okay, how do we do that?

As far as I can tell, there are three legtimate options:
1. High operational tempo of 5 flights per year to finish ISS as designed by 2010. (Possible to do, but not likely to be achieved)
2. Change the design of the ISS so that completion can be achieved with fewer Shuttle flights, i.e. we cut development of ISS to the bare minimum. (Diplomatically unlikely to succeed due to our comittments with international partners, but possible).
3. Develop an SDV to replace the Shuttle as soon as possible, designing it to take up multiple Shuttle loads to ISS. Plan on having it ready by the time CEV is ready for LEO and ISS trips.
(Houston, we have a winner)

Which plan solves the Hubble debacle and the ISS issue? It wasn't the Bush plan to come up with the solution, but to create the problems that will lead everyone to the predetermined solution. At least that's my take on it.

Bill White · 2004-02-25 14:18:32

Well, Dr Clark Pangloss, #3 seems blindingly obvious to me.

I hope you are correct, again. :;):

= = =

Your scenario does make good sense in a twisted sort of way. Only time will tell whether Congress and the Aldridge commission concur.

clark · 2004-02-25 14:27:08

I got us this far.

I'll work on my cynicism though. Dr Pangloss indeed.:laugh:

Edit:

What's the more frightening proposition, everything happening for no reason at all, or everything happening for a reason that we simply can never understand? ???

Pangloss: " Those who have maintained that all is well have been talking nonsense: they should have maintained that all is for the best. "

infocat13 · 2004-02-25 16:56:07

reusable ion powerd tug delivers HST to a orbit above and near the ISS. Do the HST 2006 maybe later do to the development time for tug.(use shuttle)
plan b lower hst to ISS modify HST there.Tug delivers HST back to its higher orbit.then in 2012-15 do this...........
[http://www.pha.jhu.edu/groups/hst10x/pi … orial.html]super HST

GraemeSkinner · 2004-03-10 14:28:24

I think [http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … /mdf491831]this picture shows why Hubble should be kept working for as long as possible. (Sorry if the pics already been posted but could not see it anywhere.)

ruski_canuk · 2004-03-10 17:53:32

It is disheartening when we live in a time of so much potential and still linger onto past weaknesses which we cannot shake. Hubble has made innumerable discoveries both with scientific implications and art extrordinare. The last thing that was being considered in deciding to service the telescope is risk to human life. If government is ready to sacrifice thousands of lives in meddling in other countries (be it war, special ops you name it) and then to pretend that the risk of several lives is too great simply disgraces logic. Science is fundamentally what separates us from the animal world - shall we stop 'monkeying' around and finally step up to the task?

wgc · 2004-03-12 11:28:55

Interesting isn't it, Nasa is sticking by the CAIB recommendations and congress is suggesting , well maybe Graham is wrong lets do this mission anyway.

Okeefe is beging chastized for the very actions he was expected to take under the CAIB. although I too want somekind of servicing mission to the Hubble I think congress is getting a taste of their own medicine.

I truely believe that a lot of blame for Columbia was put on NASA and the political (funding issues) aspects were played down.

I think the administrator wants them to force him fly this mission.
Some goals are worth the risks.

OR

And this is just comming out, maybe Nasa is counting on getting some emergency funding for a new teleoperations servicing approach. Okeefe brought that up today.
I think this story is far from over... I'm hoping the winner of this is going to be the Hubble.

Lars_J · 2004-03-12 12:58:02

I see no point really in another servicing mission to Hubble.

Why not launch a better telescope on the same mission instead?

Palomar · 2004-03-13 08:35:02

Why not launch a better telescope on the same mission instead?

*Simple. Because there is -currently- no other telescope to take its place. Hubble's replacement won't be launched until 2011 (James Webb telescope).

[http://www.spacedaily.com/2004/04031204 … i2l7t.html]Robots to the rescue?

--Cindy

::EDIT::

[http://ngst.gsfc.nasa.gov/]James Webb Space Telescope

RobertDyck · 2004-03-13 10:08:00

The James Webb Space Telescope is optomized for infrared, not visible light. It will be a useful instrument, whenever we look at things in a new way we make new discoveries, but it's not a real replacement for Hubble.

Palomar · 2004-03-13 10:33:57

The James Webb Space Telescope is optomized for infrared, not visible light. It will be a useful instrument, whenever we look at things in a new way we make new discoveries, but it's not a real replacement for Hubble.

*I stand corrected. [It's what I get for posting so early in the morning...]

When will there be a genuine replacement for Hubble?

::sigh::

Makes Hubble all the more precious, in my opinion.

--Cindy

dickbill · 2004-03-13 10:53:30

The James Webb Space Telescope is optomized for infrared, not visible light. It will be a useful instrument, whenever we look at things in a new way we make new discoveries, but it's not a real replacement for Hubble.

The James Webb Telescope is the renamed New Generation Space Telescope, which project has been circulating (on internet at least) for more than 10 years now. So it should be in an advanced stage.

I thought that there was a project for an space interferometric telescope in the visible, capable to separate a planet from its mother star. Maybe I am confused with another project, maybe the terrestrial planet finder ?
In Infrared, the JMST will certainly have an adavantage to detect planets over visible, since the luminosity star/planet ratio is lower in infrared than in visible, but with an optical separation power of only

Palomar · 2004-03-13 11:11:22

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.htm … 2183]Lunar Astronomical Observatories

*I haven't yet had the opportunity to read the entire PDF.

--Cindy

Lars_J · 2004-03-13 11:44:39

Why not launch a better telescope on the same mission instead?
*Simple. Because there is -currently- no other telescope to take its place.

Well, one should be built then! Instead of wasting yet another hyper-expensive lanuch on trying to keep Hubble alive, why not launch better versions? I can see the wisdom in repairing aging telescopes *if* launches were cheap - but not at Shuttle prices.

Bill White · 2004-03-13 12:38:02

Why not launch a better telescope on the same mission instead?
*Simple. Because there is -currently- no other telescope to take its place.
Well, one should be built then! Instead of wasting yet another hyper-expensive lanuch on trying to keep Hubble alive, why not launch better versions? I can see the wisdom in repairing aging telescopes *if* launches were cheap - but not at Shuttle prices.

The [http://www.colorado.edu/ASEN/asen5519/JWS-Telescope.pdf]James Webb telescope will cost $850 million according to the link. Some estimates say closer to $1 billion.

The orginal Hubble cost $1.5 billion according to one article I saw yet with the repair missions and all, total cost is hard to pin down.

Not only has NASA cancelled the Hubble service mission but other astronomy missions face slow downs as well. Therefore finding $500 million or $700 million to just build another Hubble may not be politically feasible, although it would totally defuse the pressure on Sean O'Keefe.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-02-09 18:32:28

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#52 2004-02-10 05:42:51

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#53 2004-02-10 06:44:50

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#54 2004-02-10 06:48:28

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#55 2004-02-10 07:13:17

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#56 2004-02-10 07:28:30

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#57 2004-02-10 15:15:27

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#58 2004-02-25 12:32:31

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#59 2004-02-25 12:49:54

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#60 2004-02-25 13:38:58

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#61 2004-02-25 14:06:23

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#62 2004-02-25 14:18:32

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#63 2004-02-25 14:27:08

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#64 2004-02-25 16:56:07

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#65 2004-03-10 14:28:24

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#66 2004-03-10 17:53:32

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#67 2004-03-12 11:28:55

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#68 2004-03-12 12:58:02

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#69 2004-03-13 08:35:02

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#70 2004-03-13 10:08:00

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#71 2004-03-13 10:33:57

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#72 2004-03-13 10:53:30

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#73 2004-03-13 11:11:22

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#74 2004-03-13 11:44:39

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#75 2004-03-13 12:38:02

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

Board footer