Hubble mistake - Action needed

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-18 15:32:43

2: The last Shuttle must be on the ground by Dec 31 2010, by executive order. This leaves less than five years between RTF and this date to plan and prepare any mission.
Huh?
I recall GWB speaking in a firm voice at a press conference but when was the executive order signed? Can you link a copy?

I pretty much assume that when your bosses boss stands up and says "2010" that means 2010... NASA technicly answers to the Vice President.

There are quite a few more pieces of the ISS left to send up, it may be a launch weight issue? Anyway, NASA is only going to have about four years of good flights to pull this off. With four launches a year, plus one or two from the RTF year, that ain't much.

BWhite · 2004-08-18 15:47:35

2: The last Shuttle must be on the ground by Dec 31 2010, by executive order. This leaves less than five years between RTF and this date to plan and prepare any mission.
Huh?
I recall GWB speaking in a firm voice at a press conference but when was the executive order signed? Can you link a copy?
I pretty much assume that when your bosses boss stands up and says "2010" that means 2010... NASA technicly answers to the Vice President.

Washington doesn't always work that way. . .

Rxke · 2004-08-18 15:56:01

Last number I saw was 28 flights. That's a lot... Will be more like 5 flights/year. Wonder if they'll manage. Is it still 28?

And yeah, mainly a question of lift-capacity, and a lot of modules actually, Japan's is in fact 3 pieces, then you have the big interconnecting node, the smaller ones, the trusses, solar panels, logistics flights...

Euler · 2004-08-18 16:33:58

There are quite a few more pieces of the ISS left to send up, it may be a launch weight issue? Anyway, NASA is only going to have about four years of good flights to pull this off. With four launches a year, plus one or two from the RTF year, that ain't much.

Last number I saw was 28 flights. That's a lot... Will be more like 5 flights/year. Wonder if they'll manage. Is it still 28?
And yeah, mainly a question of lift-capacity, and a lot of modules actually, Japan's is in fact 3 pieces, then you have the big interconnecting node, the smaller ones, the trusses, solar panels, logistics flights...

Well, Delta IV heavy can lift more to ISS orbit than STS can, so the reliance on Shuttle is not because other launchers can't lift the weight of the modules. Despite that, there are a lot of logistics missions where even Shuttle is running at less than half capacity. It seems like those flights could be done by ATV instead, unless it is one of those issues of equipment not fitting through the hatch.

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-18 16:40:44

I think that number may have been shaved down a bit after the recent meeting with the ISS partners. Unless alot of material is shaved from the design, I don't know if it would be many less.

If there were a good way to finish ISS in a reasonable amount of time without Shuttle, do you think we would be having this conversation?

I am wondering... how much trouble would it be really to directly copy the JWST and change the mirror material from IR to UV-Vis like HST and trade out the detectors?

SpaceNut · 2004-08-19 05:01:53

The last half of this page of response postings are really dealing with the ISS cutbacks isssue on this site under the science and technology topic ISS cutbacks

http://www.newmars.com/cgi-bin....ntry169

But in response to why other vehicle that could lift modules or nodes to the iss for install.
First you have the shuttle arm used to place into location for attachment to the Iss.
second is that each module was not designed to take the pressures of launch to orbit on the hulls or outer shell.

Designing a new shell to take these forces would probably weigh more than each module and still there would be the need for how to remove from protective casing once in orbit with the ISS and what to do with the casing as well.

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-19 09:02:24

There are dynamics concerns since ISS modules are built to be lifted from their sides (Shuttle bay clamps) and not from the bottom (EELV payload faring), but the biggest problem is last-mile guidence. Actually getting the payload from the upper stage of the booster rocket to safely, slowly, and accuratly aproach the station and stop, so that the ISS robot arm can capture the module. Some pieces to ISS are loose hardware too, radiators and solar panels and various boxes of hardware which aren't convienant aluminum vessels, but clamp down neatly in the Shuttle bay.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-19 10:59:10

Well here is some info on the Hubble replacement being developed as James Webb Space Telescope.

Axsys Signs $18.6 Million Contract for Production of Optical Components for the James Webb Space Telescope
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/040819/195264_2.html

Palomar · 2004-08-19 12:03:49

*James Webb Telescope is not a "replacement" for Hubble.

Hubble is an optical scope. Webb isn't.

Not a replacement.

--Cindy

SpaceNut · 2004-08-19 12:10:50

Tell that to Nasa for if they could understand the importance of optical photo's then they would have been designing in that feature into the new telescope rather than not.

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-19 12:20:03

*James Webb Telescope is not a "replacement" for Hubble.
Hubble is an optical scope. Webb isn't.
Not a replacement.
--Cindy

You missunderstand Cindy... I am talking about building a second telescope, using the JWST design, but swtiching the mirror material from IR reflective to UV-Vis reflective and using all-new detectors.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-19 12:31:23

Well here is some info on the Hubble replacement being developed as James Webb Space Telescope.
Axsys Signs $18.6 Million Contract for Production of Optical Components for the James Webb Space Telescope
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/040819/195264_2.html

Sorry Cindy, if I chose the wrong word with hubble but that is how it seems with how Nasa is viewing things.

deagleninja · 2004-08-20 02:42:00

I hope Hubble is still in orbit and crashes into the JWST when it finally goes up!!

'From the fires of Hell.....I spit at thee!'

dicktice · 2004-08-21 11:24:33

I hope Hubble is still in orbit and crashes into the JWST when it finally goes up!!
'From the fires of Hell.....I spit at thee!'

Would you mind explaining your diatribe please? because, I submit, it makes absolutely no sense as is. . . .

deagleninja · 2004-08-21 14:37:57

You would have had to see Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. It was Khans last word before his ship blew up. Very dramatic

dicktice · 2004-08-22 11:41:28

Yes, yes, so you enjoy hollywood fantasy movies where gravity and light speed limitations don't exist. Now, about the colliding telescopes: your (gulp) point?

SpaceNut · 2004-08-23 05:17:06

Hubble plan lacks details Denver post editorial,
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,141 … 39,00.html

deagleninja · 2004-08-23 06:11:48

Dick, yes I do enjoy movies, even when reality is suspended. Your point is?

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-23 10:40:04

An additional thought...

Its looking more and more clear that NASA isn't going to get additional money beyond that $866M for VSE, if even that. Its also starting to look like a robot mission to safe Hubble is going to come in around $1.5-2.0Bn. NASA has got about two years or so from right now until when they need to be about ready to start putting the robot into the payload faring on the Atlas booster.

So, either Shuttle/ISS have to take a major cut, which is not likly to happen as the program is already cut close to the bone, or else somthing else will have to go... Mars rovers and various probes have a pretty fair sized budget, so they will be a logical target.

Or we can spend a little every year working on a new telescope and put it up at our liesure, instead of a rush job that may very well fail to "save" HST.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-23 11:18:04

Short of finding creative ways to fund the rescue operation in what ever form it will eventually take. Nasa needs a new way of generating funds for all space programs seperate form the congress controlled budgeting down sizing that always seems to accompany any new goals. Sponsored ads on the side of any Delta or Atlas.

http://www.mosnews.com/money/2004/03/10 … sing.shtml

SpaceNut · 2004-08-23 11:40:53

So we can find small amounts of funding when Nasa feels the need.
Mars Odyssey to voyage into future
NASA's Mars Odyssey mission, originally scheduled to end on Tuesday, has been granted a stay of execution until at least September 2006, reveal NASA scientists.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996308

Grypd · 2004-08-23 13:40:53

The Odyssey missions has had a cash boost I wonder where it came from the cash that is. Probably from the funding from future missions or maybe even from the Hubble operating budget. But the necessary funding to save the Hubble from the doom its facing will leave a bill of a few Billion not the 10 million or so that has financed the Odysseys team for another year.

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-23 13:59:03

For the people that don't see in numbers very well, thats somewhere between sixteen and twenty times as much money needed to save HST than $100M to extend Odessy.

deagleninja · 2004-08-23 14:22:12

For those who can't see in numbers very well, Mars is one planet out of a trillion trillion or so. Hubble is worth 16-20 times the funds used to extend Odyssey.

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-23 14:27:05

But where is it going to come from? Shaving a few mil off a project here every year, a project there for a few years, yeah... but two billion dollars? All at once?

And so quick to judge Mars missions relative to HST... why again is trying squeeze a few more years out of HST so important versus getting us to Mars?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#176 2004-08-18 15:32:43

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#177 2004-08-18 15:47:35

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#178 2004-08-18 15:56:01

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#179 2004-08-18 16:33:58

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#180 2004-08-18 16:40:44

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#181 2004-08-19 05:01:53

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#182 2004-08-19 09:02:24

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#183 2004-08-19 10:59:10

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#184 2004-08-19 12:03:49

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#185 2004-08-19 12:10:50

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#186 2004-08-19 12:20:03

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#187 2004-08-19 12:31:23

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#188 2004-08-20 02:42:00

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#189 2004-08-21 11:24:33

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#190 2004-08-21 14:37:57

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#191 2004-08-22 11:41:28

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#192 2004-08-23 05:17:06

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#193 2004-08-23 06:11:48

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#194 2004-08-23 10:40:04

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#195 2004-08-23 11:18:04

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#196 2004-08-23 11:40:53

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#197 2004-08-23 13:40:53

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#198 2004-08-23 13:59:03

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#199 2004-08-23 14:22:12

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#200 2004-08-23 14:27:05

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

Board footer