Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

clark · 2004-03-10 14:56:48

And I am asking, did CAIB ever consider using a Kouru based Soyuz as an alternative to the 2nd orbiter; or
carrying a Soyuz DM in the payload bay.

Probably not, it dosen't look like it to me. [shrug] I don't know.

If I had to guess though, it's a non-starter in the current politcal situation (which may change soon, and with it, the options available). Remember, Uncle Sam can't purchase Soyuz from Cousin Lenin becuase he sells fireworks to Brother Imam. (Iran non-proliferation treaty prevents purchase of russian Soyuz). So, no, it's not a current option because it's not available as an option to be considered.

And Cindy, wonder all you want. I don't care anymore. You obviously refuse to address any issues i bring up, and instead look for a quick and easy out to dismiss my objections on wholly emotional or personal grounds.

So yeah, I hate Zubrin, that's why I disagree. That MUST be it, because everything I have been saying makes absolutely no sense what so ever. Sharp, very sharp.

Bill White · 2004-03-10 15:17:36

And I am asking, did CAIB ever consider using a Kouru based Soyuz as an alternative to the 2nd orbiter; or
carrying a Soyuz DM in the payload bay.
Probably not, it dosen't look like it to me. [shrug] I don't know.
If I had to guess though, it's a non-starter in the current politcal situation (which may change soon, and with it, the options available). Remember, Uncle Sam can't purchase Soyuz from Cousin Lenin becuase he sells fireworks to Brother Imam. (Iran non-proliferation treaty prevents purchase of russian Soyuz). So, no, it's not a current option because it's not available as an option to be considered.

I agree, except to point out that I read somewhere recently that published NASA documents omit any suggestions of use of Soyuz for future service to ISS while internal NASA documents (that balance to the penny with the public ones) include specific line item allocations for Soyuz payments.

The leak of those documents did cause some embarassment.

It all about credibility.

Unless O'Keefe does a better job of winning credibility (on both sides of the aisle, Dem and GOP) the space vision you propose to trade Hubble for just won't happen or won't survive the next new President anyway. So we traded Hubble away, for what? The Moon on a Christmas list that might never get filled?

Its all about credibility.

By pushing the "safe haven" argument O'Keefe undermines his credibility just as pushing the WMD and 9/11 connection undermined the credibility of Saddam regime change. Even though Saddam regime change is still a good thing.

clark, I am more sympathetic than many for the idea that we may need to sacrifice Hubble to get going beyond LEO. Yet O'Keefe simply can't seem to make the case for the Bush vision in a persuasive manner.

So why sacrifice Hubble when the guy probably won't deliver on the rest of the vision anyway? If O'Keefe can deliver the rest of the vision, then he can defeat Zubrin in a fair and open debate not premised on fait accompli.

clark · 2004-03-10 15:59:22

How can we expect O'Keefe to make any kind of real argument while he is waiting for the results of the Space Commission? They are the ones trying to develop a coherent policy to make the Bush Space Plan work, and O'Keefe undercuts them if he starts make decisions that run counter to their reccomendations, or their focus.

The Shuttle needs to finish the ISS. The Shuttle dosen't need to fix Hubble.

clark · 2004-03-11 21:57:43

[http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=13824]Mikulski Questions NASA Administrator on Decision to Cancel Hubble Servicing Mission

Washington, D.C. - At today's hearing of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee that funds NASA, Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD) questioned NASA Administrator O'Keefe about his decision, announced earlier this year, to cancel the final servicing mission for the Hubble Space Telescope.

At today's hearing, Mikulski released an initial review of the safety issues related to a servicing mission prepared by Admiral Harold Gehman, chair of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB). Administrator O'Keefe asked Admiral Gehman for this review at the request of Senator Mikulski. Admiral Gehman's findings are contained in a five page letter (attached). Key points of the letter are:
"Shuttle flights are dangerous and we should fly the minimum number necessary. Almost all the risk is concentrated in the front and back of the mission, where one goes on orbit makes little difference."
"In our view, missions to the ISS [International Space Station] allowed a more complete and robust inspection and repair capability to be developed. However, knowing that there are situations where docking to the ISS may not occur, we [the CAIB] required that ultimately NASA must develop an autonomous on orbit inspection and repair capability. Very frankly, we called for a less technically challenging inspection and repair capability, by stating: "For non-Station missions, develop a comprehensive autonomous (independent of Station) inspection and repair capability to cover the widest possible range of damage scenarios."
"The CAIB allowed more latitude in complying with our recommendations for non-missions, which may be slightly more risky, taking into account only the debris shedding threat to the Orbiter."
"I suggest only a deep and rich study of the entire gain/risk equation can answer the question of whether an extension of the life of the wonderful Hubble telescope is worth the risks involved, and that is beyond the scope of this letter."

In response to this analysis, Senator Mikulski is requesting additional research and analysis from the National Academy of Sciences and the General Accounting Office (letters attached).
"I want to thank Administrator O'Keefe for agreeing to seek a second opinion. I also want to thank Admiral Gehman for his efforts. While he finds that a shuttle mission to Hubble is "slightly riskier" than a mission to the Space Station, he also notes that "only a deep and rich study of the entire gain/risk equation can answer the question of whether an extension of the life of the wonderful Hubble telescope is worth the risks involved." I wholeheartedly agree. That's why I am asking the National Academy of Sciences and General Accounting Office for further study and analysis," said Mikulski

Now my question, if the National Academy of Sciences, and the General Accounting Office complete their studies, and both show that saving Hubble is not worth the risk, will those who support saving Hubble at-all-costs, reconsider their position?

Mikulski originally requested that O'Keefe get a 'second opinion', which he did by requesting Admiral Gehman, the leader of the CAIB team, to weigh in. It was then later that media on this story grew, and Mikulski was quoted as saying she would not just stop with a 'second opinion' if it meant the same diagnosis.

Will it stop with a third and fourth? How many people, and which people, need to make the same decision?

I take no joy in seeing the end of Hubble. I look at the same pictures everyone else does, and I can't help but be moved. I think the Hubble has done wonders for the space community becuase it provides a very direct means of experiencing space in some form. But I think I am more willing to see it pass, and for us to move onto greater challenges, and broader horzions.

There will be more telescopes. Not the Hubble, but people will want something like the Hubble because we have aquired a taste for it. Think of the grand sights waiting to be seen from the dark side of the moon- or dozens of telecopes at the L1 or L2 points, imaging earth sized worlds lightyears away...

All of that waits for us. Let's go.

Bill White · 2004-03-11 22:36:25

"I suggest only a deep and rich study of the entire gain/risk equation can answer the question of whether an extension of the life of the wonderful Hubble telescope is worth the risks involved, and that is beyond the scope of this letter."

At the end of the day, this is a political question, not appropriately decided solely within the executive branch of government.

clark · 2004-03-11 23:01:29

A politcal question? So we're risking astronauts lives for politcs. Yeah, okay, unfair. We could look at this as a decision that is best handled by Congress, or we could also suggest that it's a politcally sensitive issue, and that our overall best interests are better served in coming to a decision in a non-politcal manner.

I'm all for having the head count on our Legistlators, knowing if they voted aye, or neigh, for this or that law or proclamation. But sometimes, I also think it serves out interest when they make some back-room deals, or when they work on agreements without recording what was said, or by whom. It can be a bit more honest that way becuase they don't have to worry (or have an opportunity) about grandstanding.

I don't mind some more opinions on this matter. I think we are all best served if this is discussed at length. Hubble is important enough to warrant this kind of concern. However, I think we should retire the Shuttle post-haste, and so I see this issue as more of an obstacle to that goal.

RobS · 2004-03-11 23:21:38

I think it is very clever and intelligent, politically, for the Mars Society to support Hubble:

1. It demonstrates the Society is not single issue, which builds alliances and makes friends.

2. It brings additional media attention that focusing just on Mars cannot.

3. It highlights the issue of being excessively risk adverse. If it is marginally more dangerous to fly to Hubble than ISS, how much more dangerous is it to fly to Mars than to ISS?

4. It makes friends among an interesting group. Somewhere I saw that the Mars Society was building its case on documents *leaked to the Society by NASA engineers.* When NASA engineers take us so seriously that they use the Mars Society as a medium against NASA, that makes the Mars Society important.

5. It sounds like some of the safety argument is bogus; the delta-v to Hubble is less than to ISS, the main engines thus will fire less, and the shuttle main engines are probably the most dangerous part of the vehicle left (assuming the O-rings and shedding foam are fixed!). The Hubble mission is really being scrubbed because NASA can't fly enough missions to ISS between now and 2010. They should say that and not stress possibly bogus safety issues that undermine their credibility.

6. Zubrin's other argument is interesting; Hubble is the only science left to the shuttle, since ISS isn't going to yield any. So they are canceling the only science left in order to build a white elephant. Better off scaling back the white elephant and preserving the science. Again, this is a question of principle--spend money for good reasons, not bad--and therefore an issue of NASA credibility.

In a sense, the Mars Society's argument is actually for the good of NASA.

-- RobS

clark · 2004-03-11 23:45:34

That is a very intelligent, and thoughtful answer Rob, it goes a long ways towards explaining the Mars Societies interest, and involvement with the Hubble decision.

Creating alliances is a good thing, and I hope that the space community at large is working on building those bridges on more issues other than Hubble. The problem though is that astronmers, by and large, have not been big proponenants of human space exploration. That type of space exploration actually undercuts their ability to do a lot of what they want. As is pointed out, Hubble is largely dying becuase the Bush Space Policy calls for an emphasis on new human exploration. Will this effort really be rewarded later? I hope so, but part of me just thinks when push comes to shove, people worry more about their budgets, and their pocket book, than which group helped them with an old telescope.

As for additional media attention, that's usually a good thing. Bad press is still good press, right? But what is being said? How is it being presented? Are we having a debate, or a circus? From where I'm sitting, I'm hearing a lot of sound bites and rabble rousing, and very little discussion on the actual merits of any decision. It's becoming polarized, and that is never a good thing.

I think this does highlight our aversion to risk, but let me ask you, is it right to ask some brave peopel to risk their lives unneccessarily? The fireman could save the cat from the burning building, but do we really want him to? We lost seven astronauts on their way home, after a routine flight of seven days. I don't want NASA to name any more hills on any planet, anymore. Wishful thinking, but I can hope they try to stave off the eventual for as long as possible.

There is still science to do, and there is still science left for the Shuttle to do. It's just different, and with a different 'goal' in mind. The Shuttle was never very good at science to begin with, so we're not really losing all that much.

We can think of all these different ways to finish the ISS, why can't we use the same energy to figure out a different way to save the Hubble? Why must it be the Shuttle? That's what NASA has said no to, using the Shuttle.

Come on, there's some bright people here, somebody must have some ideas.

Bill White · 2004-03-12 08:49:56

Well done, RobS. I agree with you.

The Hubble mission is really being scrubbed because NASA can't fly enough missions to ISS between now and 2010. They should say that and not stress possibly bogus safety issues that undermine their credibility.

This has been the point I have been trying to hammer, yet RobS shows there is much much more.

= = =

OKeefes [http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation … ews-nation]latest comments.

John Creighton · 2004-03-12 11:00:41

I never had much problem with the mars society supporting the hubble in there statement about the presidents new space policy. However, I am not convinced that saving the Hubble is the right thing to do. I heard somewhere that the added risk of not finishing the ISS because of a shuttle service mission is 1/25. What did the ISS cost to build? Say 100 billion dollars. Thus if the international space station had zero salvage value, the average cost would be 100 billion divided by 25 plus, 1 billion for the shuttle mission plus what ever the average cost is of loosing the shuttle. That comes to an average cost of more then 26 billion dollars (Half the cost of a mission to mars) and we are not even considering the cost to human life. Is this really less costly then building a bran new telescope?

For these reasons, I am not convinced saving the Hubble is the right thing to do. Zubrin is allowed to have an opinion. It is too bad he can?t offer my a better rational then, ?A Crime Against Civilization?, AKA ?A Crime against Humanity. Come on, forget the fact that he represents us?..is this really appropriate behavior for anyone?

BTW ROB S you make a very good case. It is too bad that Zubrin isn?t doing the same. Vote RobS for steering comity.

Bill White · 2004-03-12 12:05:37

I never had much problem with the mars society supporting the hubble in there statement about the presidents new space policy. However, I am not convinced that saving the Hubble is the right thing to do. I heard somewhere that the added risk of not finishing the ISS because of a shuttle service mission is 1/25. What did the ISS cost to build? Say 100 billion dollars. Thus if the international space station had zero salvage value, the average cost would be 100 billion divided by 25 plus, 1 billion for the shuttle mission plus what ever the average cost is of loosing the shuttle. That comes to an average cost of more then 26 billion dollars (Half the cost of a mission to mars) and we are not even considering the cost to human life. Is this really less costly then building a bran new telescope?
For these reasons, I am not convinced saving the Hubble is the right thing to do. Zubrin is allowed to have an opinion. It is too bad he can?t offer my a better rational then, ?A Crime Against Civilization?, AKA ?A Crime against Humanity. Come on, forget the fact that he represents us?..is this really appropriate behavior for anyone?
BTW ROB S you make a very good case. It is too bad that Zubrin isn?t doing the same. Vote RobS for steering comity.

John, this is exactly why I favor immediate efforts to deploy shuttle C, which can carry 3 ISS payloads by weight and 2 ISS payloads by volume. 1 orbiter flight docks with 1 shuttle C while on orbit and then delivers three ISS payloads to the ISS. 8 orbiters + 8 shuttle C = 24 ISS payload missions.

Use RS-68 engines rather than SSMEs and add basic station keeping attitude control but no "last mile" guidance for shuttle C. These shuttle C avionics are salvaged and brought down in the orbiter payload bay, if cost effective to do so.

If the orbiter is too fragile to service Hubble, then its too fragile to carry 25 ISS payloads. If 1 Hubble mission risks ISS completion due to loss of an orbiter, why isn't it far better to eliminate 16 orbiter missions by using shuttle C? Given the recent speed brake issue and the potential for another 9 month delay after March 2005 for orbiter return to flight, I wonder what else might be wrong with orbiter than is not yet publicized.

I have read that aging wiring is another orbiter issue not yet addressed. What if 2008 or 2009 comes and orbiter is grounded again after 9 or maybe 11 ISS payload missions are flown of the needed 25?

How much money will we have spent doing nothing?

Besides, as I have argued elsewhere, flying shuttle C within the STS / ISS budget gives us a "2 for 1" deal as we end up with new capabilities at no additional cost.

= = =

Edit: If the 9 month speed brake delay proves real, we have at least 2 more years, from today, before ISS payload missions begin in earnest. If 3 or 4 orbiter missions are flown before shuttle C goes operational, that gives us three years to deploy shuttle C and still be very useful for ISS completion.

And don't forget, JIMO (the star platform for Prometheus) may well need shuttle derived in any event.

Why not leverage all of NASA's projects for maximum synergy rather than minimum synergy?

= = =

2nd Edit: [http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/56670main_HSM_C … epaper.pdf]NASA White Paper on the Hubble decision. Read page 3 concerning rescue options.

Soyuz from Kouru seems a plausible alternative, until someone tells me why it would not work - - if Hubble can survive until 2007. As far as man-rating Kouru, an R-7 launch vehicle is an R-7 launch vehicle. We may need to joint venture with the ESA for a few extra upgrades yet manned flights from Kouru open up a whole new world of potential joint ESA/RSA-NASA missions.

Use shuttle C to launch a large uncrewed lunar exploration craft and send up crew in Soyuz BEFORE the CEV gets man-rated in 2014 or 2015.

John Creighton · 2004-03-12 13:01:48

Bill, your idea sounds very good. Unfortunately, I don?t know much about the shuttle C. How quickly can one be deployed, what are the development costs? I really like the idea of launching other payloads at the same time of the shuttle, so that more components can get assembled each shuttle mission. Unfortunately, I don?t know how long the shuttle can stay in space, how long the crew can work effectively in assembling the space station before returning to earth and how long each component will take to assemble. If your approach is the best course of action, I hope NASA implements it soon.

BTW if we finish the ISS ahead shedual by such a sceam, I am all in favor of sending one last shuttle mission to service the Hubble.

clark · 2004-03-12 13:12:21

And as John points out, which I agree with, is that an SDV option is sensible, but there are a lot of unknowns with the plan. We have some paper and equations that say we can do this, but it was paper and equations that said the Shuttle would do everything too. The end result though was something remarkably different.

We do need to finish the ISS. We need to be sure that we can finish it. Not being able to is not neccessarily a disaster, but it puts us at a disadvantage later when we try for international cooperation for our future plans.

If we armchair quaterbacks can see the value to this scheme, then I think some NASA types can see it as well. But an SDV dosen't really solve the Hubble servicing issue. We still need those few Shuttle missions to the ISS while working on an SDV concept. We need cost savings somewhere to start development of the SDV while still staying on some sort of schedule to complete the ISS.

And we need to do this all before 2010. After 2010, we have to recertify the Shuttle fleet- a multi billion dollar proposition that is nothing but waste.

Bill White · 2004-03-12 13:25:07

John, here is the best single link I have found. Pretty pictures, also.

[http://www.nsschapters.org/ny/nyc/Shutt … dified.pdf]http://www.nsschapters.org/ny....ied.pdf

= = =

clark, if shuttle flies by Spring 2008, we fly

3 missions in 2008 (3 C + 3 orbiter)
3 missions in 2009 (3 C + 3 orbiter)
2 missions in 2010 (2 C + 2 orbiter)

ISS complete! And on schedule with a 2/3 less chance of an orbiter catastrophe terminating ISS. 8 missions instead of 24.

= = =

My biggest problem with Hubble is NOT Hubble itself. Its being told we can not save Hubble because we need to finish ISS when the plan on the table to finish ISS very probably will not work anyways.

If ISS can not be finished by orbiter then why sacrifice Hubble for another mission we cannot accomplish anyway?

clark · 2004-03-12 13:34:23

clark, if shuttle flies by Spring 2008, we fly

If all goes according to plan...

Your timeline would automatically preclude any possibility of a Shuttle mission to Hubble (topic matter, afterall).

I think it is a good plan. I think others must see the value of this plan. But this plan kills Hubble.

Both plans kill Hubble. That's the argument that needs to be made, and that's the argument that the Mars Society should be making. If the decision is to kill Hubble becuase of the risk of using the Shuttle, then how practical is it to expect that the Shuttle will complete it's mission to construct the ISS. There is a definite need for a replacement of the Shuttle as soon as possible, and a replacement that allows for the seperation of human and cargo launches. This will further ensure the success of future exploration plans by NASA, which the Mars Society endorses. The decision to retire the Hubble by not going through with the final Servicing Mission highlights the weakness of the plan to finish the ISS, and points to where NASA should be focusing more energy.

It shouldn't be about Hubble, it should be about the Shuttle. The Mars Society is being led down the wrong path.

Bill White · 2004-03-12 13:51:06

clark, if shuttle flies by Spring 2008, we fly
If all goes according to plan...
Your timeline would automatically preclude any possibility of a Shuttle mission to Hubble (topic matter, afterall).
I think it is a good plan. I think others must see the value of this plan. But this plan kills Hubble.
Both plans kill Hubble. That's the argument that needs to be made, and that's the argument that the Mars Society should be making. If the decision is to kill Hubble becuase of the risk of using the Shuttle, then how practical is it to expect that the Shuttle will complete it's mission to construct the ISS. There is a definite need for a replacement of the Shuttle as soon as possible, and a replacement that allows for the seperation of human and cargo launches. This will further ensure the success of future exploration plans by NASA, which the Mars Society endorses. The decision to retire the Hubble by not going through with the final Servicing Mission highlights the weakness of the plan to finish the ISS, and points to where NASA should be focusing more energy.
It shouldn't be about Hubble, it should be about the Shuttle. The Mars Society is being led down the wrong path.

Perhaps - yet just as RobS is being praised for making better arguments than Zubrin you need to be praised for making better arguments than OKeefe.

OKeefe says it all about astronaut safety - - its fundamentally irresponsible to send up people in the orbiter to do SM4 - - as you and I know this is somewhat disingenuous and designed for emotional appeal to the public and if SM4 is fundamentally irresponsible why is there a bright line between 1 SM4 mission and 24 ISS missions?

The odds of losing crew on any 1 of 24 ISS missions seems far more likely than the odds of losing crew on 1 Hubble mission. So, why arent these ISS completion missions fundamentally irresponsible as well?

Zubrin cannot allow this fundamentally irresponsible rationale to stand or the moon and Mars are off the table. Period. Despite budget forecasts and engineering drawings.

Why wasnt Apollo 11 fundamentally irresponsible? Did America just get lucky with Apollo with a series of missions that were fundamentally irresponsible?

Intuition (male intuition, I confess) tells me NASA is scared to death they cannot make the orbiter safe, period. Not just for Hubble, but for ISS as well.

If NASA admits that that 8 orbiter flights are far safer than 24 and we need shuttle C to finish ISS then the credibility of cancelling SM4 goes way up, at least IMHO.

Bill White · 2004-03-12 13:56:19

Your timeline would automatically preclude any possibility of a Shuttle mission to Hubble (topic matter, afterall).

With an operational shuttle C, two orbiters can finish ISS by 2011. With an operational shuttle C, an ISS robotic arm and conversion of a Progress to space tug, ISS can be completed without ANY orbiters.

Progress docks with the on orbit C payload and pushes it to ISS. The only Progress payload is additional fuel.

Besides, I am very interested in looking at what is needed to space harden an orbiter. Then strip off the tiles and clip her wings and she goes to ISS, never to return. That robot arm on a mobile platform would be awesome.

clark · 2004-03-12 14:11:27

I wonder what the international fallout might be if NASA says, "Houston, we have a problem."

Wouldn't we be liable to our partners for any economic costs associated with delaying construction of the ISS? I agree, lose some face, move on. But your and my ability to accept the cost of this might not be shared by those closer to the issue.

NASA might be more inclined to admit something like this if the issue was presented as such. But right now, it isn't. It's being made about sending the Shuttle to Hubble. Not that the Shuttle is unfit to do anything.

Even with a service mission to Hubble, we are no closer to Mars, no closer to our waiting future. I wish deeply for others to understand this.

We have a plan to get people into space sometime in the future, but we lack a coherent plan to get the cargo we need to do things there. EELV ain't going to do it all. As you pointed out Bill, Prometheus and some of the future probes will more than likely need some type of HLLV SDV variant.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink... perhaps this is NASA's way of getting congressional buy-in to develop an SDV and retire the Shuttle. Afterall, there were reports saying the intial plan was to retire the Shuttle immediately...

Bill White · 2004-03-12 14:31:52

Calling Bart Gordon and Sherwood Boehlert. . .

Maybe the greatest legacy of January 15th won't be that President Bush is the man to lead space advocates to the promised land, maybe he merely handed us an open microphone and said: "Okay guys, you carry the torch, or not."

clark · 2004-03-12 14:43:49

The problem with following Bush is that you never end up finding what you were looking for to begin with. :laugh:

Bill White · 2004-03-17 07:57:46

The opinion of astronaut Walter Cunningham is [http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mp … ok/2452710]here.

Josh Cryer · 2004-03-17 09:55:40

Also, Tyson, with the "Aldridge Comission" (Bush's space initiative) has some misgivings about public opinion with regards to Hubble. I think it's a pretty insightful comment from him.

Hubble, Tyson argued, has provided ?buoyant sustenance? for the agency in the arena of public opinion. ?To say we?re not going to fix it, I think, is treating your support more lightly than it deserves to be treated,? he warned. ?I worry about the fallout from that effect because the public is fickle.?

This is said on the second page of Bill's recent Space Review link (the first page is also an interesting read, so go read it too if you're curious): [http://www.thespacereview.com/article/116/2]http://www.thespacereview.com/article/116/2

Mundaka · 2004-03-20 16:48:34

clark · 2004-03-22 06:55:33

Here is an interesting op/ed on space ref, it primarily counters some claims made by Jeff Bell:

[http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=938]http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=938

Jeff Bell and the Legions of Doom

Dr. Bell does go on to build a strawman model of the requirements for the CEV that exist nowhere except in his desire to trash an effort that is yet to begin. The Aldridge commission has not made their report and even internally at NASA there are two wildly divergent architectures under consideration, one based upon constructing the elements at the International Space Station based upon EELV flights and one based upon launching the elements on a Shuttle derived HLLV that would bypass ISS for an Apollo style architecture. No where are either of these models codified in NASA plans or policies.

Dr. Bell does make a valid point about the cost of an HLLV system, even one based upon the Shuttle elements. He is also right that NASA seems to be moving in this direction.

Dr. Bell uses the Jupiter Icy Moon Orbiter (JIMO) mission as one of his straws to show the danger from orbital debris and how NASA is unwilling to risk it's nuclear mission starting in LEO for that reason. Dr. Bell is dead wrong there. I have seen the NASA program documents about JIMO and the reason that they don't want to start in LEO is that the propulsion system of JIMO would take 2.5 years to climb out of Earth orbit and NASA's estimate of total radiation dose is 17 mega-rads versus 20 mega-rads in Jupiter orbit. This would require huge increases in shielding and it is clear that NASA's own numbers show that the radiation does is similar in both places as opposed to Dr. Bell's conjecture. It is also clear that the HLLV crowd at NASA is trying to use this issue to force the NASA administrator to sign on to the Shuttle C but there are solutions to this problem that do not require Shuttle C or long periods of time in the Van Allen belts.

While I don't neccessarily agree with all of the statements or rebuttals made, I find some of this information interesting. If nothing else, SDV is getting a hearing.

Of course, this really dosen't have much to do with Hubble, but what do you do?

Bill White · 2004-03-22 09:37:13

Actually, clark, it has everything to do with Hubble.

The problem is credibility. Jeff Bell scores points because the Administration is behind the curve on the PR front. Why?

Jeff Foust has a great piece on this:

[http://www.thespacereview.com/article/118/1]http://www.thespacereview.com/article/118/1

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-03-10 14:56:48

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#27 2004-03-10 15:17:36

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#28 2004-03-10 15:59:22

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#29 2004-03-11 21:57:43

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#30 2004-03-11 22:36:25

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#31 2004-03-11 23:01:29

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#32 2004-03-11 23:21:38

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#33 2004-03-11 23:45:34

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#34 2004-03-12 08:49:56

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#35 2004-03-12 11:00:41

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#36 2004-03-12 12:05:37

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#37 2004-03-12 13:01:48

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#38 2004-03-12 13:12:21

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#39 2004-03-12 13:25:07

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#40 2004-03-12 13:34:23

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#41 2004-03-12 13:51:06

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#42 2004-03-12 13:56:19

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#43 2004-03-12 14:11:27

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#44 2004-03-12 14:31:52

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#45 2004-03-12 14:43:49

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#46 2004-03-17 07:57:46

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#47 2004-03-17 09:55:40

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#48 2004-03-20 16:48:34

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#49 2004-03-22 06:55:33

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#50 2004-03-22 09:37:13

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

Board footer