Wayne Hale concerned about 2010 deadline for ISS ??

[radarredux]

Does anyone have more details? The MSNBC article seems to imply that if the current foam problem delays the next mission, NASA may not be able to complete ISS before 2010.<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Because of logistics, any delay in the October mission could wind up delaying launches set for December and February, Hale said. And that could ultimately prevent NASA from meeting its 2010 deadline for completing construction of the international space station.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20429732/

 

[askold]

It is disconcerting - they say they have things under control, then they find another problem.<br /><br />After the close call with Endeavor, they're bound to be extra cautious - that could easily spell schedule problems.

 

[kdavis007]

I think NASA should scrap the Hubble servicing mission...

 

[docm]

So do I. Telescopes like Spitzer, Compton, Chandra etc. can be launched for for less than the <i>true</i> cost of a servicing mission on ELV's. <br /><br />That Marshall has for several years been working on mirror materials 10-100 times lighter per sq/meter than Hubbles mirror just strengthens that opinion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bobblebob]

If it means they can fit another ISS mission in (which maybe needed), then yeah they should scrap it.<br /><br />Still would be good to see a Hubble service mission tho

 

[kdavis007]

There also is the James Webb Telescope..

 

[MeteorWayne]

Which has nothing to do with the STS, since that will be in an orbit inaccessible by the STS, and will be deplyed after the STS is decommisioned. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[docm]

I think kdavis007 was talking about JWST covering some of Hubbles functionality not its serviceability. It's not optical, but that's not where the bleeding edges of astronomy are right now. Those are IR, UV and gamma ray and JWST covers the IR portion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Perhaps you are right.<br />I was sticking a little closer (though not totally on target) to the original topic.<br /><br />No biggie. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[dragon04]

Are the shuttles being recycled at an "as fast as possible" pace to meet the proposed launch schedule?<br /><br />If so, any delays in the launch schedule will screw the ISS Pooch. <br /><br />Furthermore, what's the general feel about even delaying launches to deal with the foam issue?<br /><br />If the schedule is too tight as is, a Hubble servicing mission might have to be cancelled if it comes down to picking and choosing.<br /><br />Here's a thought from left field.... Why not buy a couple Soyuz launches? Send a crew up in one, and tools and equipment in the other like they do with the supply ships to the ISS?<br /><br />I'd assume that the crew would only need a day or two to do a Hubble refit, and then de-orbit. The crew ship and the freighter could dock near Hubble and get the job done? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

I could be wrong, but I don't believe spare Soyuz are any more available than spare Orbiters. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[askold]

I'd love to see that - have the Russians fix Hubble with a 40-year-old clunker because NASA can't.

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Why not buy a couple Soyuz launches? Send a crew up in one, and tools and equipment in the other like they do with the supply ships to the ISS? "<br /><br />Not viable<br />1. The Soyuz can't support the number of EVA's required (4 -two man)<br />2. The Soyuz can't support the current EVA suits<br />3. Soyuz or Progress can't dock with HST,<br />3a. Different Adapter<br />3.b. No cooperative rendezvous sensors<br />3. c. The thrusters would contaminate the HST<br />3.D The docking forces are too large<br />4. The Soyuz or Progress doesn't have an arm to support the EVA's<br />5. The replacement components are too large for the Progress<br />6. Too high an orbit for Soyuz or Progress<br />

 

[jimfromnsf]

"I'd love to see that - have the Russians fix Hubble with a 40-year-old clunker because NASA can't."<br /><br />HST doesn't need "fixing" It is just a mission to extend its life and change out sensors. <br /><br /><br />

 

[nimbus]

Haven't a couple of instruments stopped working recently? Were they supposed to fail? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

<font color="yellow">HST doesn't need "fixing" It is just a mission to extend its life and change out sensors. </font><br /><br />Doublespeak.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Def: fix <br /><br />To restore to sound condition<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />As noted by Nimbus Hubble needs the replacement of defective parts. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Yes of course. They were designed to fail.<br /><br />Sheesh<br /><br />C'mon, stuff is designed to last long enough to meet the design objective.<br /><br />Almost all NASA/JPL,ESA,JAXA, etc equipment lasts many times longer than the design objective, while still meeting the specified budget.<br />That goes for most of HST as well, AFAIK, I'll research the design specs.<br /><br />Yes there has been an irrevocable failure, which should weigh in on the cost/benefit value of any upcoming mission.<br /><br />Still, most equipment exceeds reasonable expectations for the price.<br /><br />Remember those 30 day Mars rovers? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

"I think NASA should scrap the Hubble servicing mission..."<br /><br />Can the HTS be de-orbited safely without someone bolting on some thrusters? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[solarspot]

"Can the HTS be de-orbited safely without someone bolting on some thrusters?"<br /><br />Yes it can, IIRC. Just wait untill 2013 or so and it's orbit will decay naturally. The chances of ANY Hubble debris doing damage on the ground is tediously small, and quite frankly not worth hundreds of millions of dollars to fix.<br /><br />My personal opinion is that HST should just be left to operate in space for as long as it lasts, using every instrument that still works. STS can then dedicate every future flight to the ISS...<br /><br /><br />

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Can the HTS be de-orbited safely without someone bolting on some thrusters?"<br /><br />Actually, No. decaying naturally is not safely, since large components (mirror, gyros, etc) will survive.

 

[nimbus]

There's a few rules of thumb that I follow in this forum, and one of the first is to assume as little as I can. As obvious as it seemed, I had to ask. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[askold]

"My personal opinion is that HST should just be left to operate in space for as long as it lasts, using every instrument that still works. STS can then dedicate every future flight to the ISS... "<br /><br />Because .... what? ISS has produced scientific breaktroughs? More so than Hubble?<br /><br />Can you justify this?

 

[thereiwas]

Using actual science performed as a basis for mission survival, it is the <i>ISS</i> that should be scrapped and the Hubble maintained and improved, not the other way around. A lot cheaper too.

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Remember those 30 day Mars rovers?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Er, I think you mean the 90-day MER's, though your point is still well made. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[solarspot]

"Because .... what? ISS has produced scientific breakthroughs? More so than Hubble?"<br /><br />No. It is the other way around on previous accomplishments. But would I have canceled HST before it was launched on the basis it hadn't yet produced any scientific information? I would fund HST because it would later achieve (well... assist in) scientific breakthroughs. HST has now done a huge amount for the scientific community. However to extend that much beyond 2011 to 2013 (it's expected end of life / orbit) would cost an enormous amount, which I (personally) believe would not be worth any scientific achievements that would be enabled by such a servicing mission. The sentimental thing to do would be to repair it, give it some sort of an 'honorable end'. From the perspective of maximum scientific return per unit of money from now on (ignoring past accomplishments), the funds saved by not servicing HST would be better spent on some other project. ISS has not yet been proven or disproven. I would not increase or decrease it's planned funding before 2016. If the servicing mission is canceled, the shuttle program can shut down 1 flight earlier, saving enough funds to (optimistically) ensure future scientific missions are not a repeat of the '99 mars missions...<br /><br />That is my (albeit personal) justification for wanting the servicing mission canceled. Oh and (to not hog posts) Jim, what was the predicted likelihood of Hubble debris damaging something or hurting someone on the ground? IIRC, it was not much worse than the chance of being injured in a car crash in any given year. Hardly worth 500+ million USD to prevent something equivalent to a car crash...<br /><br /><br />