Save the Hubble

[Jim Yanik]

"Mathieu Fregeau" <mfregeau@u.washington.edu> wrote in
news:cvilae$vm0$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu:

If you can give $2 billion to NASA, they will save Hubble. Money is
the only reason why they don't do it.

No,it's the fear of another loss of a Shuttle and crew.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

[keith]

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 02:17:18 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:

"Mathieu Fregeau" <mfregeau@u.washington.edu> wrote in
news:cvilae$vm0$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu:

If you can give $2 billion to NASA, they will save Hubble. Money is
the only reason why they don't do it.

No,it's the fear of another loss of a Shuttle and crew.

Exactly. It's politics, not money. Any monitary considerations were
decided by politics *long* ago.

--
Keith

 

[Keith Williams]

In article <g7kq11142o7scaq3egfdssi90ldhavc91k@4ax.com>,
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat says...

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:48:29 -0500, the renowned keith
krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 02:17:18 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:

"Mathieu Fregeau" <mfregeau@u.washington.edu> wrote in
news:cvilae$vm0$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu:

If you can give $2 billion to NASA, they will save Hubble. Money is
the only reason why they don't do it.

No,it's the fear of another loss of a Shuttle and crew.

Exactly. It's politics, not money. Any monitary considerations were
decided by politics *long* ago.

AFAIUI, there's only a couple of shuttles left in flyable condition
(Atlantis and Discovery). Pretty much the end game on the shuttle.

What happened to Endeavour? According to NASA it's still operational.

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/resources/orbiters/orbiters.html

--
Keith

 

[Keith Williams]

In article <cvnrrq$vk2$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu>,
mfregeau@u.washington.edu says...

"Keith Williams" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c890a91af5f576b989948@news.individual.net...
In article <g7kq11142o7scaq3egfdssi90ldhavc91k@4ax.com>,
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat says...
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:48:29 -0500, the renowned keith
krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 02:17:18 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:

"Mathieu Fregeau" <mfregeau@u.washington.edu> wrote in
news:cvilae$vm0$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu:

If you can give $2 billion to NASA, they will save Hubble. Money is
the only reason why they don't do it.

No,it's the fear of another loss of a Shuttle and crew.

Exactly. It's politics, not money. Any monitary considerations were
decided by politics *long* ago.

AFAIUI, there's only a couple of shuttles left in flyable condition
(Atlantis and Discovery). Pretty much the end game on the shuttle.

What happened to Endeavour? According to NASA it's still operational.

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/resources/orbiters/orbiters.html

Yea, Endeavor, like Atlantis and Discovery, are the remaining space
shuttles. NASA has reviewed the engineering and safety issues on the
remaining space shuttles, and that's why they had delayed the space shuttle
use. Don't you follow the news?

I was simply hinting the Spehro that there were still three in the
fleet. ;-)

Those space shuttle were designed to be used and maintained until 2020, but
after the Columbia accident, they decided to stop their use by 2010 and use
a new generation (which they currently are developping). I guess they will
use the new generation until 2040 or 2050 (since the actual space shuttle
program has been in use since 1981, and by 2010 will make a 30 years
service, the new generation would be assumed to run for 30 or 40 years too).
The challenge with the new generation is to make their use less expensive.
The actual shuttle cost about $100M per mission, they want to reduce it
close to $10M per mission with the new generation. That's what a called an
engineering challenge!

I'm not sure a 10x cost reduction is possible, but that's why we have
engineers. OTOH, if NASA doesn't restrain their PHBs better than they
did during the STS development phase we'll have another platinum-plated
rusted-out truck to show for it.

--
Keith

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:43:10 -0500, the renowned Keith Williams
<krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

I was simply hinting the Spehro that there were still three in the
fleet. ;-)

And correctly so. I only saw the two mentioned slated to actually fly
on a bunch of projected missions in which the craft has been named.

Those space shuttle were designed to be used and maintained until 2020, but
after the Columbia accident, they decided to stop their use by 2010 and use
a new generation (which they currently are developping). I guess they will
use the new generation until 2040 or 2050 (since the actual space shuttle
program has been in use since 1981, and by 2010 will make a 30 years
service, the new generation would be assumed to run for 30 or 40 years too).
The challenge with the new generation is to make their use less expensive.
The actual shuttle cost about $100M per mission, they want to reduce it
close to $10M per mission with the new generation. That's what a called an
engineering challenge!

I'm not sure a 10x cost reduction is possible, but that's why we have
engineers.

Don't forget accountants.

OTOH, if NASA doesn't restrain their PHBs better than they
did during the STS development phase we'll have another platinum-plated
rusted-out truck to show for it.

Is there actually a need for enough flights to amortize development
costs? I'd imagine at (say) one flight a week the economics would look
radically different from a couple of flights a year.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 10:45:28 -0800, "Mathieu Fregeau"
<mfregeau@u.washington.edu> wrote:

Those space shuttle were designed to be used and maintained until 2020, but
after the Columbia accident, they decided to stop their use by 2010 and use
a new generation (which they currently are developping). I guess they will
use the new generation until 2040 or 2050 (since the actual space shuttle
program has been in use since 1981, and by 2010 will make a 30 years
service, the new generation would be assumed to run for 30 or 40 years too).
The challenge with the new generation is to make their use less expensive.
The actual shuttle cost about $100M per mission, they want to reduce it
close to $10M per mission with the new generation. That's what a called an
engineering challenge!

The real challenge is to find a use for the damned death-traps.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 17:43:20 +0000, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote (in
pan.2005.02.26.16.23.05.275309@att.bizzzz&gt about 'Save the Hubble', on
Sat, 26 Feb 2005:

As these things often turn out, it's a guilded lilly

It's a female member of a trade union?

Or a high-class brazen hussy?

John

 

[Rich The Newsgropup Wacko]

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 11:04:29 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 17:43:20 +0000, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote (in
pan.2005.02.26.16.23.05.275309@att.bizzzz&gt about 'Save the Hubble', on
Sat, 26 Feb 2005:

As these things often turn out, it's a guilded lilly

It's a female member of a trade union?


Or a high-class brazen hussy?

More like "Lilly Does the Union". ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[keith]

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 19:09:01 +0000, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin@highTHIS
landPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote (in <uvh121daaksfn11fc7dikluf17u9160abl@
4ax.com&gt about 'Save the Hubble', on Sat, 26 Feb 2005:
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 17:43:20 +0000, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote (in
pan.2005.02.26.16.23.05.275309@att.bizzzz&gt about 'Save the Hubble', on
Sat, 26 Feb 2005:

As these things often turn out, it's a guilded lilly

It's a female member of a trade union?


Or a high-class brazen hussy?

That would assume a spelling mistake, which I'm sure the OP would never
make.

The OP might not, but I'm quite capable of it. ;-)

....and PAN doesn't have a speel checker, not that it would have caught
that one. :-(

--
Keith