OT What is the big deal about Hubble danger?

Page 3 of 3  


could appoint him SecDef. Brilliant. His lectures on the subject are also very entertaining. If he had been able to get his stuff in before Iraq, part deux. Would have had a much better force structure for what we faced. The Cliff Notes version is at http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people5/Barnett/barnett-con0.html

--
"Distracting a politician from governing
is like distracting a bear from eating your baby."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt Ullman wrote:

Yep. I got a kick out his assignment to devise a 50-year strategy for the Navy. After a month of work with a couple dozen flag officers, they gave up and the officers returned to their commands. Barnett and his small staff started over.
He looked at the first PowerPoint slide: "The mission of the United States Navy is to gain control of the world's sea lanes." Then it hit him. The first slide - and all that followed - were WRONG.
The goal of the United States Navy is not to "gain" control of the world's sea lanes - the goal of the Navy is to MAINTAIN control of the world's sea lanes. No other nation can project force like the U.S. Heck, the U.S. Coast Guard is larger than any other country's navy!
We've got planes that can take off from Minot, South Dakota, or Missouri, fly to any point on the globe drop 25 tons of precision munitions, and return to base. In WW2 it was multiple sorties per target; today it is multiple targets per sortie. We've 24 aircraft carriers, twelve Nimitz-class (each with 60-75 aircraft). There are twelve teeny carriers in the rest of the world (Russia has one carrier approaching the Nimitz class).
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No need to worry about that. Obama has the whole program under review with the goal to accelerate and exapnd it. The administration is talking about manned missions back to the moon and going to Mars.

The Obama solution to the "financial crisis" is to spend sums unthinkable just a year ago on a whole host of things we can't pay for. Expanding the space program fits right in. As one small example of the reckless spending going on, the govt is planning on spending $60mil for a memorial park in PA where the United 911 flight crashed. If you can justify that, surely you can justify anything.

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

You're confusing campaign promises with reality.
"[May 7th] Plans for NASA to send humans back to the moon might be in jeopardy. President Barack Obama's administration today called for an independent review of NASA's human space flight activities."
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId ‘32692&intsrc=news_ts_head

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, Obama called for an independent review and we don't know exactly what that will bring. But nothing in that suggests a cutback or moving away from manned flight. Obama's actual actions regarding NASA go beyond what he said as a candidate. His first budget from a couple months ago, increased NASA funding to $18.7bil, up another $2.4bil and stated a commitment for manned flights back to the moon.
"Obama's NASA budget supports shuttle retirement, return to Moon BY WILLIAM HARWOOD STORY WRITTEN FOR CBS NEWS "SPACE PLACE" & USED WITH PERMISSION Posted: February 26, 2009 The Obama administration's proposed 2010 budget provides $18.7 billion for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Including $1 billion that went to NASA from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the new budget proposal represents a $2.4 billion increase over 2008 funding levels, according to the White House Office of Management and Budget.
The budget blueprint continues to support the Bush administration's directive to finish the space station and retire the shuttle in 2010 and to return astronauts to the moon around the end of the next decade."
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In response to talk about the cost of space exploration, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Erm, I don't think that started in January - might want to look back to the Fall of last year and a previous administration for the beginning of that "solution".
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Thaks for the answers. It looks like it is the probably the same** risk but they worry about it more now, plus media hype, **plus maybe some greater risk from a higher orbit.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I just heard a news story on it. They were ooohing and aahhing over the fact that they had to take some screws out that were, get this, hard to get to. Ooooo. The astronauts are pretty much little more then fearless auto mechanics.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ashton Crusher wrote:

the bottom of a deep swimming pool sometime. That will give you a small taste of what they are dealing with. And if their wrenches slip, or they tear their suit on a sharp edge of a hatch, it is a lot harder to deal with than a bloody knuckle under a car in the driveway. The work wouldn't be that bad on the ground, but in orbit, nothing is easy. The deep divers that work on the legs of oil rigs and bridge piers are probably the only people not in orbit that can truly appreciate how hard the procedures they are doing actually are.
-- aem sends...
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
aemeijers wrote:

You forgot "while wearing brand new, stiff mechanic's gloves."
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ashton Crusher wrote:

Try changing your watch battery while wearing boxing gloves. That may give you a better idea on how non trivial it really is.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You have no clue what you're talking about. Zilch. Have you undergone the same sort of training these men and women have? Do you have any clue as to the conditions they are working under?
Put on a pair of ski gloves and then try taking apart your PC, and you'll only BEGIN to get a GLIMPSE of the difficulty the astronauts are facing. Add to that they're working in micro-gravity with no real way to brace themselves, and it gets a LOT harder. They're also not working on an industrial piece of equipment, but a precision instrument with very fine tolerances of what is and isn't going to render it several tons of useless orbiting junk.
Then let's talk about the fact the astronauts are trying to access a part of the Hubble that was never designed to be accessed or repaired. The panel they had to remove to get to the STIS power supply that blew had 111 screws, with Torx and Allen heads. Have you ever tried to keep track of 11 screws on a project? Imagine nearly 10 times that number of screws and inside an instrument designed to look billions of light years away and cannot afford the smallest grain of anything getting in the way.
How about that handle that had a stripped screw and had to be broken off by brute force? And it took NASA engineers on the Hubble mock-up back on Earth to come up with a way the astronauts could safely do it without kicking debris into the internal workings of the telescope.
If you want to use a terrestrial analogy, these guys are precision watchmakers working on the world's largest watch, in zero gravity, in bulky space suits, with the risk that at any minute any one of a billion things could go wrong and they would die.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

So you came up with a slightly different analogy. The fact is, they are, as I said, fearless auto mechanics. I say that to make the distinction between them acting as scientists or test pilots or what have you. The big deal about this mission comes down to us having sent some mechanics into space to repair the shuttle. Not saying it's not difficult but it's hardly "science", similar breathless news stories could be done about Rusty Wallace adjusting the camber on his race car during a pit stop and going on to with the big race.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
mm wrote:

It's not that the shuttle is in more danger, just that the options are more limited.
Usually the shuttle is either in a mission to ISS Alpha or in a relatively similar orbit, so if something goes wrong on the shuttle they can make a transfer orbit to Alpha and the crew can "lifeboat" there until they're rescued.
On the other hand, Hubble and ISS Alpha are in such different orbits (altitude and angle relative to Earth's equator) that Atlantis could never make a transfer orbit to rendezvous with Alpha.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.