OT What is the big deal about Hubble danger? The news keeps talking about how dangerous the Hubble telescope repair is, and NASA set up a second shuttle on the launch pad right after the first one took off.
This is the third repair mission to Hubble in in the past 19 years. Weren't the other two the same as this one, just the Space Shuttle and nothing else?
I think they are just dealing with the possibility that something could go wrong with Atlantis and they would not have any way to go get them. Bear in mind, the shuttle has demonstrated a 40% failure rate. 2 out of the 5 that went into space, crashed and that is slightly less than
1% of the total number of flights. Half of those crashes could have been prevented if we had a way to get to the vehicle in orbit. That is why they have one on the pad, standing by.
Columbia got everybody thinking about what happens if the Shuttle is damaged and can't return home.
All the other missions are to the ISS, so the astronauts can remain there if the Shuttle is damaged. But, there's not enough fuel to get to the Hubble and the ISS, so taking refure there is not an option for this mission.
In short, the risk has always been there, but post-Columbia, there have to be contingencies in place to handle it.
Media Hype!
Assuming they would have sent it up. If you will remember on Challenger, the muckety mucks decided there wasn't enough of a concern to even merit a telescopic once over from earth. Challenger would have gone ka-boom even if a standby had been available. This is pretty much bureaucratic CYA and preparing the populace for problems ahead of time. Then, if nothing happens, they can pat themselves on the back about what a great planning job and it looks that much more impressive to The Great UnWashed. If something bad happens, then the populace was essentially trained to expect, the hope being that only lower level heads will roll.
Okay, so it was Columbia. So much for writing these things off the top of my head.
On Fri, 15 May 2009 15:23:58 -0400, against all advice, something compelled snipped-for-privacy@aol.com, to say:
They're worried that a bit of space junk will hit them, and they'll need a new ride home.
Dunno. I think the earlier repairs where made at lower orbit? Then the HST was moved out to 350 miles about earth. It's be said there is a larger, more dangerous debris field out there. Has the Space Shuttles ever been that far out?
on 5/15/2009 3:06 PM (ET) mm wrote the following:
The contingency plan on all shuttle missions after Columbia is that if they reach orbit and find tile/hull damage they could dock at the ISS and wait for a ride back. Hubble is in a higher and different inclination orbit than the ISS. Atlantis needs to achieve the same orbit as Hubble for the Hubble service mission (STS-125). After doing so they have no way to get to the ISS if they discover tile/hull damage. Then the only way home is for Endeavour to be launched on STS-400 into a similar orbit as Atlantis where they can rendezvous and move the Atlantis crew onto Endeavour.
Keep your fingers crossed. If they lose another one, even if they save the crew somehow, US manned space flight is likely over. I'm expecting our new prez to pull the plug on Bush's somewhat silly son-of-Apollo moon/Mars program anyway, and the current financial crisis plus another lost ship, would be the perfect excuse to say 'Maybe someday, but not right now'. And once they stop, and the team gets laid off, the odds of it all starting back up are slim and none.
(I'm not a big fan of son-of-Apollo concept. Yes, expendables will likely be cheaper per launch that the mismanaged Shuttle program. But IMHO, it is a step backwards, to old technology. We need to find a cheap reliable way to boost reusables to orbit.)
-- aem sends...
On 5/15/2009 3:31 PM aemeijers spake thus:
For my money, they could lose the entire manned space-exploration thingie.
It's a tremendous waste of resources (and, it turns out, human life as well). Nothing that needs done can't be done by remotely-controlled spacecraft. I'm all for space exploration, just not the macho national chest-expanding style we have now.
And totally against the militarization of space as well. We need a binding international treaty banning weapons in space.
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.
Previous repairs and upgrades involved replacing parts that were designed from the beginning to be replaced (plug-ins essentially).
The stuff going on this time involves components that were expected to last for the life of Hubble and so now they are actually having to remove screws and such to make the repairs. That hardware can get away from them and become space debris that could be harmful (now or in the future).
Robots versus wetware have pluses and minuses on both sides, and it is a valid discussion. But it isn't national chest-expanding I am concerned with. It is for the species as a whole, to keep exploring. Not many unexplored places left on earth. I think once humans stop exploring, it will all begin to seem kind of pointless. Is this all there is, etc?
And as to dreams about making space a DMZ- just exactly how would you enforce such a treaty? By the time you realize somebody has violated it, they already have the high ground. There is no such thing as a binding treaty, if there is no way to make it painful and expensive to violate it. I can't slam the military too hard- without them, neither man nor robot would be in space.
-- aem sends...
Taking a long term view, though, there's no way we can continue as a species without either a) much stricter population controls than we have now or b) colonization of some other planets (either in our solar system or another)
there's already too damn many people on the planet now, and it's starting to show.
nate
I like how the newsmedia is hyping this fact. I mean, the HST has been in orbit for 19 years and hasnt been hit by any debris yet.
Here's a quote from an article today:
"That wasn't the only unnerving thing about this mission.
Space is particularly littered in this 350-mile-high orbit, and Atlantis and its crew face a greater risk of being slammed by a piece of junk. As a precaution, NASA has a rescue shuttle on standby, ready to launch in just three days if necessary."
So why would they be slammed with space junk during this 5 day mission, if the HST hasnt been hit in 19 years?
One mission lost a tool/bag/wrench (?) at ISS.
This mission is said that one component requires the removal 117 screws. Work better left on the ground.
An STS had been hit with a paint chip, traveling at 17 thousand MPH (reported by experts). It looked like bullet hole in your windshield. Thin as a paint chip, but had it been hit by a grain of sand - more damage in that case
Damage to the space shuttle:
It's called the "Maturation of the odds."
It is a human drive to go where no man has gone before; it is America's destiny to lead.
We must militarize space. Only the threat of annihilation will keep the barbarians from the gates.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.