NASA Preparing Manned Hubble Service Mission 174
danimrich writes "According to an article at Space.com,
'NASA's new Administrator Mike Griffin told reporters today [April 29] that he informed key members of Congress Thursday evening that he would direct engineers at Goddard Spaceflight center to start preparing for a space shuttle servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope on the assumption that one ultimately will go forward.'"
Safety Concerns (Score:5, Insightful)
There have been several successful shuttle missions [nasa.gov] that have serviced the Hubble in the past so there's no reason to think that this particular type of mission is more dangerous than any other.
I think anyone stating that a shuttle mission to service the Hubble is not safe has an agenda beyond safety.
Easily explainable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Safety Concerns (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Safety Concerns (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree 100% with your entire comment.
To go one further, I think it's about time this nation drops all the "Wars" on drugs, terrorism, etc., and start a new, single, all encompassing "War on Ignorance". The stated goal of such a war could be to educate the entire global population. To root out Ignorance and repl
Re:Safety Concerns (Score:3, Funny)
To go one further, I think it's about time this nation drops all the "Wars" on drugs, terrorism, etc., and start a new, single, all encompassing "War on Ignorance".
That would require the detainment of all members of Congress who don't read proposed legislation (all of them) in some detention camp and effectively deprive the country of "leadership". . . Okay, let's do it.
List of people who've already done this... (Score:2)
Idi Amin Dada
[I'm trying not to get this thread canned so I won't mention Eva Braun's husband lest it invoke G------'s Law]
Don Inigo Lopez de Recalde (AKA Ignatius Loyola)
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Mao Zedong
Demoiselle Candeille's worshippers
(append your favourites here)
Not hard to see why the framers of the US Constitution acted as they did.
Re:Safety Concerns (Score:2)
Now, how is it you're going to "root out" ignorance in places like Afghanistan, where the local monopoly on Truthful Knowledge was wholly owned and operated by the Taliban? You know, the people who would actually take women down to the former soccer field and shoot them at lunch time in front of an audience for: working and sending their daughters to secret classrooms. You know: the Taliban. The medievilist bunch of c
Sorry, forgot to mention... (Score:2)
You almost certainly do not think of it as or call it a religion and would probably argue that neither Materialism nor Naturalism were religious positions, because of this bizarre idea that a certain amount of stained glass or chanting has to be involved for it to qualify as a religion - or at least a priest (think R [nationalgeographic.com]
Re:Safety Concerns (Score:2)
First, no one (except the medievalist wack jobs preaching to the suicide bombers) sends soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen people off to die. If that's how you think of it, then sending police out on the street every day is "sending them do die," just like sending firefighters out to burning buildings is "sending them to die." That whole line of
Re:Safety Concerns (Score:2)
I hate to see the guy presenting the (reasonable) opposite side of an argument not being heard...
Re:Safety Concerns (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Safety Concerns (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Safety Concerns (Score:2)
Re:Safety Concerns (Score:2)
Re:Safety Concerns (Score:2)
I fully support using the STS to service Hubble, but the logic you use to support that position is faulty. Just because you may manage to jaywalk actoss a busy street a few times without getting killed is not evidence that doing so is just as safe as walking on the sidewalk. Another analogy would be that surviving
I think they know what to expect (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I think they know what to expect (Score:2)
After all, its nothing other then a carefully controlled explosion which gets them into space.
If an astronaut thinks its all of a sudden, dangerous work - then they really shouldnt be in the space program. Astronauts should be mentally competant as well as physically, and I would be extremely suprised if they were not.
Re:I think they know what to expect (Score:3, Interesting)
Yet, we do it every day - it's called commute on a motorway...
Regards, Ulli
Re:I think they know what to expect (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes and in the US (this data is from 2001) there were 37,795 fatalities on the roads due to crashes. There were 16.35 million crashes that year, which gives and average of 2.6 crashes per Km of roadway in the US, and one fatality for every 168Km of roadway.
Driving a car is dangerous, and if these statistics were posted for any other type of transportation (trains, airplanes, space shuttles) they would be immediatly banned from use.
Re:I think they know what to expect (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I think they know what to expect (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Commuter Jets versus Orbital Shuttles (Score:2)
Re:Commuter Jets versus Orbital Shuttles (Score:2)
Re:I think they know what to expect (Score:3, Insightful)
"I was up there looking around, and suddenly I realized I was sitting on top of a rocket built by the lowest bidder."
They are certainly aware of the dangers and if they didn't accept them they wouldn't be astronauts.
On the other hand, before they climb to the top of the rocket they strap themselves into a car carrying a hundred pounds or so of highly explosive fuel and take
Re:I think they know what to expect (Score:2)
The problem isn't the astronauts lives. We could staff a dozen Shuttle flights just with the astronauts on roster, and for each of them, there are over a hundred qualified volunteers.
The problem is that there are only three Orbiters - essentially irreplaceable pieces of hardware.
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:1)
How good is your steering? (Score:2)
The same distributed electronics needed to focus such a disc for astronomy would work just as well for walking it through a terrorist camp or turning a cave hideout
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Every vehicle design is a compromise among cost, weight, armor, speed, fuel economy, maintenance requirements, power, cargo capacity, size, etc. The HMMWV [army.mil] replaced a group of unarmored vehicles, including the JEEP. There are lightly armored vehicles for mechanized infantry, like the APC and the Bradley. Their armor will stop small-arms fire and shell fragments, but not projectiles from heavier weapons or anti-tank mines. A modern RPG can penetrate over 500mm of steel. How do you protect a vehicle against that? With dismounted infantry, who are vulnerable to small-arms fire, to provide a protective screen for the vehicle. There are no easy solutions to the problem.
Shuttle (Score:1, Funny)
I wish we had a stargate, instead. A stargate with which we'd find some Ancient technology and fly around in these cool spaceships. And then I would get to meet this hot chick in uniform, Samantha Carter, and she'd dig me. And we'd have hot sex for hours and hours. She would also make me wear a leash.
Oh well, man can dream... man can dream.
Or "that was totally wicked!" (obTIref) (Score:2)
To All Those Citing Safety Concerns (Score:5, Interesting)
As a poster above me said, these astronauts are fully aware of what can go wrong, yet they still volunteer themeselves for the job. They have a choice over risking their lives to further the human race, and bravely, they take it. If we, as a species, never took on tasks that involved risks and dangers, we would have progressed nowhere.
I'm not saying safety issues should be overlooked, or brushed to one side here, it's important we get these people back to Earth safely, but it's also important that we don't let ourselves be held back by fear of what _might_ or _could_ happen.
The Hubble is arguably one of NASA's greatest missions, and to let it wither and die in space because a previous shuttle mission ended in disaster, would just be foolish in my eyes. I really do hope they do send up a maintanence mission so the Hubble may continue operation, and I wish all those involved the best of luck, you are truely the pioneers of our age.
Yeah vs Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
We shutdown a system over safty concerns, if that was really true, then get the guys off the space station and shut it all down!
NASA is about science and the need to know. That is a very human need. NASA is tech that makes up our very jobs. YES, even the check out clerk at your supermarket is using products in the job and life daily that came from NASA fund research and neededs.
Now we some at the head again that is thinking about "ruuning NASA the science group" not "how to keep his job". Before you shutdown a rescue mission to Hubble (or projects) what are real issues? That is science! Knowing the facts and THEN and ONY THEN MAKING A DISCEDION!
Re:Yeah vs Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Yeah vs Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Yeah vs Huh? (Score:2)
This is gotta be candidate for worst decision ever.
We would develop a lot more technology and knowhow by doing the repair robotically, and it would be cheaper as well.
The next telescopes on the drawing board are all at L2 LaGrangian. They HAVE to be assembed robotically, so we might as well develop the technology on a target close to Earth. That way we know how to do it when the more difficult tasks come up.
Re:Yeah vs Huh? (Score:2)
Well most of the money has already been spent, the robotics have already been designed and partially built, a
Re:Yeah vs Huh? (Score:2)
I guess you did.
The Russians have been doing this for years with their Soyuz and Progress vehicles.
The Americans will demonstrate autonomous rendezvous and docking this summer on the XSS-11 microsatellite.
Is it worth it? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Is it worth it? (Score:2)
Rather than send up a Shuttle to fix the existing telescope, because launching a Shuttle is expensive, you want to build an entirely new telescope and then send a Shuttle up to launch it?
Could an equivalent space tel
Re:Is it worth it? (Score:2)
Deploying next scope with unmanned rocket (Score:2)
No. My understanding is that the Hubble was designed to be launched and serviced with the Shuttle because the Shuttle was what there was, not because it was a particularly good idea. The United States had already made the political/management decision to retire its heavy launch vehicles, like the Saturn V, in favor of the Shuttle.
According to the all-powerful
Re:Is it worth it? (Score:2)
Re:Is it worth it? (Score:2)
Needs fuel, a few stearing peices of equipment, maybe add a new option or two.
If that was your car... would you just buy a build a new one becuase it was out of gas and needed new shocks and you wanted to add a new a satilite radio?
Re:Is it worth it? (Score:5, Interesting)
That would depend entirely on your location. If you car was in the back yard, in the middle of a densly populated area, just down the street from <insert major chain store name here>, probably not. It would be very cost effective to walk to the store, buy the parts, then fix the car.
OTOH, if your car is located at a research camp, on the icecap at one of the poles, far enough away from 'civilization' that the _only_ way to bring in those spare parts is to fly a ski equipped C-130 3000 miles to deliver the parts, you will rethink the whole thing. The cost of transportation far exceeds the cost of the equipment being transported, by a couple of orders of magnitude. If the C-130 is going to be sent anyways, it may well be more efficient to just load up a new car in the back, and deliver that.
If one goes on the assumption there is budget for a shuttle trip, then the real question _should be_, what is the appropriate payload to carry? Should it be carrying spare parts for the existing old hubble, or should it be carrying a brand new telescope of some kind. In either case, the 500 million launch budget will be used.
In the case of hubble, pork politics, and budget line items get in the way. It's really silly, because the arguement to decide if the old one is fixed, or a new one is launched, has nothing to do with final cost, and everything to do with 'which budget does it come from?'. Launching a new modern replacement would entail creating a new mission line item in the budget, a process that's not likely to happen. Fixing the old one would shift funds into an existing line item, a process that may well be able to be pushed thru. The amount of funds in each case doesn't even enter the equation, it's all about what can be achieved politically.
Dropping 500 million into an existing line item is possible, but creating a new line item instead, with a value of 300 million, not gonna happen. That's how the 'efficiency' of a beaurocracy works, in particular one that's designed to entice voters with financial mumbo-jumbo. Joe congress-critter knows it's cheaper to fix an old car, than to buy a new one, so it's _gotta_ be cheaper to fix hubble than to launch a new telescope.
The real problem with a system that works this way, it's so damn full of pork. When you sit back and ask 'wheres the beef?', you'll discover, the politicians live an a diet of pork. The congress critters have become so adept at slicing and dicing pork for serving to the constituents, dont think they even remember how to throw some beef on the grille and serve up a steak.
Re:Is it worth it? (Score:3, Interesting)
First off, we can't send up another Hubble for cheap - it has to be designed, built, and launched, all of which is expensive. To maintain the current telescope, all we have to do is launch, and as a fraction of what NASA is already planning to spend on launches, it's pretty cheap.
Secondly, Hubble is not "obsolete". Every single time it has been serviced, its capabilities have been upgraded with new instrumentation, vastly increasing its sensitivity and usefulness. Hubbl
Hubble Origins Probe: replace instead of repair (Score:3, Informative)
IMHO, we should. A copy from an old post of mine:
Hubble Origins Probe: replace instead of repair?
Astronomy Magazine reports [astronomy.com] that an international team of astronomers has proposed an alternative [spaceref.com] to sending a robotic or human repair mission to the ailing Hubble Space Telescope [wikipedia.org]. Their proposal is to build a new Hubble Origins Probe [jhu.edu], reusing the Hubble design
Finally, some common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the many things I have always disliked about the Shuttle space-car fantasy is the illusion that this risk has somehow gone away and "shuttling off" to space is now no different than catching the subway to work in the morning. It's not that way, and it's never going to be that way with the technology at hand. It takes a massive amount of energy to get into space, and controlling large amounts of energy is always risky whether it's getting into orbit or an ordinary domestic chemical plant.
Let us understand that space travel is risky as well as expensive. Let us do what we can to minimize those risks. And then give the men and women who are willing to take those risks the tools they need and the opportunity do their damn jobs. Let us mourn when they pay the ultimate price, and let us celebrate when they give us things we never could have had without their sacrifice.
The way to fix it (Score:5, Funny)
They could fix it from here!
I'm surprised nobody's thought of this. Maybe those "rocket scientists" aren't so smart after all.
Misread Title (Score:3, Funny)
NASA Preparing Manned Hubble Service Mission
as
NASA Preparing Manned Hubble Secret Mission
and thought, "gee if they're trying to keep it secret then why are they announcing it on
Re:Misread Title (Score:2)
Easy. Everyone will think it is a dupe of a five year old article. Or simply bullshit.
The Hubble is dead, long live The James Webb! (Score:5, Interesting)
Sigh. That's because we want to move *beyond* visible light to see farther into the past!
Its like this: You've got an old Ford Escort, but you've ordered a new supercharged Ford Mustang GT. Since its a custom order, it'll be a few months before it gets to you. Between now and then, does it make any sense to spend money keeping up the Escort, especially when money is tight?
I'm all for the fascinating pictures we get from Hubble, but the *really* interesting stuff lies in the infrared spectrum, beyond Hubble's sight. That's why IMO, if we can't do both, then we should stop wasting money to keep the Hubble up, and use that money to accelerate its replacement [wikipedia.org].
Re:The Hubble is dead, long live The James Webb! (Score:2)
Re:The Hubble is dead, long live The James Webb! (Score:2)
Except that it isn't our only "transportation" now.
From Hubble's Wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org]:
Re:The Hubble is dead, long live The James Webb! (Score:2)
There's no reason we "can't" do both, except the short-sightedness of the average american taxpayer or politician. Kind of ironic considering we're talking about telescopes.
Re:The Hubble is dead, long live The James Webb! (Score:2)
Re:The Hubble is dead, long live The James Webb! (Score:2)
JWST is designed for IR, because we can see farther into the past in that spectrum. In that sense the JWST was always treated as NASA's follow-on to the HST (always considered by NASA itself as Hubble's replacement, regardless of the scopes working in different spectra)
Re:The Hubble is dead, long live The James Webb! (Score:3, Interesting)
Sigh. If Lyman Spitzer heard you say something like that, he'd ripped your head out of your body...
Run the optical tracing based on the specification of the HST. You'll notice that the best optical image of the HST is attained at 2800AA. The original concept of a space telescope was to have a high-spatial/spectral resolution imager/spectrograph in UV and visible light. At least that's what I tho
Re:The Hubble is dead, long live The James Webb! (Score:2)
If he's still alive, maybe we should ask him. Given the changes in scope technology since the HST was designed, perhaps his answer would surprise you more than me?
I understand some professionals don't agree, but as I said earlier, the primary push for space-based scopes was always about seeing distant objects (looking back into time), and since the HST
Re:The Hubble is dead, long live The James Webb! (Score:2)
Not a chance (and he's passed away). But Lyman would agree with me. Or at least his students have.
Furthermore, you need to check the details of your information more accurately. Ground telescopes with adoptive optics (VLT, Gemini, and Subaru, etc.) do well in the NIR/MIR regime. It's because atmospheric disturbance is more manageable / relative
Re:The Hubble is dead, long live The James Webb! (Score:2)
Any links for this info? Its my understanding that several ground scopes are already exceeding HST's resolution in visible light using interferometry. The problem was difficulty in detecting faint objects, and adaptive optics is now starting to solve that problem. Yes, the Hubble is the only thing out there that can produce those Deep Field images at the moment, but its only a matter of time before n
Re:The Hubble is dead, long live The James Webb! (Score:2)
The question to ask is: Is deorbit significantly cheaper than reboost and repair. In other words, do not consider the whole cost of the mission to hubble, only the difference bet
Re:The Hubble is dead, long live The James Webb! (Score:2)
Please, just let my poor analogy Rest In Peace, its taken enough abuse already. :)
Its my understanding that NASA is thinking about an unmanned mission to attach external thrusters to provide a controlled reentry. Such a mission would be a lot cheaper than the 500 million it would cost for a manned repair mission, as it wouldn't involve humans or a shuttl
Re:The Hubble is dead, long live The James Webb! (Score:2)
Re:The Hubble is dead, long live The James Webb! (Score:2)
The JWST, like the Spitzer Telescope(*) that's already up there (and producing fantastic images - search for its website) will be designed with redundancy in mind as its now obvious that repair missions can't be c
The hubble has generated more science than the.... (Score:5, Insightful)
While Infrared light may generate alternate avenues of science, humans dont see in infrared. Hubble produces space results that Joe Sixpack can actually see or have his kids download for their school projects. Thats how NASA can get funding, produce results people can see and can benefit from.
The hubble telescope fires the imagination and inspires future generations of scientists. Hubble cost $2 billion to put up and only cost $500 million to service. Why not make the most of your investment.
Someone has sold us a myth that average people dont care about space exploration. This is bullcrap. They care when they feel like they are a part
of it. When they feel like NASA is just another government agency squandering money on stuff they dont understand, thats when NASA gets hacked.
Re:The hubble has generated more science than the. (Score:3, Informative)
Did you really think all those Hubble images were raw images fresh from the scope? No they were all computer enhanced, just like the [caltech.edu] IR [caltech.edu] images [caltech.edu] from [caltech.edu] IR [caltech.edu] scopes [caltech.edu] are [caltech.edu].
HUMANS DON'T NEED TO SEE IN INFRARED, ONLY THE SCOPE DOES. jeesh.
PS: It's not an "alternative avenue", its the primary avenue where most scientists want to go anyway.
Re:The hubble has generated more science than the. (Score:2)
Re:The hubble has generated more science than the. (Score:2)
Re:The hubble has generated more science than the. (Score:2)
There are many pictures that are taken at a lot of frequencies from a number of different platforms. SOHO takes awsome pictures of the Sun that the human eye cannot see. Kids could care less what frequency of light creates the immage. If a pic is cool then a pic is cool.
Re:The hubble has generated more science than the. (Score:2)
This should surprise no one who actually stops and thinks for a few moments. Hubble is complete and (more or less) operational. (And has itself cost a fair number of billions.) Three-quarters of the ISS is still here on the ground. Nobody claims that a new particle accelerator has produced no science when the tunnel is complete but the accelerator itself has yet to be installed. Why is the ISS a source of complaints
Robo servicing vs. Shuttle servicing vs. Deorbit (Score:5, Interesting)
There are several important factors in deciding between them. Lets look at the pros and cons.
Cost:
1. Shuttle servicing will cost about $300M to fly the mission plus ~$1.5B-2B to keep the shuttle program and staff going for an extra 4-6 months. Total cost then is conservatively $2.3B.
2. Robotic Deorbit Only is estimated to cost about $850M, for development, launch, and operation of the vehicle.
3. Robotic servicing is expected to cost $1.4B for dev, launch, and operation through splashdown.
However(!) if we take option 1 or 2, we'll have to fly a 'robotic proving' mission around 2015 or so to enable missions to Moon and Mars. This could cost anywhere from $500-800M (likely closer to 800 if it's to be at all ambitious). So lets look at the total score-card:
Shuttle: $2.3B + $800M = $3.1 Billion
Deorbit: $850M + $800M = $1.65 Billion
Robotic: $1.4B - ~250M already spent = $1.15 Billion
So that was cost. Now lets look at education:
Doing another shuttle servicing mission will teach us very little. Sure, we'd learn some EVA techniques, management techniques, things like that. But nothing significant. That's why we'd need to launch a robotic proving mission in 2015.
Robotic Deorbit would teach us a lot about autonomous rendezvous (since my last post it's apparent that we need to work a little harder on that; DART bumped into its target, I hear). Bear in mind that craft had no forward-link commanding from the ground... it was entirely autonomous. It cost only $100-something million to dev, launch and "operate". These are lessons we need to learn to go to the Moon, and Mars.
Robotic Servicing would teach us a lot about the autonomous rendezvous and proximity operations (see above) since it's the same problem here as the robotic deorbit. It will also teach us a HUGE amount about ground-to-space tele-robotic operations. So much so that if it works we could be confident enough not to need an expensive proving mission later on. We'll be doing complex robotic tasks on things that were designed for humans (on space-station, everything's designed to be robot-friendly). We'll be pushing the envelope of our knowledge.
Don't let that put you off though. We're pushing the envelope on the ground here, right now. We've pushed it so far now that most tasks on the Hubble robotic mission will be trivial. We aim to push it far enough that ALL tasks will be trivial (or at most 'complex') by the time we launch. We have a robust capacity to re-plan and re-approach a problem on orbit. We have the advantage of time (see next pro/con) on our side. And we have contingency in case some more critical item fails before we launch. I believe that up to 30 days before launch we have the ability to re-manifest the cargo. Don't quote me on that figure though.
Now lets look at perhaps the most important feature of each mission: The quality of the result:
Some say a shuttle servicing mission will do a better job at servicing Hubble. This used to be the case. In looking at the robotic mission we had to give up some things. The STIS failed last summer, as some of you may remember. The robotics guys evaluated that task, and decided it would be too difficult. Many bolts in hard-to-reach places, etc. So that was dropped. However, I've recently heard on the wind that a Shuttle mission will only have a few days of EVA available between tile inspection and prep for landing. The shuttle mission will be forced to leave things out too, and the result is that the priorities we identified for the robotic mission are pretty much the same priorities we'd have for the sh
Re:Robo servicing vs. Shuttle servicing vs. Deorbi (Score:2)
Wrong, it costs them about $120million to add another shuttle flight to the launch manifest(this was pre columbia though
Also, about 1/4 of the shuttle programs costs are from Astronaut training.
Re:Robo servicing vs. Shuttle servicing vs. Deorbi (Score:2)
Bingo. The last estimate I saw when searching earlier says the cost for a manned repair mission is $500 million now.
NASA doesn't intend to bring any shuttle down again without an external inspection of their wing surfaces before reentry. From now on their intent is to dock with the ISS, inspect the shuttle exterior then undock and deorbit. Servicing the Hubble now requires a trip to the ISS and unfortunately those two are too far apart for that to happen (unless NASA ch
Re:Robo servicing vs. Shuttle servicing vs. Deorbi (Score:2)
Yes, you did. And in the meantime one of your most important steps (DART) has failed.
It's fascinating that NASA has developed robotic technology decades ahead of everyone else, and have managed to keep it completely under wraps.
NASA's gyros must be broken (Score:2, Funny)
Bring Back Go Fever (Score:2)
Another space vision down the drain (Score:2)
Re:Handling too much? (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Handling too much? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hmmm. (Score:2)
Becuase messuring by passenger mile, I believe you are very very wrong.
Of five space shuttles... (Score:1)
Re:Of five space shuttles... (Score:2)
Tell me sir, how many miles did each of the vehicles rackup? More than 747? your car? Compare the operating enviroments that each must function in.
You may want to take a class on messurements as it relates to safty.
Re:Of five space shuttles... (Score:2)
You might also want to consider one of the main points of any manned mission: return the crew safely. There has never been a mission where the science part of the mission outweighed that.
And that would be safety.
Re:Of five space shuttles... (Score:3, Informative)
The question is using meaniful messures to compare safety. That was base post.
Using item counts, One person takes one trip and is killed, then all vehicals that type the person used in the trip is unsafe.
Using mailage counts we can compare the reality safety of each trip.
Which bring us to you second point. Safely returning the crew... you are right, that is goal. How do you messure safely? Is is every trip MUST ret
Re:Of five space shuttles... (Score:2)
Let's look at the percentages. Two flights out of 113 have exploded. That's just under 2%. I guarantee if you knew that every time you got into a car, you would have a 1 in 56 chance of not making it back home, you would think twice before getting into the car.
It would be like what would happen if every road in the world were CA Hwy 17,
Re:Of five space shuttles... (Score:2)
I could accept those sorts of odds if we had just figured out how to launch
Re:Hmmm. (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm. (Score:2)
For 'mission failures per passenger mile' they will look atrocious.
For 'crew deaths per mission mile' they will look pretty damn good.
The beauty of statistics, they always hold the answer you want to press your cause, just gotta know how to manipulate them.
Re:Hmmm. (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm. (Score:2)
This argument sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
a) manned space missions have a higher risk. they also have a higher reward.
b) every shuttle pilot/astronaut ever (except for Krista McAuliffe) were trained test pilots. They had taken risks much greater than this in the course of being test pilots.
c) Every person ever lost in a space accident was well aware of the risks and chose to accept them. To say that they are not capable of making that decision, and that we should just terminate any and all manned spaceflight based on what YOU consider an unacceptable level of risk, not only disgracefully dishonors their service and sacrifice, but also their decision making ability. And for anybody to question the decision making ability of test pilots and astronauts from their slashdot armchair makes me physically nauseous.
d) when we've made anywhere near the quantity of manned spaceflights as we have commercial airline flights, you'll have a right to bitch about shuttles not being as safe as airplanes. Practice makes perfect, and we haven't had anywhere near as much practice at manned spaceflight as we have commercial air travel.
e) unmanned spaceflight, whenever it would serve the needs of the mission and the needs of science just as well as a manned mission, is an alternative that should be pursued. This alternative should be immediately abandoned if it ever impacts mission viability.
f) should we likewise abolish all fire departments and tell firemen they don't have the right to take a dangerous job that they believe needs to be done just because that job is risky? Fighting fires is a job that needs doing. So is scientific research and superatmospheric astronomy.
g) We're very overdue for a major impact disaster from an asteroid or comet. When, not if, this occurs, the only warning we'll have to all move to Kansas won't come from ground-based telescopes - it will come from space-based ones, which need to be serviced by manned spaceflight.
h) america, from the cotton gin to the internal combustion engine to the atomic bomb to the polio vaccine to the microchip, has been ever based on scientific evidence and rational thought. Our superiority in the marketplace of world governments has not been maintained by our security staff alone, but mainly by our incredibly effective R&D department. This is one of many things that make me fiercely proud to be American. And for self-proclaimed "conservatives" to toe this knee-jerk anti-science line is about as clear a declaration of intent to sacrifice everything that's ever made America great as one could ever hope to see (or dread seeing, in my case). Next you'll be trying to dismantle checks and balances... oh wait...
Re:This argument sucks (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This argument sucks (Score:2)
There is nothing inherently better about a space-based scope for spotting asteroids. We now have the tech to use ground scopes to spot an asteroid sized objects in our solar system, and those are cheaper to operate.
The even s
Re:This argument sucks (Score:2)
Sure there is, it doesn't have to squint up through a bunch of atmosphere.
There was just a thing on the Science channel last night about this. They're systematically cataloging threat-sized objects in order of biggest to smallest. And the better (and higher) the telescope, the easier it is to see smaller and smaller asteroids at a distance. They specifically mentioned the Hubble and it's proposed replacement as being
Re:This argument sucks (Score:2)
That advantage is rapidly being overcome by new technology being used on ground-based scopes, which I've already referred to several times elsewhere. Those new developments are precisely why there is now a dispute over whether keeping the HST going at this point is cost effective. Read the other posts, and read the "Future" section of HST's entry on Wikipedia.
Me too. :(
I j
Re:This argument sucks (Score:2)
Poing e) is also highly debatable, since "viability" is such a mutable concept. Actu
Re:This argument sucks (Score:2)
I was getting the shuttle confused with Apollo, I think.
That doesnt't change the fact that they were aware of the risk going in and chose to accept it.
"and flying on the space shuttle is the most dangerous thing they have ever done in their lives."
Actually that would probably be driving while talking on a cell phone [harvard.edu], which is statistically indistinguishable from driving drunk. I have a hard time accepti
Re:rather disconcerting (Score:2)
Re:rather disconcerting (Score:2)