home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   sci.space.tech      Technical and general issues related to      3,113 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 1,316 of 3,113   
   Arie Kazachin to All   
   Re: HST: why considered "dead" without S   
   25 Jan 04 21:17:07   
   
   From: ariek@attglobal3.14159265358979323846.net.retro.com   
      
   In message  - henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer)   
   writes:   
   >   
      
   [snip]   
      
   >   
   >No, Hubble *was* meant for maintenance in space, although as usual   
   >(repeating a mistake made on Skylab), they cheaped out and decided that   
   >some portions of it wouldn't break and hence wouldn't need to be set up   
   >for maintenance... and of course, some of those *have* needed maintenance.   
      
   That reminds me one of the great bits from "The Hitchhiker's Guide to   
   the Galaxy" trilogy, book 5:   
      
   "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing   
   that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly   
   go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at   
   or repair".   
      
      
   :-)   :-)   :-)   
      
      
      
   >But it was always planned that things like instrument changes would be   
   >done by spacewalking astronauts, and that was very definitely designed in.   
   >   
   >>I don't know that teleoperated systems deliver adequate performance yet.   
   >   
   >Definitely not.  Some of the more ambitious designs have a goal of   
   >equaling the capabilities of a spacesuited astronaut, but they're not   
   >there yet.   
   >--   
      
   OK, so if currently there is nothing close to being ready for "one launch   
   solution", maybe a two step approach might be used: first laucn something   
   that need only to grab the HST (at the same point the Shuttle RMS grabbed it)   
   and which has fuel reserve to boost the HST to a higher orbit where it can   
   stay for few good years. Later on, when robotic "hands" will become capable   
   enough, launch a repair mission (robotic).   
      
   Another possibility (assuming HST orbit had been boosted): since NASA intends   
   to develop a CEV (Crew Exploration Vehicle) capable of carrying a crew far   
   beyound LEO, a service mission to HST is a good candidate for a test flight   
   for such a vehicle.   
      
      
   ******************************************************************************   
   *   Arie Kazachin, Israel, e-mail: ariek@attglobal3.14159265358979323846.net *   
   ******************************************************************************   
   NOTE: before replying, leave only letters in my domain-name. Sorry, SPAM trap.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca