Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 301 to 321 of 321

Thread: MANY (good and bad) news and info about the 4th (and LAST) Hubble Servicing Mission

  1. #301
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    .

    Nicolas,

    the crew of a damaged Shuttle can survive three months in the ISS (or indefinitley, with regular resupplies) while the crew of the Hubble mission can survive two weeks, that's a GIANT difference, since, a (2+ weeks) delayed rescue mission to the ISS will find then astronauts ALIVE while, the same (delayed) mission to the Hubble, will find the astronauts DEAD

    .

  2. #302
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,548
    As asked, how many shuttle lauches have had a delay of over two weeks after an "all go for countdown" on the pad? How large does that make the risk of shuttle 1 having columbia like damage AND shuttle 2 having a delay of over 2 weeks + the possibliity of also having columbia like damage?

    I'm curious.
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  3. #303
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    I'm curious.
    the risk comes from the fact that it CAN happen, not from the fact that it WILL (really) happen ..the lack of a safe haven near the Hubble increase the risk
    .

  4. #304
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,548
    Stating the obvious...I've had statistics at University level, thank you. What is the chance that it CAN happen, Gaetano? Let's see how relevant your concern is.
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  5. #305
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    Stating the obvious...I've had statistics at University level, thank you. What is the chance that it CAN happen, Gaetano? Let's see how relevant your concern is.
    similar statistics evaluated the risk of a lethal Shuttle accident around 1 in 200 flights...
    .

  6. #306
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,548
    That is not a to the point answer. Besides, you'd also go to the ISS with that same shuttle.

    I'll do your homework once more.

    CHance of SM4 going wrong due to shuttle failure other than launch failures (which count equally for ISS launches): (columbia damage*columbia damage) + (columbia damage*>2weeks delay)

    = 1/100*1/100 + 1/100*? Assume 1/50 chance for >2 weeks delay when the shuttle was cleared for countdown on the pad. Note that 1/1000 is pessimistic. The answer is then 1/10000 + 2/10000 = 3/10000 = 1/3333. What makes this chance unacceptable for a space mission?
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  7. #307
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    That is not a to the point answer. Besides, you'd also go to the ISS with that same shuttle.
    I think it's better and smarter to plan safer missions with high redundancy, long life support, multiple rescue vehicles, safe haven, etc. rather than depend upon "good statistics"
    .

  8. #308
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    R.I. USA
    Posts
    10,014
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    true, that's why will be easier to find the money to repair the Hubble rather than to build new telescopes
    .
    Hi, You know, whether you are right or wrong, I find the lack of enthusiasm for
    Hubble ST and it's continued existence APPALLING in some of the people who
    supposedly "Like" astronomy. Could it be that they only have enthusiasm for the latest/greatest hardware, and like children,leave last years bike out in the rain so that mumsy will buy them "This year's latest/greatest?. They also ignore the
    fact that HST is in the visible spectrum. I, for one, should most like to extend and preserve the HST and, judging by the line of people who anxiously await their turn for time on it should like to enjoy it as well.
    And............repairing Hubble and enjoying the fruit of that exercise is, indeed, exercise. We had best get good at servicing things in space if you wish to do other things in space. This red herring about "everything gaetanomarango says is impossible" is less than plausible. I think they should describe their problems from a technical basis, and not so much from the budget basis, as they are less than qualified to ascertain that budget and those costs, unless they are officials.
    It's a debate. Not a Donnybrook. You get a better audience with civility.
    Always.
    Many things are possible. Consider: " Lindberg's a fool. No airplane can cross the Atlantic." There's hind sight for you.
    Best regards, Dan

  9. #309
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    1/3333
    then, we can state that past Shuttles crashed (only) two times in 6666 flights...
    .

  10. #310
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,548
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    I think it's better and smarter to plan safer missions with high redundancy, long life support, multiple rescue vehicles, safe haven, etc. rather than depend upon "good statistics"
    .
    In that case you can only guess how relevant that "better" is.
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  11. #311
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,548
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    then, we can state that past Shuttles crashed (only) two times in 6666 flights...
    .
    Unless you'd pay attention to what I said, being that this 1/3333 is the statistical extra risk of going to Hubble over going to the ISS.
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  12. #312
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    In that case you can only guess how relevant that "better" is.
    if you refer to the REAL mission, the answer is "zero" (that's why I think the SM4 will be very risky...)
    .

  13. #313
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    Unless you'd pay attention to what I said, being that this 1/3333 is the statistical extra risk of going to Hubble over going to the ISS.
    so, really you don't see by yourself how much SMALL is your "calculated" extra-risk when talking of a Shuttle launch and of an ISS away Hubble mission... then, good luck to you, and, most important, good luck to the the Hubble repairmen !!!
    .

  14. #314
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,548
    Quote Originally Posted by danscope View Post
    Hi, You know, whether you are right or wrong, I find the lack of enthusiasm for
    Hubble ST and it's continued existence APPALLING in some of the people who
    supposedly "Like" astronomy. Could it be that they only have enthusiasm for the latest/greatest hardware, and like children,leave last years bike out in the rain so that mumsy will buy them "This year's latest/greatest?. They also ignore the
    fact that HST is in the visible spectrum. I, for one, should most like to extend and preserve the HST and, judging by the line of people who anxiously await their turn for time on it should like to enjoy it as well.
    And............repairing Hubble and enjoying the fruit of that exercise is, indeed, exercise. We had best get good at servicing things in space if you wish to do other things in space. This red herring about "everything gaetanomarango says is impossible" is less than plausible. I think they should describe their problems from a technical basis, and not so much from the budget basis, as they are less than qualified to ascertain that budget and those costs, unless they are officials.
    It's a debate. Not a Donnybrook. You get a better audience with civility.
    Always.
    Many things are possible. Consider: " Lindberg's a fool. No airplane can cross the Atlantic." There's hind sight for you.
    Best regards, Dan
    Some things you did not seem to take into consideration (speaking for myself, somebody who in hindsight shouldn't have done SM4 but wants to push through now because it does give extra years of Hubble and half the money's already spent):

    *It's not that I like only the newest, largest hardware. But looking at value for money, for less than twice the price of SM4, we get an all new scope with 6 times the mirror size, arrayed shutters etc.

    *the optical spectrum is one that can also be investigated from the earth, and given that earthbound telescopes now have (partially) surpassed Hubble's capabilities, Hubble has become less relevant. It's not like a new bike which is the same in a different colour, it's like trying to compete in an F1 race by buying a set of horribly expensive 1965 Lotus cars which can't compete with long term less expensive 2007 cars. Sure those 1965 cars are nice, but then we're getting emotionally, and much as I love Hubble, it's a scope and it is supposed to be looking at the stars, not to be popular.

    *and I do hope that Hubble stays alive a long long time, I just think it is no longer jsutified to spend billions on it. We're talking billions, don't forget that.

    We had best get good at servicing things in space if you wish to do other things in space.
    And how do space stations not serve that purpose?

    This red herring about "everything gaetanomarango says is impossible"
    Straw man. We have given DETAILED REASONS why Geatano's claims are impractical/impossible. Many of those were given in the past, therefore we don't keep on repeating all reasons every time he comes up with the same proposal.

    I think they should describe their problems from a technical basis, and not so much from the budget basis, as they are less than qualified to ascertain that budget and those costs, unless they are officials.
    You know that budgettary judgements are standard material for aerospace engineers? You know that apart from budgetarry claims -which Gaetano is using as happily as we are, btw- we also gave technical rebuttals for his claims and proposals?

    It's a debate. Not a Donnybrook. You get a better audience with civility.
    Just how much patience do you suggest we have with the fingers-in-ears, refusal to answer, misrepresentation and straw man attitude that Gaetano has been displaying for months?
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  15. #315
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,548
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    so, really you don't see by yourself how much SMALL is your "calculated" extra-risk when talking of a Shuttle launch and of an ISS away Hubble mission... then, good luck to you, and, most important, good luck to the the Hubble repairmen !!!
    .
    Servicing Hubble is a one off mission. Chances of something going wrong are roughly 1% nominal for any mission involving the shuttle. You go berserk over adding 0.033% for this one mission of which the astronauts know is more tricky than other missions.

    1.000% versus 1.033%. Once.

    If you see a mistake in my calculations, correct me with an improved, argumented calculation. Don't just put the word "calculations" in quotation marks, hinting there is something wrong with it, but staying silent on what is wrong.
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  16. #316
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    If you see a mistake in my calculations...
    the mistake is the use of a calculation to claim that the SM4 will be safe... the NASA scientists used data, calculations and statistics like yours to be confident to launch the Columbia to an ISS-away "safe" mission ...but the Columbia crashed due to an unexpected (not calculated) problem... "statistics" and "reality" OFTEN are two different things... look at the NASA "calculations" about the Ares-I/Orion LOC (Loss Of Crew)... IIRC, they evaluate the risk around 1 in 1000 flights... well, do you really believe that, launching 1000 Ares-I, just ONE will kill the astronauts?
    .

  17. #317
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,548
    the mistake is the use of a calculation to claim that the SM4 will be safe
    I didn't claim it was "safe". I don't know what "safe" means for you. I only showed that, using my calculations, the risk is 0.033% higher than going to the ISS, considering the use of the shuttle. Given the inherent risk of about 1% in using a shuttle at all, 0.033% is not particularly a large extra. If you feel I made wrong assumptions in the statistics, identify and improve them.

    The arguments you use now apply to the ISS just as much as to any other mission: take any risk they are unaware of before disaster strikes, and they're dead. Ares-1 is irrelevant to this discussion, let's focus on SM4.
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  18. #318
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    ...it's like trying to compete in an F1 race by buying a set of horribly expensive 1965 Lotus cars which can't compete with long term less expensive 2007 cars...
    you're completely wrong in your example, since the Hubble (like all other space objects) was built and repaired with space-grade/military-grade parts and technologies (not with '60s cars parts) and (if futher repaired) it can live and work for DECADES

    Geatano's claims are impractical/impossible.
    it's completely false, everyone on this board know that move an object from its orbit to another orbit is NOT impractical NOR impossible... you may like move the Hubble or not, but, moving it, needs ONLY a FINITE (and reasonable) amount of vehicles, propellent and money... also, similar operations will become very common in future (around earth, moon and mars) when MANY manned objects will fly in space

    You know that budgettary judgements are standard material for aerospace engineers?
    despite all space agencies have burned TONS of money for nothing in the past, I agree that know "how much things costs" is very important, infact, I've often posted my evaluation of costs of (near) everything I've proposed ...of course, I can't know/predict the EXACT figure, but, OFTEN my evaluations was pretty close to OFFICIAL figures found in OFFICIAL documents or reveled to the press AFTER my evaluations (my last hit is the evaluation of the SM4 confirmed by GAO a few days ago...)

    .

  19. #319
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,788

    Ah, Let Me See, Then . . .

    I'd like the Hubble to go on forever, too, G, but it may not be practical. I like the P-51 and P-38 aircraft, but they're not suitable for modern use. The Hubble is old, and getting older. It's probably cheaper to build a new one than to keep Hubble going.

  20. #320
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    772
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    Gaetanomarano...I really don't understand just why you post this "type" of stuff to this board.

    I know you understand that NASA policy regarding the disposition of Hubble (or any NASA policy, for that matter) will not be changed because of something you post here...

    I know you're not seeking advice, because so far you have IGNORED all ideas other than your own...

    So why are you posting this stuff here??? What do you hope to accomplish??

    I would be content if I could just figure out the significance of the color coding.

  21. #321
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    15,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Saluki View Post
    I would be content if I could just figure out the significance of the color coding.
    Color Coding Key

    Red: insignificant speculation
    Blue: unimportant details
    Yellow highlight: this can be safely ignored
    Green: text provided courtesy of NonsenseMaker 2.1 (click to buy)
    Pink: this text looks pretty in pink
    Black: meaningless filler
    0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...
    Skepticism enables us to distinguish fancy from fact, to test our speculations. --Carl Sagan

Similar Threads

  1. STS-125 Shuttle Mission: Hubble Servicing Mission 4
    By 01101001 in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 674
    Last Post: 2010-Jul-03, 11:25 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2008-Oct-31, 12:00 AM
  3. Hubble Servicing Mission a Go!
    By Kevn in forum Astronomy Cast
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2006-Dec-12, 04:35 PM
  4. Hubble Servicing Mission Canceled
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2005-Sep-11, 05:31 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •