Comments on: More Hubble news

By: Harold LaValley

Harold LaValley — Tue, 16 Mar 2004 15:43:23 +0000

If we are such good partners with the Russians then isn’t it about time to show it by granting launch capability from florida for specific functions and to give us a cheaper vehicle for such projects to use as well.

By: Bill White

Bill White — Fri, 12 Mar 2004 20:05:49 +0000

I acknowledge that point. So what else is involved? How much additional money? And isnt an R-7 booster an R-7 booster?

The potential public relations coup (Bush, Putin and Chirac standing together smiling as they work together to save a scientific treasure) would seem to benefit everyone. And justify a sincere push by the ESA to get Kouru ready on time.

By: Jeff Foust

Jeff Foust — Fri, 12 Mar 2004 18:12:20 +0000

Bill,

The problem with the Soyuz approach is that the Kourou launch site will not be initially configured to support manned launches. There’s been some discussion about performing manned launches there in the future, but at least initially—particularly in the critical 2006-2007 timeframe, when the facility opens—it will only have the infrastructure to support unmanned launches.

By: Bill White

Bill White — Fri, 12 Mar 2004 16:26:51 +0000

Suppose orbiter remains on orbit (uncrewed) near Hubble after crew return via Soyuz launched from Kouru. This assumes the SM4 crew was unable to make repairs.

If repairs are feasible, one Progress and one Soyuz could lift a repair kit and a repair team from Kouru for a lower total cost than sending the 2nd orbiter from Kennedy. If Soyuz alone could lift the repair kit & team its even easier.

I thought I read somewhere that NASA has already begun open inquiry concerning lifting the ban on buying Soyuz over that Iranian controversy.

By: Harold LaValley

Harold LaValley — Fri, 12 Mar 2004 16:13:24 +0000

The risk of crew is only in there thought process for what to them is a safe haven. Not safe return home and leave shuttle parked in orbit for later repairs which should also be an option. In addition to sending backup shuttle or other contingancies as part of the worst case that could happen.

By: Bill White

Bill White — Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:59:30 +0000

Today’s Baltimore Sun reports:

>> Citing new shuttle safety rules and his pledge to protect astronauts’ lives, NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe said yesterday that it would be “fundamentally irresponsible” of him to reverse his decision to scrub a final maintenance mission to the Hubble Space Telescope.

= = =

If the tipping point is “safe haven” then by late 2006 or early 2007 Kouru will be Soyuz ready and a Soyuz could fly “back up” to the orbiter to provide on orbit inspection and emergency landing for the crew if necessary. Accomplish SM4 with a total crew of 3 – – 1 crew flies in Soyuz and 2 in orbiter and dock Soyuz to orbiter for crew exchange as needed.

= = =

If Hubble rescue is “fundamentally irresponsible” why is it less irresponsible to fly orbiter for ISS completion purposes? How slight is the additional risk Gehman refers to?

Why isn’t all crewed spaceflight “fundamentally irresponsible?”

= = =

Baltimore Sun link: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.hubble12mar12,0,2556152.story?coll=bal-news-nation

Many thanks to spacetoday.net