Over the years, we have seen NASA criticized in the Media as a waste of money while the needs of the cities & schools (among others) are unmet.

It is time that the HHS and similar bureauracries that waste their money on admin while their operations budgets starve are brought to book. Yes, the process will be harsh and politically unsound. Yet at the end of the day, we shall have monies for NASA.

Well we did have option close (SHuttle-Z configuration), but in the 80’s NASA needed to justifiy the exsistance of the shuttle (And to some justify the existance of NASA), so they designed the Space Station around the deleivery vehical. Instead of the other way around.

Question is would it have been cheaper to do that way? My gut says yes, but with redtape and fiefdoms that arise within large buracuacies(sp) might have been just as expensive.

HOP is actually one of at least three proposals for rehosting the two Hubble instruments that were scheduled to be installed during SM5. The other two are HORUS and HIFEX.

Both HOP and HORUS were funded as part of NASA’s “Origins Probe” study. This was essentially a study to identify “mid-size” astronomy programs focused on the origins of the universe, stars, black holes, etc. The purpose of the study was to determine if there were possible missions that NASA was missing because they were two expensive for the Explorer class program but not as big as the flagship class missions such as the James Webb Space Telescope. The projects were not to exceed a $670 million cost cap, including launch vehicle. Simply put: HOP is not even an official proposal to NASA, merely a study.

It is possible that something like HOP, HORUS or HIFEX will eventually be funded by NASA. However, that is unlikely to happen until after Hubble dies. Unfortunately, some of these proposals bank on using the existing Hubble ground infrastructure. So if Hubble dies in 2008 and a replacement is not launched until 2013 or later (about five years development is reasonable for such a craft), a lot of that infrastructure may be lost, so there would be additional costs.

Well Apollo was a more ethical vehicle than Shuttle, in fact crash dummy tested ahead of the automakers, but now now behind.

Ethics? Congress almost overnight tried to insert a feed tube down a citizen American who may be somewhat brain dead. But years and years have passed and where is the new crash dummy tested LEO transprot for the American civil servant at work for the nation astronaut?

I have always thought astronauts are a bit crazy, but I was wrong again. The American Astronaut is not crazy, but instead simply completely brain dead.

Reduce the required number of orbiter flights, whether we use SDV or EELV enchanced (30MT+ Delta IV with the small solid boosters, RL-60, etc. . .)

It is not simple to do. Shuttle missions to ISS mix the different kinds of cargo together. They might put a large component in the shuttle bay and then fill it with logistics supplies as well (like water). Take the logistics supplies out of the component and you don’t eliminate the need for that mission.

Why didn’t we do this long ago?

JWST is not made to enable optical measurements. HST SM4 instrument rehosting is definitely a better option.

Another option would be to do the Shuttle mission for HST and offload ISS-bound cargo onto commercial logistics services such as those offered by Spacehab, Kistler, SpaceX, Boeing, Lockheed, and CSI. To name a few.

In that way, you would not increase the number of Shuttle flights.

We will see.

– Jim