Save the Hubble

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Keith Williams <[email protected]>

I'm not sure a 10x cost reduction is possible, but that's why we have
engineers.

Have it made in Hong Kong. But you'd have to order 50 000. (;-)

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

I was simply hinting the Spehro that there were still three in the
fleet. ;-)

And correctly so. I only saw the two mentioned slated to actually fly
on a bunch of projected missions in which the craft has been named.

I'm not sure a 10x cost reduction is possible, but that's why we have
engineers.

Don't forget accountants.

OTOH, if NASA doesn't restrain their PHBs better than they
did during the STS development phase we'll have another platinum-plated
rusted-out truck to show for it.

Is there actually a need for enough flights to amortize development
costs? I'd imagine at (say) one flight a week the economics would look
radically different from a couple of flights a year.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

 

[John Larkin]

Those space shuttle were designed to be used and maintained until 2020, but
after the Columbia accident, they decided to stop their use by 2010 and use
a new generation (which they currently are developping). I guess they will
use the new generation until 2040 or 2050 (since the actual space shuttle
program has been in use since 1981, and by 2010 will make a 30 years
service, the new generation would be assumed to run for 30 or 40 years too).
The challenge with the new generation is to make their use less expensive.
The actual shuttle cost about $100M per mission, they want to reduce it
close to $10M per mission with the new generation. That's what a called an
engineering challenge!

The real challenge is to find a use for the damned death-traps.

John

 

[keith]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:43:10 -0500, the renowned Keith Williams


Don't forget accountants.

I wish I could.

Is there actually a need for enough flights to amortize development
costs? I'd imagine at (say) one flight a week the economics would look
radically different from a couple of flights a year.

Well, that was the plan for STS (at least one a month). I think the
problem is that there *aren't* enough payloads the size of the Shuttle to
make it "profitable". Not many payloads need a man-rated craft (how many
really *need* it). Those that do could likely get by with a far smaller
orbiter.

The problem was that the Shuttle was set up to have a monopoly
on LEO, with the Centuar IUS even further out stuff. I don't believe the
Centaur ever flew on the Shuttle (something about LH2 and LOX in the cargo
bay). To justify the Shuttle it had to be everything to everyone. As
these things often turn out, it's a guilded lilly that is too expensive
for anyone other than those forced to use it.

 

[John Woodgate]

As these things often turn out, it's a guilded lilly

It's a female member of a trade union?

that is too
expensive for anyone other than those forced to use it.

That figures. (;-)

 

[John Larkin]

It's a female member of a trade union?

Or a high-class brazen hussy?

John

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin@highTHIS
landPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote (in <uvh121daaksfn11fc7dikluf17u9160abl@
4ax.com>) about 'Save the Hubble', on Sat, 26 Feb 2005:

Or a high-class brazen hussy?

That would assume a spelling mistake, which I'm sure the OP would never
make.

 

[Rich The Newsgropup Wacko]

Or a high-class brazen hussy?

More like "Lilly Does the Union". ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[keith]

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin@highTHIS
landPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote (in <uvh121daaksfn11fc7dikluf17u9160abl@
4ax.com>) about 'Save the Hubble', on Sat, 26 Feb 2005:
That would assume a spelling mistake, which I'm sure the OP would never
make.

The OP might not, but I'm quite capable of it. ;-)

....and PAN doesn't have a speel checker, not that it would have caught
that one. :-(