subject:"Re\: \[Vo\]\:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980"

James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:


 On the other hand . . . Fleischmann worked in government-funded
 institutions all of his life


 And not until he retired was he allowed to pursue the breakthrough.


That is incorrect. He was working on cold fusion when he was still at the
university -- you can see his affiliation in the papers. They never
objected because he was tenured. Not to mention an FRS. Some professors,
such as Bockris, met with opposition despite tenure, but most did not.
Mizuno met with opposition and had to spend his own money, but no one tried
to stop him or any other Japanese professor.

If it were not for the tenure system, cold fusion would never have been
replicated. Most of the replications were done by tenured professors using
university labs. Pons put some of his own money into the experiment, but
the equipment and lab space was at U. Utah, so most of it was public money.

You could not possibly get tenure if you talked about cold fusion today.
You would never be hired in the first place. That is why there are no
professors under 60 doing cold fusion. The field will die out soon if this
does not change.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

Here is another interesting article in Slate's series, on the Columbia
disaster:

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2003/11/langewiesche.htm

This is about the dysfunctional corporate culture in NASA.

When Columbia was in orbit, some people thought it might be damaged by the
falling insulation. Some said that even if it was damaged, nothing could be
done about it. Here is something I did not know:

[NASA administrator] Linda Ham was wrong. Had the hole in the leading edge
been seen, actions could have been taken to try to save the astronauts'
lives. The first would have been simply to buy some time. Assuming a
starting point on the fifth day of the flight, NASA engineers subsequently
calculated that by requiring the crew to rest and sleep, the mission could
have been extended to a full month, to February 15. During that time the
Atlantis, which was already being prepared for a scheduled March 1 launch,
could have been processed more quickly by ground crews working around the
clock, and made ready to go by February 10. If all had proceeded perfectly,
there would have been a five-day window in which to blast off, join up with
the Columbia, and transfer the stranded astronauts one by one to safety, by
means of tethered spacewalks. Such a rescue would not have been easy, and
it would have involved the possibility of another fatal foam strike and the
loss of two shuttles instead of one; but in the risk-versus-risk world of
space flight, veterans like Mike Bloomfield would immediately have
volunteered, and NASA would have bet the farm.

The fallback would have been a desperate measure—a jury-rigged repair
performed by the Columbia astronauts themselves. It would have required two
spacewalkers to fill the hole with a combination of heavy tools and metal
scraps scavenged from the crew compartment, and to supplement that mass
with an ice bag shaped to the wing's leading edge. In theory, if much of
the payload had been jettisoned, and luck was with the crew, such a repair
might perhaps have endured a modified re-entry and allowed the astronauts
to bail out at the standard 30,000 feet. The engineers who came up with
this plan realized that in reality it would have been extremely dangerous,
and might well have led to a high-speed burn-through and the loss of the
crew. But anything would have been better than attempting a normal re-entry
as it was actually flown.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote:


 To label NASA as a dysfunctinal corporate culture seems a stretch since
 they are a bureaucratic goverment agency in which both cases managers
 failed to move on actionable data.


That's what I mean. That's the same thing. It was a dysfunctional corporate
culture so the managers failed. It probably still is.

I did not mean corporate as in corporation. I meant group or aggregate.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

2012-05-27 Thread David Roberson


It is not hard to envision the complex waiting procedure shown below with the 
knowledge that we posses today.  Things would have been far different for the 
decision makers at the time since no one actually believed that the mission 
would degrade as it did.  Actually, we could move the decision point further 
back in time all the way to the basic design decisions that were made at the 
beginning of the project.  Now, not like then, most engineers would realize 
that falling foam damage might cause failure to the craft and it will never 
show up again in future designs.  This is the nature of unknowns and they 
always exist.

Can you imagine the uproar that would have occurred had a group of engineers 
come forward and told their managers about their concern at the time?  Remember 
the famous O-ring meetings?  I suspect that operating upon issues that 'might' 
happen is routinely suppressed.  It is difficult to imagine any scenario 
involving a complex craft such as the shuttle that is 100% safe under any and 
all conditions which might arise.  We can certainly argue that the loss of 
tiles in a critical area falls under the category of major concern, but plenty 
of other faults could end a mission as well.  Unfortunately danger is always a 
part of life.

It is not possible to go back in time(at least not yet) to follow an alternate 
path which averts destruction.  How could we be sure that the other possible 
plans do not have serious misconceptions lurking within them?  I am afraid that 
we are bound by the decisions made by those in authority.  There will always be 
errors in judgement and designs will need to be modified to compensate.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, May 27, 2012 1:54 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980


Here is another interesting article in Slate's series, on the Columbia disaster:


http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2003/11/langewiesche.htm


This is about the dysfunctional corporate culture in NASA.


When Columbia was in orbit, some people thought it might be damaged by the 
falling insulation. Some said that even if it was damaged, nothing could be 
done about it. Here is something I did not know:


[NASA administrator] Linda Ham was wrong. Had the hole in the leading edge been 
seen, actions could have been taken to try to save the astronauts' lives. The 
first would have been simply to buy some time. Assuming a starting point on the 
fifth day of the flight, NASA engineers subsequently calculated that by 
requiring the crew to rest and sleep, the mission could have been extended to a 
full month, to February 15. During that time the Atlantis, which was already 
being prepared for a scheduled March 1 launch, could have been processed more 
quickly by ground crews working around the clock, and made ready to go by 
February 10. If all had proceeded perfectly, there would have been a five-day 
window in which to blast off, join up with the Columbia, and transfer the 
stranded astronauts one by one to safety, by means of tethered spacewalks. Such 
a rescue would not have been easy, and it would have involved the possibility 
of another fatal foam strike and the loss of two shuttles instead of one; but 
in the risk-versus-risk world of space flight, veterans like Mike Bloomfield 
would immediately have volunteered, and NASA would have bet the farm.

The fallback would have been a desperate measure—a jury-rigged repair performed 
by the Columbia astronauts themselves. It would have required two spacewalkers 
to fill the hole with a combination of heavy tools and metal scraps scavenged 
from the crew compartment, and to supplement that mass with an ice bag shaped 
to the wing's leading edge. In theory, if much of the payload had been 
jettisoned, and luck was with the crew, such a repair might perhaps have 
endured a modified re-entry and allowed the astronauts to bail out at the 
standard 30,000 feet. The engineers who came up with this plan realized that in 
reality it would have been extremely dangerous, and might well have led to a 
high-speed burn-through and the loss of the crew. But anything would have been 
better than attempting a normal re-entry as it was actually flown. 


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Can you imagine the uproar that would have occurred had a group of
 engineers come forward and told their managers about their concern at the
 time?


They did come forward! Read the article. While the Shuttle was in orbit,
they came forward, contacted the Air Force, and asked them to look at the
Shuttle with a spy satellite. The Air Force agreed to do this, but at the
last minute the top managers at NASA cancelled the check.

The engineers also asked for a space walk to check the wing. That would
have been easy to do. The managers refused to allow that either.

A spy sat. would easily have spotted the problem. The hole was probably
large enough to put head into. When they finally arranged a test on earth,
the insulation punched a hole of that side.

The managers fought tooth and nail to prevent the test on earth as well.
They did not want proof. They gave the excuse that the test would ruin
$700,000 worth of material. This was after spending $300 million on the
investigation.

The manager's behavior resembles that of people opposed to cold fusion.
They go to any lengths to prevent tests and hide the facts. This kind of
behavior is common in all government agencies, corporations, in the
Catholic Church, in the Board of Trade investigation of the Titanic
disaster, and in all other institutions.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

I mean that when they finally did the test, the was that SIZE. Big enough
to put your head into. The resolution of the spy sat. cameras is not known,
and the size of the hole is not known, but it was probably large enough to
spot easily.

Unfortunately, this Shuttle did not have an arm. If it had they might have
checked with that. Although I expect the managers would not have allowed
even that check. They were determined not to allow any bad news, and not to
allow anyone below them to make any decisions that might reflect badly on
NASA.

These events were well documented in an extensive investigation, but they
did not trigger an uproar. They triggered intense and largely successful
efforts to cover up the facts and whitewash the truth. The same thing
happened after the Three Mile Island disaster. An NRL engineer who warned
that the valve had malfunctioned twice and it was likely to happen again
with disastrous consequences was forced out. The managers who had ignored
his recommendation and later ordered him to shut up were given large cash
bonuses and promotions.

That is the way the world works. If cold fusion ever succeeds I am
confident that the establishment people who opposed it will take credit for
its success. They will be promoted, rewarded and lionized. The people who
worked to bring it about -- including me -- will be given the frozen
boot, as the Russians say. No good deed goes unpunished. That is the way
the world works now, and always has, and probably always will.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

2012-05-27 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax


At 12:10 PM 5/26/2012, Chemical Engineer wrote:

Jed,

I suggest you remove all of those Hubble screen savers and 
wallpapers off your PC.  It cost way too much to produce them


On Saturday, May 26, 2012, Chemical Engineer wrote:
If that was the only accomplishment of the shuttle i might give your 
argument some weight


On Saturday, May 26, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote:

You could have replaced the Hubble many time over for the cost of 
the Shuttle and its operation.



That is true. See the book Hubble Wars. The cost of the Shuttle 
mission to repair the Hubble was greater than the cost of launching 
a new Hubble would have been. I regret to say this, but it was a 
publicity stunt.


Brilliant. The Shuttle program was justified because it produced cool 
screen-savers? Why should we toss out those expensive screen-savers? 
We should keep them as reminders of how billions of dollars can be 
spent to produce some great images.


Now, for the future, can we produce even better images with an 
improve space telescope, launched far more cheaply?


I bet there are some great images of tokamaks and other hot fusion 
machines. I've seen some great steampunk stuff from the Soviet 
program. Big Old Machines, rusting away. This means?


Big Science is almost intrinsically a problem, it requires massive 
bureaucracy, which is readily self-preserving, just not surprising. 
Science is now tending toward much smarter investments, and to 
distributed intelligence.

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

2012-05-27 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax


At 02:47 PM 5/26/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

In other countries such as Italy, Japan and China as well, nearly 
all funding is from the governments. Granted, Toyota and some others 
contributed a little, but only in tandem with governments.


And when it became clear that the Pons-Fleischmann approach to LENR 
had very little commercial promise, if any, that it was *difficult* 
to make this reliable, and, of course, reliability is essential to 
commercial application, Toyota backed out. They did not make it clear 
why they were doing this, which is unfortunate, it gets presented as 
if they found cold fusion was bogus. They did not.


By the time Toyota backed out, it was clear that cold fusion was 
real. But *difficult* to make reliable. It is possible to imagine 
making cold fusion useful if it can be shown to be statistically 
reliable, but it's a lot more work, requiring simultaneous 
miniaturization and multiplication.


Jed's basic point stands. This is mostly blue-sky research, with no 
*immediate* commercial application, if we set aside the wild cards, 
i.e., Rossi et al. Most of that research, really, remains to be done, 
there are fundamental questions about cold fusion that have never 
been adequately investigated, so heavy was the pressure to try to 
make cells reliable, with higher energy output, instead of 
carefully and repeatedly investigating what was already found.


I.e., doing science, as distinct from trying to engineer what is not 
understood, a process that can be little more than stabbing in the 
dark. If Rossi found a secret sauce, it would probably have little 
to do with a theoretical understanding and much more to do with 
simply trying a lot of stuff. Too bad he had no understanding of 
scientific protocols, he thought that controls were laughable. 
Supposedly he already knows what a control E-cat would do, i.e., nothing.


But it would not do *nothing* if it had the same power input as his 
test E-cat. It would show the behavior of an E-cat without the 
secret sauce, compared to with it. It would have largely killed the 
objections to his tests, leaving only pure fraud (which is impossible 
to completely disprove aside from truly independent testing.)

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

2012-05-27 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax


At 02:55 PM 5/26/2012, Daniel Rocha wrote:
This argument is not right. It is not valid also to compare it to a 
computer or aircraft projects. The development of Hubble led to a 
unique architecture, not to mass production. It would take a long 
time to build another one. So, fixing it in space, even if required 
a lot of money, was necessary or a lot of fundamental research would 
be long delayed.


That's arguable. However, it also points to long-term planning 
failure. It points to the hazard of betting everything on a single 
implementation. It's been pointed out in this discussion that 
building several space telescopes would not have cost several times 
as much money. Only launch costs would have seen such a 
multiplication, maybe. Maybe not!


Further, if more than one worked, great. Easier access to more researchers.

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

2012-05-27 Thread Daniel Rocha

I think it would be a dream having multiple Hubbles for many researchers,
but the problem is that requiring multiple modules would require a lot of
extra funding, before the beginning of the project, and basic science is
something that people do not appreciate much since it has too much a fame
of being wasted money, unfortunately. They rather waste their tax money in
useless wars or saving stupid banks, in much bigger quantities.

But I think tolerance for failures with space for upgrades was something
taken into consideration before sending it to space. Otherwise, Hubble
would not be built into modules and its fixing would not have taken just a
few days.

2012/5/27 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com

 At 02:55 PM 5/26/2012, Daniel Rocha wrote:

 This argument is not right. It is not valid also to compare it to a
 computer or aircraft projects. The development of Hubble led to a unique
 architecture, not to mass production. It would take a long time to build
 another one. So, fixing it in space, even if required a lot of money, was
 necessary or a lot of fundamental research would be long delayed.


 That's arguable. However, it also points to long-term planning failure. It
 points to the hazard of betting everything on a single implementation. It's
 been pointed out in this discussion that building several space telescopes
 would not have cost several times as much money. Only launch costs would
 have seen such a multiplication, maybe. Maybe not!

 Further, if more than one worked, great. Easier access to more
 researchers.




-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

We are lambasting NASA about this, and yeah they deserve it. But don't
forget they also launched the Mars explorers. That is one one the greatest
achievements in the history of science and technology.

NASA is a big organization. Some parts are good, and some are bad. As I
said, when they are good, they are very, very good.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

2012-05-27 Thread James Bowery

You caught me in a technicality, Jed.  The distinction between retirement
and tenure, especially in Fleischmann's case, is specious given what is at
issue:

Whether it is independence that is the foundation of scientific
revolutions, or the guidance of our esteemed institutions.

On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:


 On the other hand . . . Fleischmann worked in government-funded
 institutions all of his life


 And not until he retired was he allowed to pursue the breakthrough.


 That is incorrect. He was working on cold fusion when he was still at the
 university -- you can see his affiliation in the papers. They never
 objected because he was tenured. Not to mention an FRS. Some professors,
 such as Bockris, met with opposition despite tenure, but most did not.
 Mizuno met with opposition and had to spend his own money, but no one tried
 to stop him or any other Japanese professor.

 If it were not for the tenure system, cold fusion would never have been
 replicated. Most of the replications were done by tenured professors using
 university labs. Pons put some of his own money into the experiment, but
 the equipment and lab space was at U. Utah, so most of it was public money.

 You could not possibly get tenure if you talked about cold fusion today.
 You would never be hired in the first place. That is why there are no
 professors under 60 doing cold fusion. The field will die out soon if this
 does not change.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

2012-05-27 Thread Chemical Engineer

Agreed, as the shuttle work has also led to new technologies.

The Apollo program also lost Astronauts but gave us great technologies and
movies.

On Sunday, May 27, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 We are lambasting NASA about this, and yeah they deserve it. But don't
 forget they also launched the Mars explorers. That is one one the greatest
 achievements in the history of science and technology.

 NASA is a big organization. Some parts are good, and some are bad. As I
 said, when they are good, they are very, very good.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:


 You caught me in a technicality, Jed.  The distinction between retirement
 and tenure, especially in Fleischmann's case, is specious . . .


It is not specious. He was doing cold fusion when he was still an acting
professor. He did not do experiments because he never did them himself. He
was not good in the lab. He always collaborated with a hands-on person,
Pons in this case.



 Whether it is independence that is the foundation of scientific
 revolutions, or the guidance of our esteemed institutions.


Both. In many case such as aviation, independent researchers brought forth
the technology. In the case of the Internet, Uncle Sam did it all. That was
developed by civil servants on the government payroll. Transistors were the
product of Bell Labs, one of the most esteemed mainstream institutions in
history. Bell Labs also invented most other important telecom technology.

Many other important breakthroughs such as lasers were developed
independently but with government money. Most cold fusion breakthroughs are
in this category: independent, but paid for mainly by governments. The
project at U. Missouri, for example, is being paid for with private money,
but the lab facilities and much of the funding is from U. Mo.'s incubator
funding. It would never have happened if the state had not taken the
initiative, under Duncan's leadership.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

2012-05-26 Thread Ransom Wuller

Jed:

The leap too far point is incorrect.  That had little to do with the
shuttle's issues.

The main problem was that it was designed to be everything.  A truck, a
car, a lab all rolled into one.  You wouldn't design a passenger carrier
and add a large truck carrier to it.  It makes both complicated.

The energetics to take humans to orbit is significantly less then taking
40,000 lb payloads.

The whole thing was incompetently designed to do all things for all
people, because there was no will at the time for multiple projects.  That
was it's big problem.  Now maybe that added complexity which you point out
but it was a process problem not a technology problem.

Ransom

 This was featured in Slate magazine. I read it years ago. It is a damning
 critique of the Space Shuttle written before the first Shuttle flew:

 http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/8004.easterbrook-fulltext.html

 Many people consider the Shuttle a technical triumph. I always had my
 doubts, and after the first accident I thought they should scrap it. This
 article shows that may people were aware of the shortcomings. The problem
 with the Shuttle was that it was a leap too far. They tried to accomplish
 too much in one generation of improvements. There have been many similar
 failures in the history of technology, such as the IBM Stretch Computer.
 The Stretch caused no harm. It lost a lot of money, but within a decade
 IBM
 recouped the loss by using most of the technology developed for it in
 other
 machines.

 Rossi has tried to make far too big a leap. His megawatt reactor reminds
 me
 of the flying boats with multiple engines of the 1930s such as the Dornier
 Do X:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_X

 And the Caproni Ca. 60, probably the most ambitious and worst airplane
 ever
 built:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Ca.60

 Come to think of it, the Shuttle also had multiple engines of different
 types. That is a hallmark of bad technology.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

2012-05-26 Thread James Bowery

The Soviets won the space race.  They installed a communist bureaucracy
over the most critical of all areas to US culture:

Frontiers.

Very few of 
ushttp://web.archive.org/web/20090901150614/http://www.geocities.com/jim_bowery/NssEthicsAward.htmlwere
fighting against this communist
system of launch
serviceshttp://web.archive.org/web/20090901150614/http://www.geocities.com/jim_bowery/testimny.htmback
in the 1980s and those of us who did were roundly reviled by space
enthusiasts.  When we did have successes, such as PL101-611, the Launch
Services Purchase Act of 1990, individuals who had previously opposed us,
such as Glenn Reynolds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Reynolds, were
put in place by the powers that be to take credit.  (It was comical to see
Reynolds' look on his face when he sat next to me during Congressional
testimony and the sponsor of the legislation, Ron Packard of CA introduced
me as the main force behind the bill.) The
historyhttp://www.oocities.com/jim_bowery/BussardsLetter.htmlof
prize
awardshttp://web.archive.org/web/20090901150614/http://www.geocities.com/jim_bowery/bafar.htmlfor
technology http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,39865,00.html is a
less pathological but similar pattern.  It is clear that Easterbrook, with
whom I had some dealings during this time, simply did not have the capacity
to critique any government program as encroaching on an area that clearly
needed to be left in private hands.

The idea that rocket engineering was simply too sophisticated for private
enterprise is utter garbage.

Once created, NASA (which was barred from competing with the private sector
only in communications satellites) had an incentive to take credit for all
advances in technologies that might expand the space frontier -- hence was
threatened by anyone not under its management at the very least as a
private contractor.

It is incredible to watch the folks here in Vortex speak about obscenity
like NASA in any other terms.  It was born of a Manhattan Project-style
centralized government program an and, like the Manhattan Project, spawned
a technology-suppressing bureaucracy that would not die.  It was not a
Gregg Easterbrook-like character, but Stanley Pons and his financial
independence (along with Fleischmann's retirement independence) that
allowed for an escape route for cold fusion.  Yet, we see 2 decades later,
the monster spawned of Manhattan, is still fighting for the destruction of
the world.

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

Condemning the shuttle program is like condemning jet fighter aircraft
bombers now that we have drones to do the dirty work.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/08/secret-air-force-x-37b-space-plane-mission-pectacular-success/

Without the shuttle crew Hubble would be a piece of space junk.

On Saturday, May 26, 2012, Ransom Wuller wrote:

Jed:

The leap too far point is incorrect. That had little to do with the
shuttle's issues.

The main problem was that it was designed to be everything. A truck, a
car, a lab all rolled into one. You wouldn't design a passenger carrier
and add a large truck carrier to it. It makes both complicated.

The energetics to take humans to orbit is significantly less then taking
40,000 lb payloads.

The whole thing was incompetently designed to do all things for all
people, because there was no will at the time for multiple projects. That
was it's big problem. Now maybe that added complexity which you point out
but it was a process problem not a technology problem.

Ransom

This was featured in Slate magazine. I read it years ago. It is a damning
critique of the Space Shuttle written before the first Shuttle flew:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/8004.easterbrook-fulltext.html

Many people consider the Shuttle a technical triumph. I always had my
doubts, and after the first accident I thought they should scrap it. This
article shows that may people were aware of the shortcomings. The problem
with the Shuttle was that it was a leap too far. They tried to accomplish
too much in one generation of improvements. There have been many similar
failures in the history of technology, such as the IBM Stretch Computer.
The Stretch caused no harm. It lost a lot of money, but within a decade
IBM
recouped the loss by using most of the technology developed for it in
other
machines.

Rossi has tried to make far too big a leap. His megawatt reactor reminds
me
of the flying boats with multiple engines of the 1930s such as the
Dornier
Do X:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_X

And the Caproni Ca. 60, probably the most ambitious and worst airplane
ever
built:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Ca.60

Come to think of it, the Shuttle also had multiple engines of different
types. That is a hallmark of bad technology.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

2012-05-26 Thread Randy Wuller

You could have replaced the Hubble many time over for the cost of the Shuttle
and its operation.

Sent from my iPhone

On May 26, 2012, at 10:34 AM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

Condemning the shuttle program is like condemning jet fighter aircraft
bombers now that we have drones to do the dirty work.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/08/secret-air-force-x-37b-space-plane-mission-pectacular-success/

Without the shuttle crew Hubble would be a piece of space junk.

On Saturday, May 26, 2012, Ransom Wuller wrote:
Jed:

The leap too far point is incorrect. That had little to do with the
shuttle's issues.

The energetics to take humans to orbit is significantly less then taking
40,000 lb payloads.

Ransom

This was featured in Slate magazine. I read it years ago. It is a damning
critique of the Space Shuttle written before the first Shuttle flew:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/8004.easterbrook-fulltext.html

Rossi has tried to make far too big a leap. His megawatt reactor reminds
me
of the flying boats with multiple engines of the 1930s such as the Dornier
Do X:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_X

And the Caproni Ca. 60, probably the most ambitious and worst airplane
ever
built:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Ca.60

Come to think of it, the Shuttle also had multiple engines of different
types. That is a hallmark of bad technology.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

2012-05-26 Thread LORENHEYER

Most people who used a horse or a horse-drawn carriage back at the turn of 
the 20th Century had a initial negative reaction to the first gas powered 
vehicles, and usually  shouted to it's driver to Get A Horse!!!.  


  Don't get me wrong, because I like animals,,, but, horsepower perse 
needs revising.   Instead of a very limited amount of mass-fuel to over-power 
the vehicle it's used in, a vastly improved means of utilizing a  virtually 
unlimited energy source to produce a phenomenal speed could be used.

   All they have to do to get rid of mass-fuel and/or it's 
limited velocity of around 30,000 mph's  (please, no exploding nukes for thrust 
is necessary), would be to start thinking in-terms of utilizing a newly 
developed *source* of energy, like some type of HENR.   
 

   Simply by generating a sustained TPF 
total-pulling-force,,,  which translates into the amount of centrifugal-force 
compensated 
by electromagnetic attraction-force so as to at least equal the EVW- entire 
vehicle weight,,, you would then have a considerably more reliable capable 
means of enabling you're biologically dependent disabled body to travel 
anywhere you can think of... which unfortunately is limited to innerplanetary 
destinations only.  
 

/HTML

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote:

You could have replaced the Hubble many time over for the cost of the
 Shuttle and its operation.


That is true. See the book Hubble Wars. The cost of the Shuttle mission
to repair the Hubble was greater than the cost of launching a new Hubble
would have been. I regret to say this, but it was a publicity stunt.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

Condemning the shuttle program is like condemning jet fighter aircraft 
 bombers now that we have drones to do the dirty work.


No, it is like condemning the F22 Raptor because that airplane was too
ambitious, it tried to do too many different missions, and it costs way too
much. The history of military aviation is filled with cost overruns and
badly designed aircraft.


Without the shuttle  crew Hubble would be a piece of space junk.


As noted, it would have been cheaper to abandon it as space junk, and
launch another. Sending the Shuttle to fix it was a publicity stunt. *That
mission alone* cost more than a replacement, never mind the whole Shuttle
project.

It is not surprising that a new Hubble would have been cheap. The Hubble is
similar to the spy satellites the U.S. has been launching for decades. This
is a mature technology with lots of experienced people. Unfortunately, when
they were designing the Hubble, they ignored many of the lessons of the spy
satellite business. The spooks contacted them and offered to help, but the
designers blew them away. That is one of the reasons the Hubble had a bad
lens and other problems. It was a fiasco in many ways.

It was also overrun by academic politics, which degraded performance. Much
of the design and operation was focused on preventing junior-level
astronomers, staff or -- God forbid -- members of the public from making
important discoveries, by locking up, restricting or degrading the data.
Before the Hubble, a junior astronomer made a major finding by looking
through the raw data. She got to it before the big-gun, well established
experts got a chance. So they vowed to prevent this by structuring the
whole project in the Mushroom Management Mode: keep your employees in the
dark and feed them manure.

Again, see the book Hubble Wars.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

If that was the only accomplishment of the shuttle i might give your
argument some weight

On Saturday, May 26, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
 'rwul...@freeark.com'); wrote:

 You could have replaced the Hubble many time over for the cost of the
 Shuttle and its operation.


 That is true. See the book Hubble Wars. The cost of the Shuttle mission
 to repair the Hubble was greater than the cost of launching a new Hubble
 would have been. I regret to say this, but it was a publicity stunt.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

2012-05-26 Thread Randy Wuller

I'm sorry but the Shuttle and the ISS have simply gobbled up funding with very 
little real purpose. When you lose sight of a real goal, government funding 
turns into a jobs program. 

There were a lot of better alternaives for funding space development. I was 
involved in lobby groups for years talking to Congress and the Administration 
about the issues, it did very little good.

Ransom

Sent from my iPhone

On May 26, 2012, at 11:58 AM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 If that was the only accomplishment of the shuttle i might give your argument 
 some weight 
 
 On Saturday, May 26, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
 Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote:
 
 You could have replaced the Hubble many time over for the cost of the Shuttle 
 and its operation. 
 
 That is true. See the book Hubble Wars. The cost of the Shuttle mission to 
 repair the Hubble was greater than the cost of launching a new Hubble would 
 have been. I regret to say this, but it was a publicity stunt.
 
 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

The Hubble data information management structure reminds me of the Dilbert
character Mordac, Preventer of Information Services:

http://dilbert.com/strips/?CharIDs=15After=01/01/1996Before=08/20/2008Order=s.DateStrip+DESCPerPage=50x=23y=9CharFilter=Any

A lot of that goes on in industry. In science, the academic journals play
this role. They charge libraries and the public tens of thousands of
dollars for access research that the public already paid for, in Federal
grants. Lately, the Congress has been looking into this. In my opinion, all
research done with public money should be made available on the Internet
for free the moment it is published.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

Jed,

Jed,

I suggest you remove all of those Hubble screen savers and wallpapers off
your PC.  It cost way too much to produce them

On Saturday, May 26, 2012, Chemical Engineer wrote:

 If that was the only accomplishment of the shuttle i might give your
 argument some weight

 On Saturday, May 26, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote:

 You could have replaced the Hubble many time over for the cost of the
 Shuttle and its operation.


 That is true. See the book Hubble Wars. The cost of the Shuttle mission
 to repair the Hubble was greater than the cost of launching a new Hubble
 would have been. I regret to say this, but it was a publicity stunt.

 - Jed

RE: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

2012-05-26 Thread Douglas Hill

Now that the shuttle is gone, how do we keep kids interested in STEM?  What
inspiration does a teenager get from cargo drone launches?  What would get
you pumped up and want to spend your future doing science?





*From:* Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Saturday, May 26, 2012 12:57 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980



Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote:



Condemning the shuttle program is like condemning jet fighter aircraft 
bombers now that we have drones to do the dirty work.



No, it is like condemning the F22 Raptor because that airplane was too
ambitious, it tried to do too many different missions, and it costs way too
much. The history of military aviation is filled with cost overruns and
badly designed aircraft.





Without the shuttle  crew Hubble would be a piece of space junk.



As noted, it would have been cheaper to abandon it as space junk, and
launch another. Sending the Shuttle to fix it was a publicity stunt. *That
mission alone* cost more than a replacement, never mind the whole Shuttle
project.



It is not surprising that a new Hubble would have been cheap. The Hubble is
similar to the spy satellites the U.S. has been launching for decades. This
is a mature technology with lots of experienced people. Unfortunately, when
they were designing the Hubble, they ignored many of the lessons of the spy
satellite business. The spooks contacted them and offered to help, but the
designers blew them away. That is one of the reasons the Hubble had a bad
lens and other problems. It was a fiasco in many ways.



It was also overrun by academic politics, which degraded performance. Much
of the design and operation was focused on preventing junior-level
astronomers, staff or -- God forbid -- members of the public from making
important discoveries, by locking up, restricting or degrading the data.
Before the Hubble, a junior astronomer made a major finding by looking
through the raw data. She got to it before the big-gun, well established
experts got a chance. So they vowed to prevent this by structuring the
whole project in the Mushroom Management Mode: keep your employees in the
dark and feed them manure.



Again, see the book Hubble Wars.



- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

If that was the only accomplishment of the shuttle i might give your
 argument some weight


No one denies that the Shuttle was a major improvement. So was the IBM
Stretch computer. If they had made one Shuttle, learned lesson from it, and
then tried again with a new design it would have been worth it. They
committed to a new design too early, and tried to accomplish too much. That
often happens in commercial engineering. It is not just NASA that makes
that mistake.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

Hell, Obama skipped right by basic research and gave billions  to green
energy companies to rush out products destined for failure

On Saturday, May 26, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 The Hubble data information management structure reminds me of the Dilbert
 character Mordac, Preventer of Information Services:


 http://dilbert.com/strips/?CharIDs=15After=01/01/1996Before=08/20/2008Order=s.DateStrip+DESCPerPage=50x=23y=9CharFilter=Any

 A lot of that goes on in industry. In science, the academic journals play
 this role. They charge libraries and the public tens of thousands of
 dollars for access research that the public already paid for, in Federal
 grants. Lately, the Congress has been looking into this. In my opinion, all
 research done with public money should be made available on the Internet
 for free the moment it is published.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

Like i said, the new shuttle drone has spent almost two years in space and
is doing great and so is the SpaceX drone. Go USA!

On Saturday, May 26, 2012, Chemical Engineer wrote:

 Hell, Obama skipped right by basic research and gave billions  to green
 energy companies to rush out products destined for failure

 On Saturday, May 26, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 The Hubble data information management structure reminds me of the
 Dilbert character Mordac, Preventer of Information Services:


 http://dilbert.com/strips/?CharIDs=15After=01/01/1996Before=08/20/2008Order=s.DateStrip+DESCPerPage=50x=23y=9CharFilter=Any

 A lot of that goes on in industry. In science, the academic journals play
 this role. They charge libraries and the public tens of thousands of
 dollars for access research that the public already paid for, in Federal
 grants. Lately, the Congress has been looking into this. In my opinion, all
 research done with public money should be made available on the Internet
 for free the moment it is published.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

2012-05-26 Thread Randy Wuller

Open space to the people so they participate in reality not vicariosly through 
others. Being personally involved is a great motivator. How to do it, lower 
cost access to space. How do you achieve lower cost access? Building a private 
commercial transportation industry. You do that with Government acting as a 
good customer with incentives for investment and some revenue subsidies.

Ransom

Sent from my iPhone

On May 26, 2012, at 12:12 PM, Douglas Hill hil...@lemoyne.edu wrote:

 Now that the shuttle is gone, how do we keep kids interested in STEM?  What 
 inspiration does a teenager get from cargo drone launches?  What would get 
 you pumped up and want to spend your future doing science?
 
  
 
  
 
 From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
 Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2012 12:57 PM
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980
 
  
 
 Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  
 
 Condemning the shuttle program is like condemning jet fighter aircraft  
 bombers now that we have drones to do the dirty work.
 
  
 
 No, it is like condemning the F22 Raptor because that airplane was too 
 ambitious, it tried to do too many different missions, and it costs way too 
 much. The history of military aviation is filled with cost overruns and badly 
 designed aircraft.
 
  
 
  
 
 Without the shuttle  crew Hubble would be a piece of space junk.
 
  
 
 As noted, it would have been cheaper to abandon it as space junk, and launch 
 another. Sending the Shuttle to fix it was a publicity stunt. That mission 
 alone cost more than a replacement, never mind the whole Shuttle project.
 
  
 
 It is not surprising that a new Hubble would have been cheap. The Hubble is 
 similar to the spy satellites the U.S. has been launching for decades. This 
 is a mature technology with lots of experienced people. Unfortunately, when 
 they were designing the Hubble, they ignored many of the lessons of the spy 
 satellite business. The spooks contacted them and offered to help, but the 
 designers blew them away. That is one of the reasons the Hubble had a bad 
 lens and other problems. It was a fiasco in many ways.
 
  
 
 It was also overrun by academic politics, which degraded performance. Much of 
 the design and operation was focused on preventing junior-level astronomers, 
 staff or -- God forbid -- members of the public from making important 
 discoveries, by locking up, restricting or degrading the data. Before the 
 Hubble, a junior astronomer made a major finding by looking through the raw 
 data. She got to it before the big-gun, well established experts got a 
 chance. So they vowed to prevent this by structuring the whole project in the 
 Mushroom Management Mode: keep your employees in the dark and feed them 
 manure.
 
  
 
 Again, see the book Hubble Wars.
 
  
 
 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

Hell, Obama skipped right by basic research and gave billions  to green
 energy companies to rush out products destined for failure


That is nonsense. All of the technology the government has assisted has
been conventional, long established, proven stuff such as wind turbines and
PVs. The failures have all been cause by rapidly falling prices, which are
caused by competition by China. The Chinese are spending much more than we
are, and they are capturing markets all over the world.

The price of PV electricity has fallen drastically in recent years. There
are many competing techniques, and many companies pursuing each technology.
They cannot all survive. This kind of shakeout is typical for emerging
technologies. It happened with automobiles, transistors, personal
computers, and many others.

I wish the government would do more research on risky new ideas, especially
cold fusion.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

You call spending billions on gigawatts of CSP power towers proven and
conventional?  Do some more research Jed.

On Saturday, May 26, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
 'cheme...@gmail.com'); wrote:

 Hell, Obama skipped right by basic research and gave billions  to green
 energy companies to rush out products destined for failure


 That is nonsense. All of the technology the government has assisted has
 been conventional, long established, proven stuff such as wind turbines and
 PVs. The failures have all been cause by rapidly falling prices, which are
 caused by competition by China. The Chinese are spending much more than we
 are, and they are capturing markets all over the world.

 The price of PV electricity has fallen drastically in recent years. There
 are many competing techniques, and many companies pursuing each technology.
 They cannot all survive. This kind of shakeout is typical for emerging
 technologies. It happened with automobiles, transistors, personal
 computers, and many others.

 I wish the government would do more research on risky new ideas,
 especially cold fusion.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

2012-05-26 Thread Eric Walker

On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 8:32 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

It is incredible to watch the folks here in Vortex speak about obscenity
 like NASA in any other terms.  It was born of a Manhattan Project-style
 centralized government program an and, like the Manhattan Project, spawned
 a technology-suppressing bureaucracy that would not die.  It was not a
 Gregg Easterbrook-like character, but Stanley Pons and his financial
 independence (along with Fleischmann's retirement independence) that
 allowed for an escape route for cold fusion.  Yet, we see 2 decades later,
 the monster spawned of Manhattan, is still fighting for the destruction of
 the world.


NASA is big and bureaucratic.  Many other U.S. government agencies are big
and bureaucratic as well.  Overgrown bureaucracy leads to funny
organizational decision making and to vast inefficiencies.  In the context
of science, heavy-handed bureaucracy can and does impede scientific
discovery.  Decentralizing decision making in the context of encouraging
innovation and handing much of the work over to the private sector promise
to remedy some of this dysfunction.

These statements are almost entirely uncontroversial.  Few intelligent
observers who follow this stuff who would disagree with them in principle.

The question that is most interesting to me here is that of the degree and
role of the government in any government-industry collaboration.  When we
place all emphasis on the private sector, unconditionally, a discussion
that was previously interesting becomes political (U.S. politics, for those
of us who cannot be bothered to follow the not-so-subtle subtext of the
present thread), questions that previously had nuance become black and
white and we find ourselves at another front in the ongoing culture wars.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:


 It was not a Gregg Easterbrook-like character, but Stanley Pons and his
 financial independence (along with Fleischmann's retirement independence)
 that allowed for an escape route for cold fusion.  Yet, we see 2 decades
 later, the monster spawned of Manhattan, is still fighting for the
 destruction of the world.


On the other hand . . . Fleischmann worked in government-funded
institutions all of his life, as did not most other cold fusion
researchers. U. Utah is funded by the state.

Nearly every dollar that has been spent on cold fusion since 1989 came from
government agencies. In the U.S., on Darpa contributes. Industry, venture
capital and other independent sources have contributed nothing.

In other countries such as Italy, Japan and China as well, nearly all
funding is from the governments. Granted, Toyota and some others
contributed a little, but only in tandem with governments.

So, it is thanks to governments that cold fusion still survives at all. If
cold fusion does succeed, it will be mainly thanks to governments.

A few independent yeomen such as Rossi have made important contributions
with the their own money. Fleischmann, Pons and later Mizuno contributed
their own money. But it was nowhere near enough. The research is mainly
thanks to government, and no thanks at all to industry, banks, venture
capitalists, or any capitalist institutions. Government is the worst source
of scientific progress except for all the others.

As I have often pointed out, since 1800 continuing through the present, the
U.S. and British governments have either paid for directly invented just
about every major technological innovation, from steam ships to transistors
to the Internet. Sometimes others such as Bell Labs make a discovery such
as the transistor, but for the next 10 or 20 years it is the government
that puts in most of the RD money. Most of this research does not resemble
the Manhattan project. The laser, for example, was invented by a professor
and a grad student at Columbia U., with NRL money.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

2012-05-26 Thread Daniel Rocha

This argument is not right. It is not valid also to compare it to a
computer or aircraft projects. The development of Hubble led to a unique
architecture, not to mass production. It would take a long time to build
another one. So, fixing it in space, even if required a lot of money, was
necessary or a lot of fundamental research would be long delayed.

2012/5/26 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com

 Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote:

 You could have replaced the Hubble many time over for the cost of the
 Shuttle and its operation.


 That is true. See the book Hubble Wars. The cost of the Shuttle mission
 to repair the Hubble was greater than the cost of launching a new Hubble
 would have been. I regret to say this, but it was a publicity stunt.

 - Jed




-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:


 This argument is not right. It is not valid also to compare it to a
 computer or aircraft projects. The development of Hubble led to a unique
 architecture, not to mass production. It would take a long time to build
 another one. So, fixing it in space, even if required a lot of money, was
 necessary or a lot of fundamental research would be long delayed.


That is incorrect. As I recall it would have been faster to make a new one,
as well as cheaper. The U.S. manufactures similar satellites on a regular
schedule, for military intelligence, just as we manufacture weather
satellites the ones that broadcast to DirectTV and other satellite
receivers.

Hubble was somewhat different from the spy satellites. For one thing, it
was facing the other direction! It has a bigger lens I think. But most of
the technology is the same. Also, with any spacecraft, making two is almost
as cheap as one. Most of the expense is in the design and testing.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

2012-05-26 Thread Daniel Rocha

Jed, Hubble must have a very accurate focusing and detection than any spy
satellite because it gets very few photons. Its production is much more
expensive and slow, to correct defects.

2012/5/26 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com

 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:


 This argument is not right. It is not valid also to compare it to a
 computer or aircraft projects. The development of Hubble led to a unique
 architecture, not to mass production. It would take a long time to build
 another one. So, fixing it in space, even if required a lot of money, was
 necessary or a lot of fundamental research would be long delayed.


 That is incorrect. As I recall it would have been faster to make a new
 one, as well as cheaper. The U.S. manufactures similar satellites on a
 regular schedule, for military intelligence, just as we manufacture weather
 satellites the ones that broadcast to DirectTV and other satellite
 receivers.

 Hubble was somewhat different from the spy satellites. For one thing, it
 was facing the other direction! It has a bigger lens I think. But most of
 the technology is the same. Also, with any spacecraft, making two is almost
 as cheap as one. Most of the expense is in the design and testing.

 - Jed




-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

2012-05-26 Thread Guenter Wildgruber





 Von: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com

This argument is not right. It is not valid also to compare it to a computer or 
aircraft projects. The development of Hubble led to a unique architecture, not 
to mass production. It would take a long time to build another one. So, fixing 
it in space, even if required a lot of money, was necessary or a lot of 
fundamental research would be long delayed.



2012/5/26 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com

Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote:


You could have replaced the Hubble many time over for the cost of the Shuttle 
and its operation. 



That is true. See the book Hubble Wars. The cost of the Shuttle mission to 
repair the Hubble was greater than the cost of launching a new Hubble would 
have been. I regret to say this, but it was a publicity stunt.

- Jed



It was probably both.

Simply replacing Hubble by a corrected twin (optics) would have been 
prohibitive.
Replacing the optics in orbit was a new stunt, and as such a 'sale' to the 
public.

Space instruments never stay the same over time, except for the instance when 
You have a complete spare, which in reality never happens.
( Having been involved in Herschel project control and instrumentation, I know 
what I'm talking about.
Impossible to repair in this case, because it is located at Lagrange point 2. 
Cost: A meager 1 billion Euros. Thankfully successful.
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Herschel/index.html  )

For the Hubble successor, see 'James Webb':
...
In April 2006, the program was independently reviewed following a 
re-planning phase begun in August 2005. The review concluded the program
 was technically sound, but that funding phasing at NASA needed to be 
changed. NASA has re-phased its JWST budgets accordingly. The August 
2005 re-planning was necessitated by the cost growth revealed in Spring 
2005.
...
Launch date is currently 2018.

Cost:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope#Reported_cost_and_schedule_issues

Round it up to 2020 and add a couple of billions.

Guenther

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

2012-05-26 Thread Daniel Rocha

The optics was not replaced, it was corrected by COSTAR,
http://hubblesite.org/the_telescope/nuts_.and._bolts/optics/costar/

That was a set of small mirrors that corrected the focal point.

2012/5/26 Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com

--
*Von:* Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com
**
This argument is not right. It is not valid also to compare it to a
computer or aircraft projects. The development of Hubble led to a unique
architecture, not to mass production. It would take a long time to build
another one. So, fixing it in space, even if required a lot of money, was
necessary or a lot of fundamental research would be long delayed.

2012/5/26 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com

Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote:

You could have replaced the Hubble many time over for the cost of the
Shuttle and its operation.

That is true. See the book Hubble Wars. The cost of the Shuttle mission
to repair the Hubble was greater than the cost of launching a new Hubble
would have been. I regret to say this, but it was a publicity stunt.

- Jed

It was probably both.

Simply replacing Hubble by a corrected twin (optics) would have been
prohibitive.
Replacing the optics in orbit was a new stunt, and as such a 'sale' to the
public.

Space instruments never stay the same over time, except for the instance
when You have a complete spare, which in reality never happens.
( Having been involved in Herschel project control and instrumentation, I
know what I'm talking about.
Impossible to repair in this case, because it is located at Lagrange point
2. Cost: A meager 1 billion Euros. Thankfully successful.
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Herschel/index.html )

For the Hubble successor, see 'James Webb':
...
In April 2006, the program was independently reviewed following a
re-planning phase begun in August 2005. The review concluded the program
was technically sound, but that funding phasing at NASA needed to be
changed. NASA has re-phased its JWST budgets accordingly. The August 2005
re-planning was necessitated by the cost growth revealed in Spring
2005.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope#cite_note-replan-53
...
Launch date is currently 2018.

Cost:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope#Reported_cost_and_schedule_issues

Round it up to 2020 and add a couple of billions.

Guenther

--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

2012-05-26 Thread Terry Blanton

It took 3 months for the mirror glass to cool down and two years to
grind it.  There were actually two mirrors, the one with the spherical
aberration made by Perkin Elmer and the likely unflawed one still in
storage made by Kodak.

T

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:


 There were actually two mirrors, the one with the spherical
 aberration made by Perkin Elmer and the likely unflawed one still in
 storage made by Kodak.


I did not know they had another one. That surely would have reduced the
cost of building a replacement, instead of repairing the one up there.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

2012-05-26 Thread Terry Blanton

On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 I did not know they had another one. That surely would have reduced the cost
 of building a replacement, instead of repairing the one up there.

Yes, built by two different contractors in the event one was destroyed
in casting or grinding.  Unfortunately, ground testing was
insufficient to detect the aberrations.

They considered launching the Kodak mirror or bring Hubble back; but,
that was just a almost impossible task  so, the made a corrective lens
for the  instruments which fitted between them and the prime mirror.

The Grey Lady covered this well back in the early nineties if you want
to research it.  Oh, and, of course, Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope

T

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

2012-05-26 Thread Terry Blanton

Contact with Jodie Foster:

S.R. Hadden: First rule in government spending: why build one when you
can have two at twice the price?

T

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980