mac@idacrd.UUCP (Robert McGwier) (04/08/91)
If you were a truly cynical person, and you were extremely worried about the
manned space budgets during these times, and if you needed a GOLDEN opportunity
to demonstrate why man needs to be launching satellites (HEY! James Pike
says so, it must be true now), and you knew you could rig the release clamp
so that it released but the spring mechanism could be fouled and that it
would be trivial for a spacewalker to fix it and OH BY THE WAY we just planned
many hours of space walks . . . . I hate to be such a cynic and a skeptic
but it is just too much like a choreographed melodrama for me.
Bob
--
____________________________________________________________________________
My opinions are my own no matter | Robert W. McGwier, N4HY
who I work for! ;-) | CCR, AMSAT, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (04/09/91)
In article <910@idacrd.UUCP> mac@idacrd.UUCP (Robert McGwier) writes: >... and you knew you could rig the release clamp >so that it released but the spring mechanism could be fouled and that it >would be trivial for a spacewalker to fix it and OH BY THE WAY we just planned >many hours of space walks . . . . I hate to be such a cynic and a skeptic >but it is just too much like a choreographed melodrama for me. I don't think the Conspiracy Theory is needed to explain GRO's problems. "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity." If Hubble can have its antenna fouled by a cable, GRO can have a similar problem that can be resolved by an (unplanned) spacewalk. (There is no relation between whether a mission *plans* spacewalks -- as this one did, for the first time in a while -- and whether it is *capable* of doing one in the event of trouble, which all shuttle missions are.) The fact is that mechanical failures are not all that rare in space hardware, especially new-design spacecraft, and if there happen to be spacewalk-capable humans nearby, having them go out and fix the thing is sometimes useful. If NASA had wanted a publicity stunt, they'd have done it for Hubble. (In fact they *almost* did a spacewalk when Hubble's solar arrays stuck; the astronauts were in the airlock getting ready when the problem was cleared up.) GRO is small potatoes by comparison. -- "The stories one hears about putting up | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology SunOS 4.1.1 are all true." -D. Harrison| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) (04/09/91)
In article <910@idacrd.UUCP> mac@idacrd.UUCP (Robert McGwier) writes: >If you were a truly cynical person, and you were extremely worried about the >manned space budgets during these times, and if you needed a GOLDEN opportunity >to demonstrate why man needs to be launching satellites (HEY! James Pike >says so, it must be true now), and you knew you could rig the release clamp >so that it released but the spring mechanism could be fouled and that it >would be trivial for a spacewalker to fix it and OH BY THE WAY we just planned >many hours of space walks . . . . I hate to be such a cynic and a skeptic >but it is just too much like a choreographed melodrama for me. Perhaps I'm not as cynical [:-)] as you are, but I doubt that this is the case; there's any number of instances in recent history ('flyswat' operation on dead satellite, Skylab repairs, Mir hatch problems...) that demonstrate that there's no substitute for manned presence in space. Staging a stunt that runs the risk of damaging a very important observatory, as well as exposing astronauts to unnecessary hazards, seems to be a little too much for a NASA stunt. -- Matthew DeLuca Georgia Institute of Technology "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their Office of Information Technology P.O. box." - Zebadiah Carter, Internet: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu _The Number of the Beast_
kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu (Kieran A. Carroll) (04/10/91)
heskett@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Donald Heskett) writes: > If you were a truly cynical person, and you were extremely worried about the > manned space budgets during these times, and if you needed a GOLDEN opportunity > to demonstrate why man needs to be launching satellites ... > . . . . I hate to be such a cynic and a skeptic > but it is just too much like a choreographed melodrama for me. There is no need to invoke deliberate mis-design of the GRO's antenna release latch (a near-libelous statement, I might point out), to explain the failure of the latch on-orbit. Accidental mis-design has happened many times in the past with spacecraft mechanisms. The only reason the present situation seemed like a ``choreagraphed melodrama'' was that there happened to be people nearby to perform a repair. Otherwise, it would merely have seemed like an ``unmitigated disaster''. Do not underestimate the perversity of nature. It's >hard< to design things that work! Especially first time. For ``hard'', read ``incredibly expensive''. This is a point that the members of the anti-manned-spaceflight camp don't seem to want to acknowledge, despite a continual string of failures of robot probes, and despite an on-going string of satellite repairs on-orbit by astronauts. -- Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute uunet!attcan!utzoo!kcarroll kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu
bheil@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Brian Heil) (04/10/91)
From article <910@idacrd.UUCP>, by mac@idacrd.UUCP (Robert McGwier): > If you were a truly cynical person, and you were extremely worried about the > manned space budgets during these times, and if you needed a GOLDEN opportunity > to demonstrate why man needs to be launching satellites (HEY! James Pike > says so, it must be true now), and you knew you could rig the release clamp > so that it released but the spring mechanism could be fouled and that it > would be trivial for a spacewalker to fix it and OH BY THE WAY we just planned > many hours of space walks . . . . I hate to be such a cynic and a skeptic > but it is just too much like a choreographed melodrama for me. > > Bob > > -- > ____________________________________________________________________________ > My opinions are my own no matter | Robert W. McGwier, N4HY > who I work for! ;-) | CCR, AMSAT, etc. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I was thinking this same thought... GRO has handholds, PFR sockets etc., all make for real easy EVA repair *. But the Great Observatories all are designed for easy on orbit repair, in fact 10-15 years ago all satellites to be launched from the shuttle were to be this way. Remember Solar Max? It had all the replacable modules and wonder of wonders it failed and had to be repaired by a shuttle crew. On the other hand, All the many hours of spacewalk sims and training are pretty standard for a shuttle mission. As much as we'd like to think space flights on the shuttle and interplanetary probes are run of the mill type stuff any more, things can go wrong. Take Magellan, it cocked up pretty good for a while there... but there was contingency software on board for just such a problem. 99% of any space flight is in the planning. You HAVE to ask what can go wrong and how do you fix it? With the shuttle and some EVAers right there at launch, why not plan for manned repair if something should go wrong? * I think this is true, it is for HST and GRO. It does make you wonder if the Public Affairs Office is up to something doesn't it :) -- Brian Heil ) University of Iowa bheil@scout-po.biz.uiowa.edu ( College of Business Administration bheil@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu ) Computing Services Organization AMIGA There is no substitute!
sw@cbnewsl.att.com (Stuart Warmink) (04/10/91)
(Matthew DeLuca) writes: > Perhaps I'm not as cynical [:-)] as you are, but I doubt that this is the > case; there's any number of instances in recent history ('flyswat' operation > on dead satellite, Skylab repairs, Mir hatch problems...) that demonstrate ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > that there's no substitute for manned presence in space. But that is not a very good argument; it is like saying that there must be a manned presence in space because of a manned presence in space. Ah, this subject ranks up there with abortion and gun control :-) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM | Hi! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) (04/10/91)
In article <1991Apr9.183719.29582@cbnewsl.att.com> sw@cbnewsl.att.com (Stuart Warmink) writes: >(Matthew DeLuca) writes: >> Perhaps I'm not as cynical [:-)] as you are, but I doubt that this is the >> case; there's any number of instances in recent history ('flyswat' operation >> on dead satellite, Skylab repairs, Mir hatch problems...) that demonstrate >But that is not a very good argument; it is like saying that there >must be a manned presence in space because of a manned presence in space. Well, these were just the easy examples that came to mind. How about Solar Max, the near-problem with the Hubble cabling, and Syncom (the 'flyswat' mentioned above, I think)? The larger and more capable your platforms are, the more risk you have of something going wrong, and sometimes there's just no substitute for giving something a swift kick to get it going. >Ah, this subject ranks up there with abortion and gun control :-) Perhaps we should have talk.politics.man-in-space? :-) -- Matthew DeLuca Georgia Institute of Technology "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their Office of Information Technology P.O. box." - Zebadiah Carter, Internet: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu _The Number of the Beast_
heskett@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Donald Heskett) (04/10/91)
Kieran A. Carroll (kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu) says: >heskett@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Donald Heskett) writes: >>If you were a truly cynical person, and you were extremely worried >>about the manned space budgets during these times, and if you needed a >>GOLDEN opportunity to demonstrate why man needs to be launching >>satellites ... >> . . . . I hate to be such a cynic and a skeptic but it is just too >>much like a choreographed melodrama for me. Actually, I didn't say that: someone else did. Be careful with your quotes! It does seem to me, however, that a significantly higher percentage of failures have occured among satellites lofted by the Shuttle, compared with those lofted by expendable boosters. Unfortunately, I haven't kept records good enough to verify the conjecture. Nor have I ever come up with a good hypothesis for a cause. Does anybody have comparative figures at hand?
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (04/10/91)
In article <HESKETT.91Apr9154409@polymnia.titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu> heskett@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Donald Heskett) writes: >It does seem to me, however, that a significantly higher percentage of >failures have occured among satellites lofted by the Shuttle, compared >with those lofted by expendable boosters... I think it is fair to say that a significantly higher percentage of *highly publicized* failures have occurred among satellites lofted by the shuttle. I'd want to take a long hard look at the numbers before saying anything more specific about actual reliability. Things like TVSat 1 (stuck solar array, satellite a writeoff), Superbird A (fuel lost overboard; writeoff), and the big Intelsat (stranded due to Titan wiring error; shuttle rescue planned) are significant counterexamples, even though they don't get the same media attention. -- "The stories one hears about putting up | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology SunOS 4.1.1 are all true." -D. Harrison| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
rivero@dev8a.mdcbbs.com (04/10/91)
In article <910@idacrd.UUCP>, mac@idacrd.UUCP (Robert McGwier) writes: > If you were a truly cynical person, and you were extremely worried about the > manned space budgets during these times, and if you needed a GOLDEN opportunity > to demonstrate why man needs to be launching satellites (HEY! James Pike > says so, it must be true now), and you knew you could rig the release clamp > so that it released but the spring mechanism could be fouled and that it > would be trivial for a spacewalker to fix it and OH BY THE WAY we just planned > many hours of space walks . . . . I hate to be such a cynic and a skeptic > but it is just too much like a choreographed melodrama for me. > > Bob Bob, you are a cynic. All shuttle missions carry the means for an EVA, whether one is planned or not, for reasons which should be obvious. Mike
winter@Apple.COM (Patricia Winter) (04/11/91)
In article <910@idacrd.UUCP> mac@idacrd.UUCP (Robert McGwier) writes: >If you were a truly cynical person, and you were extremely worried about the >manned space budgets during these times, and if you needed a GOLDEN opportunity >to demonstrate why man needs to be launching satellites (HEY! James Pike >says so, it must be true now), and you knew you could rig the release clamp >so that it released but the spring mechanism could be fouled and that it >would be trivial for a spacewalker to fix it and OH BY THE WAY we just planned >many hours of space walks . . . . I hate to be such a cynic and a skeptic >but it is just too much like a choreographed melodrama for me. Oh sure, I can see it now. One NASA person to another: "Hey, I've got a great publicity idea! We could risk ruining a 600 million dollar observatory and the success of an entire mission by rigging a problem with GRO. *Then*, we could risk the lives of two astronauts by making them do an additional EVA. Whaddya think--is that a brilliant idea or what?!" Coming from anyone else, the suggestion that NASA may have deliberately bumbled GRO would seem grossly uninformed. Coming from someone with extensive direct experience with the problems spacecraft can get themselves into (and how *is* DOVE today, Bob?), it's absolutely incredible. Maybe you need to take a stress pill, let someone else troubleshoot the Microsats for a while, and relax, Bob. :-) Patty -- ***************************************************************************** Patty Winter N6BIS INTERNET: winter@apple.com AMPR.ORG: [44.4.0.44] UUCP: {decwrl,nsc,sun}!apple!winter *****************************************************************************
lou@caber.valid.com (Louis K. Scheffer) (04/12/91)
>heskett@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Donald Heskett) writes: >If you were a truly cynical person, and you were extremely worried >about the manned space budgets during these times, and if you needed a >GOLDEN opportunity to demonstrate why man needs to be launching >satellites ... > . . . . I hate to be such a cynic and a skeptic but it is just too >much like a choreographed melodrama for me. I think this could also be explained by the fact that the engineers knew that GRO would be launched via shuttle. Therefore they probably did not put in double redundant release mechanisms, etc., and spent their time worrying about other problems that could not be fixed on the spot. For example, Viking, the Mars lander, had redundant lens cap jettison mechanisms, since there was no chance of fixing it by hand, but Hubble does not (I think). -Lou Scheffer-
karn@epic.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) (04/13/91)
In article <25875@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes: > Perhaps I'm not as cynical [:-)] as you are, but I doubt that this is the > case; there's any number of instances in recent history ('flyswat' operation > on dead satellite, Skylab repairs, Mir hatch problems...) that demonstrate that > there's no substitute for manned presence in space. Staging a stunt that > runs the risk of damaging a very important observatory, as well as exposing > astronauts to unnecessary hazards, seems to be a little too much for a > NASA stunt. Relax. Knowing Bob as well as I do, I'm sure his comment was made with tongue firmly planted in cheek. I'm sure he could not resist an opportunity to bait all of you gung-ho manned spaceflight advocates. The missions "rescued" by the presence of men in space must be traded off against the *substantial* additional cost. If a shuttle-launched payload costs two or three times as much as the same payload launched on an expendable (and that's probably a conservative estimate, given the shuttle's incredible safety regulations) then I could afford to have half or two thirds of my expendable-launched payloads fail for the cost of a single shuttle-launched payload. The latter simply cannot be allowed to fail, because they're usually so expensive you can only build one. And don't forget to take into account the costs (direct and indirect) associated with designing a payload exclusively for the shuttle and then having it sit on the ground for years because of launch delays, many of which are prompted by the extremely conservative policies dictated by flying people on an extremely expensive reusable launcher. Phil
ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) (04/13/91)
In article <1991Apr12.223929.6286@bellcore.bellcore.com> karn@thumper.bellcore.com writes: >In article <25875@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes: >> [T]here's no substitute for manned presence in space. Staging a stunt that >> runs the risk of damaging a very important observatory, as well as exposing >> astronauts to unnecessary hazards, seems to be a little too much for a >> NASA stunt. >The missions "rescued" by the presence of men in space must be traded >off against the *substantial* additional cost. [...] >And don't forget to take into account the costs (direct and indirect) >associated with designing a payload exclusively for the shuttle [...] Well, there's a difference between 'man in space' and 'launching your payloads from the space shuttle'. Personally, I'd like to see the vast majority of the satellite launches go up on expendable boosters, as well as interplanetary probes, and just send people up to fix them if something goes wrong. To this end, I'd like to see a small three-seater spaceplane with a small 'work area' cargo bay and manipulator arm that could be launched on something like a Titan. Something not too much more complex than an old capsule, so that we could send it up relatively quickly and easily when the need arises. -- Matthew DeLuca Georgia Institute of Technology "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their Office of Information Technology P.O. box." - Zebadiah Carter, Internet: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu _The Number of the Beast_
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (04/16/91)
In article <HESKETT.91Apr9154409@polymnia.titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu>, heskett@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Donald Heskett) writes: > > It does seem to me, however, that a significantly higher percentage of > failures have occured among satellites lofted by the Shuttle, compared > with those lofted by expendable boosters. Unfortunately, I haven't > kept records good enough to verify the conjecture. Nor have I ever > come up with a good hypothesis for a cause. This is a conjectured cause for the state of our memories: There is live tv coverage of interesting events on the Shuttle missions, followed by reruns ad nauseum. We don't get the same immediacy for the details of what happened on expendable launches. dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
isg7243@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (GEERTS, IS) (04/19/91)
In article <4287.280ac92a@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>, herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes... >In article <HESKETT.91Apr9154409@polymnia.titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu>, heskett@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Donald Heskett) writes: >> >> It does seem to me, however, that a significantly higher percentage of >> failures have occured among satellites lofted by the Shuttle, compared >> with those lofted by expendable boosters. Unfortunately, I haven't >> kept records good enough to verify the conjecture. Nor have I ever >> come up with a good hypothesis for a cause. My friend, all you have to do is write Nasa, requesting information on, say the future of the space program, phrase it politely and show you do have some use for the information (I think they'd respond anyway, but it helps) and they will sind you a two inch thick stack of information on everything from new projects to old results to hypothesises to their budget. Try it, you might prove a point. -Indra