Comment CAIB assumes NASA can't learn! (Score 1) 69
The "decision" by O'Keefe to "dump" it is ill advised, short sighted, and as I will highlight below, quite a flawed one. It is simplistic (overly simple) to decide as they have.
I am quite knowledgeable in the area of Spacecraft, reentry considerations, and thermal protection systems.
Both times the Shuttle has blown up has been due to misoperation! NOT due to inherent flaws in the Shuttle. The first time was due to flying it in TOO cold an environment (the O rings), which NASA WAS aware of. The second time was with ET insulation flying off and hitting the leading edge, which they were also aware of, and ignored as serious!!...
The Shuttle was NOT designed to fly in cold cold weather, and it was ALSO not designed to fly with material/objects hitting it during ascent!
Now, this is NOT rocket science!
You would not drive your car right behind a gravel truck, and expect your windshield to not get a crack. Especially if you SAW pieces of gravel flying over your hood! Maybe you would get by some of the time, but NOT something to count on. However, NASA did have that "gravel truck" and knew insulation was flying off. By chance, it had not yet done significant damage. As we have learned (and which NASA should have assumed!), it CAN cause significant damage. However, NASA took that fact that it didn't cause damage to imply that it COULDN'T cause damage. This was a highly flawed decision.
The CAIB's response was to assume that NASA would continue to do idiotic things. They directed them to fix the insulation problems, AND to figure out ways to repair insulation on orbit. HOWEVER, you really only need to do ONE or the OTHER!!! If they fix the debris field problem, it is perfectly okay to fly a single shuttle, without backup, to the Hubble, and to repair/service the Hubble.
However, O'Keefe is obeying the letter of the law, and NOT the spirit of the directions of the CAIB! The real problem isn't the shuttle, but NASA making stupid assumptions. Really stupid ones.
Now, if you had a kid, and that kid wouldn't wear their glasses at night, and kept crashing the family car.. one response would be to make a rule they couldn't drive at night! However, the sensible one is the have them wear their glasses. If the kid is immature and not to be trusted, you go with the former solution. Which do you think NASA is?
Other options exist, such as having the astronauts sign a waiver saying they ARE aware of flying outside of the CAIB recommendations.
OR we can involve the Soyuz, and do an on orbit fix via rendezvous. The option of retiring the Hubble is not advised!
Sincerely,
Anthony Charles Martin
Boulder CO
"Sen. Barbara Mikulski (news, bio, voting record), a Maryland Democrat, fired off a letter to O'Keefe late last week urging him to set up an independent panel to review and possibly undo his decision. Calling Hubble "the most successful NASA program since Apollo," she urged it not be abandoned "with the stroke of a pen.""
I am quite knowledgeable in the area of Spacecraft, reentry considerations, and thermal protection systems.
Both times the Shuttle has blown up has been due to misoperation! NOT due to inherent flaws in the Shuttle. The first time was due to flying it in TOO cold an environment (the O rings), which NASA WAS aware of. The second time was with ET insulation flying off and hitting the leading edge, which they were also aware of, and ignored as serious!!...
The Shuttle was NOT designed to fly in cold cold weather, and it was ALSO not designed to fly with material/objects hitting it during ascent!
Now, this is NOT rocket science!
You would not drive your car right behind a gravel truck, and expect your windshield to not get a crack. Especially if you SAW pieces of gravel flying over your hood! Maybe you would get by some of the time, but NOT something to count on. However, NASA did have that "gravel truck" and knew insulation was flying off. By chance, it had not yet done significant damage. As we have learned (and which NASA should have assumed!), it CAN cause significant damage. However, NASA took that fact that it didn't cause damage to imply that it COULDN'T cause damage. This was a highly flawed decision.
The CAIB's response was to assume that NASA would continue to do idiotic things. They directed them to fix the insulation problems, AND to figure out ways to repair insulation on orbit. HOWEVER, you really only need to do ONE or the OTHER!!! If they fix the debris field problem, it is perfectly okay to fly a single shuttle, without backup, to the Hubble, and to repair/service the Hubble.
However, O'Keefe is obeying the letter of the law, and NOT the spirit of the directions of the CAIB! The real problem isn't the shuttle, but NASA making stupid assumptions. Really stupid ones.
Now, if you had a kid, and that kid wouldn't wear their glasses at night, and kept crashing the family car.. one response would be to make a rule they couldn't drive at night! However, the sensible one is the have them wear their glasses. If the kid is immature and not to be trusted, you go with the former solution. Which do you think NASA is?
Other options exist, such as having the astronauts sign a waiver saying they ARE aware of flying outside of the CAIB recommendations.
OR we can involve the Soyuz, and do an on orbit fix via rendezvous. The option of retiring the Hubble is not advised!
Sincerely,
Anthony Charles Martin
Boulder CO
"Sen. Barbara Mikulski (news, bio, voting record), a Maryland Democrat, fired off a letter to O'Keefe late last week urging him to set up an independent panel to review and possibly undo his decision. Calling Hubble "the most successful NASA program since Apollo," she urged it not be abandoned "with the stroke of a pen.""
