No Formal Risk Analysis of Hubble Rescue by NASA

Somegeek writes " SpaceDaily.com is running a story that NASA never performed a formal risk analysis of a shuttle mission to rescue the Hubble Space Telescope before they decided to cancel the mission on grounds of risk. The story quotes Fred Gregory, the current acting NASA administrator, as stating that previous NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe made the decision "based on what he perceived was the risk". This perceived risk is in performing a manned shuttle mission that is out of range of using the International Space Station as an emergency refuge. The Hubble's current batteries and gyroscopes will probably fail in a few years, leaving the dead telescope to crash back to earth around year 2020."

Comments

a long time ago...

[eobanb]

NASA really knew what they were doing. they spent quite a bit of money, but we did Apollo, we did Skylab, we did Hubble, and they managed to maintain public support. Then they just somehow fucked it up. I get the feeling it had something to do with the ISS, because that's around when the problems really began. The ISS is not a sustainable or viable presence in space. What we really need to look toward is 1) commercial development in space, which will lead to 2) a continued stay there for humanity. I usually don't like privatisation of government programs, but in this case, I think there may be companies that can construct and launch, for example, inflatable habitats as mentioned in previous slashdot articles, at a low cost. NASA hasn't even really seriously considered something like this, and now look at what we have. A space station that is important for scientific research, yes, but the actual value we're getting out of it for the money we spent is HIGHLY questionable.

Little to do with safety

[CaptDeuce]

... previous NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe made the decision "based on what he perceived was the risk". This perceived risk is in performing a manned shuttle mission that is out of range of using the International Space Station as an emergency refuge. ...

Loose consensus at sci.space.tech is that O'Keefe's decision has virtually nothing to do with safety and everything to do with the extremely tight schedule necessary to complete ISS (International Space Station).

O'Keefe stated that he would abide by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) report. My understanding is that board did not insist that the Shuttle be able to seek refuge at ISS.

It's interesting that the article speaks of "risk" but doesn't explicitly use the term " safety risk" which is assumed. Indeed, the risks of any extra Shuttle flights go beyond the safety of the crew. Consider that the Shutle's only mission is ISS assembly after which the fleet will be retired -- and rightfully so. If a Shuttle were even to be reparably damaged with no injuries to the crew, the ISS program would be seriously threatened.

Re:I would just like to note.

[DerekLyons]

The problem many libertarians have with NASA is that they've completely destroyed the spaceflight market, so it isn't like anything remotely resembling a thriving free market.

Since NASA launches account for less than 10% of all launches - that's an astonishing accomplishment. (Most space launches are commercial launches, commsats and the like.) The DoD (Which is also non-NASA) accounts for another 8% or so.

When NASA needs to get a person into space, they don't do it by simply buying a ticket from a rocket launch company which offers the best combination of reliability, quality, and cost.

If such a rocket launch company existed, NASA would undoubtedly buy a ticket from them. But no such company exists. (Many have tried to get into business, but they've invariably found it to be very expensive - and with little return. NASA doesn't fly often enough to make it viable, and there is no destination for non-NASA flights.)

Rather, what NASA does is give a cost-plus contract to one of the aerospace giants (Boeing, Lockheed, etc.) to develop a launch vehicle. With a cost-plus contract the aerospace giant has absolutely no incentive to decrease launch costs or exercise any sort of fiscal restraint;

ROTFL. The last launch vehicle NASA paid to develop was the Space Shuttle.

The Atlas and Delta that are the prime candidates to launch the CEV? Developed by commercial enterprises, for commercial enterprises, with their own money. The problem however is that launch rates aren't really price sensitive. Boeing or Lockmart could spend millions cutting launch costs by 25%, and only get a 5-10% (if any) increase in launch rates. That's a net loss for them. And commercial enterprises don't generally lose money on that scale on purpose.

The fact that the launch market has been so distorted by contracts like this prevents private spaceflight companies from effectively competing and keeps launch costs absurdly high.

Boeing, Lockmart, and others (all private companies) have been competing in a free and open market for thirty years. It looks to many as if it's not effective competition as they don't understand how a limited demand, price insensitive market works - it's not like hamburgers or cars.

Personally, what I'd like to see is for NASA to stop with cost-plus contracts and act as more of a customer within the market.

You mean the way they've bought the majority of their launches (I.E. expendables) for thirty years? You mean the way they are planning to for the CEV?

All I can conclude is Libertarians don't understand economics.