There is a room to cut the launch cost per gram further. Competitions between private organizations can drive the price down, while improving the quality as well (we lost one payload with Pegasus; I'm rather biased about that darn thing). That is what I am advocating here. I understand that the Scaled Composite currently do not have a plan to launch an orbital payload system from its space ship; but I would be interested in getting them involved in that.
This is a well written comment; worthy of 5+ insightful wihtout that "virgins in space" stuff!
Space tourism is reality today and this guideline means well for our safety. Just like a guideline for you to jump off a plane for skydiving. A ship for the space tourism basically exists; as for the research use (launching another satellite into sub-orbital or orbital trajectory), I think it is not implausible to view someday that all the small missions being canceled by NASA today can be done cheaply with private rockets and orbital systems.
Some regular folks thought the Game theory was like you described: useless. But then years later it's often practiced (with or without users knoledge) in many places to estimate the patterns in the stock index, etc.
So yeah the mathematics may be evolving into somewhat more abstract; but that doesn't mean that application is not there for us.
Cities in Japan are densely packed with business and residential users. Sharing 170Mb over the densely populated region may not be so advantageous (there you probably have a better bang for yen with DSL type networking). However, it'd be great for those who live in the remote area and have to do a 2+ hour commute every day. With the huge bandwidth, they can really telecommute. That is the kind of action that Japanese firms need to make to alleviate the social problems going over there, I'd guess.
Often it is important to continue learning and working on one topic without interruption. Suppose you work on one particular field, but then stop it adruptly. History tells us that the skill in the field becomes "lost art" in the region.
Yeah, you can write down what you did and some people can read and learn from it. But some experience may need to be handed down through work and practice. I bet a space travel would be like that.
Ask anyone at NASA if they can bring back the Saturn rocket. Many would tell you it'd be hard and they'd rather build a new one from scratch.
That question must be asked during his confirmation hearing. I will decide whether to work with or against this guy based on his answer.
[It doesn't matter if he cancels the Hubble or not; what matters to me is what he thinks of the fate of the Hubble and how he reached the conclusion. That is usually enough to tell me what kind of a man he is.]
Yeah, but the real skill required for a NASA administrator is this:
Let engineers be engineers.
You can replace the word "engineer" with "scientist", too. There are too much bureaucratic work at NASA. It costs some money to file document; it costs money to spend money. The facility is on the constant maintenance mode, i.e., a fix is being fixed as being fixed. The money is wasted where science and engineering doesn't get involved. Laboratories and divisions at NASA have largely been run by bean-counting civil servants who worked very hard in the Apollo days and now lucratively hold the wallet to keep his friends happy (yet unproductive). Let that change. Let the engineers and scientists be engineers and scientists! And those bean-counters should merely be there to help achieve the goal, instead of getting in the way.
Furthermore, it lacks a clear vision for the future of this institution. Since the Bush administration speaks little about the Moon/Mars project after the election. So I consider that moot. This Griffin guy needs to be questioned what he sees as the future of NASA at a confirmation hearing in the Senate. I'm sure Barbara from MD would ask if he'd save the Hubble.
Actually $100M support only about 5,000 graduate students with all the overhead cost.
And the exit plan for the Hubble was to bring it back on earth with the Columbia. There was a concern that the landing gears may not hold up with all the additional weight of the HST, but we were pretty sure that that was what NASA wanted to do.
I would expect a good politician to stand up for cause to support both their constituents and the nation. If he or she does anything else, the person should not be in the senate.
And as for the servicing...I'm willing to bet $100 that any attempt to a robotic rescue mission would fail. It's really hard to unscrew 100s of bolts in space. And the HST needs a deorbit module anyway.
So if we are to service the HST, my recommendation is to (1) design and complete a deorbit module right away, (2) complete the development of the WF3 (the COS is done), (3) produce the replacements for failed gyros, batteries and solar panel, (4) prepare astronauts to attach all (1) - (3) in one mission. It'd be nice if they can fix STIS as well, but then I'm asking from astronauts way too much already and I probably shouldn't push my luck...
I still think that we should let it die without servicing. But if there is no plausible way to bring up a deorbiting unit onto the HST and a shuttle servicing is required to attach the putative module, then we might as well service it to let it last another decade.
Precisely. I had done my time at NASA as well, and the best solution to fix NASA is to let inactive, older GSes retire. If not willing, make it expensive to stay being a civil servent. That's one step. Then, retrain all financial managers for disciplined spending; and mandate to review their spending pattern for identifying any waste (I actually mean to catch any fraud that GAO or Inspector General missed).
And for God's sake, reduce the bureaucractic level on getting through a job day by day!
You should look up the Nature article. The author himself is more cautious in the main text (c.f., his abstract says a bit firmly). And you will understand why the number 150 solar mass came about.
That 150 solar mass limit is not a hard limit. There will be some statistical probability to find a star greater than 150 solar mass. Figer's finding indicates that he could not find a star any more massive than 130 solar mass (in the Archer cluster? is that the pistol star again?).
This will be an observational constraint for stellar model parameter. Any future stellar evolution theory has to take into account that there are very few number of stars that have a mass greater than 130 solar mass, and none above 150 solar.
[Hey, some stellar evolution scientists would tell you today that there can't be a star any more massive than 80 solar mass! This topic is still debated for its accuracy. So take it with a grain of salt.]
So, just because the STIS, the one you are interested in, is dead, you are willing to throw the others away?
In essence, yes. Look, we can't fund everything we want. Would I choose to support the HST over the ISS? You bet. But that's not how the NASA prioritized in their roadmap. I once fought the fight, just like you, to change NASA's mind. But as I studied the situation, it became clear to me that the continuation of the HST may not be as beneficial to the professional as I thought it would be.
[However, my guess is that NASA contractors would fail to build a remote deorbit module and as the last resort the shuttle would be employed to assist its deorbit. If that comes to reality, then I would say, "service it" and let it live on with the deorbit thruster til most of the instruments deem inoperable.]
Where is the software have you created & released for public use?
There is a good chance that you may be using one of mine. [and I still criticize...that's why I choose to remain anonymous. I'm growing tired of retaliation I've received in the past.]
You can use the arm to grab and move it. But not securing it to the ISS. If the ISS needs to reposition its roll (rare), you need to chance that the arm is designed to handle the torque. It also changes the profile of the ISS, which needs to be taken into account if the automated attitude control is being used on the ISS (though this is a solvable problem).
Besides, the arm will be there for other reasons. If you use it to hook the HST, it cannot be used for anything else.
... if I'm not wildly mistaken the hubble service has already been paid for, we just need to get up there and install it.
You are mistaken. Although one HST instrument (COS) is already built and WF3 has been developped, the cost for launching a shuttle and serving the HST is not paid up.
In any case, the STScI will continue to operate the HST even if it is left only with two surviving gyros. At the current rate, that mode of operation will last til 2007 to 2008 maybe (or longer if the battery lasts). In a mean time what we could do is to submit a proposal for SMEX or MIDEX (probably not EXPLORER) class mission for UV astronomy. Something as small as GALEX or FUSE would do just as good as the HST can serve today.
Just because it is not in the budget plan right now, it doesn't mean it is not doable in 5 -- 10 years timescale.
My work requires both high spatial resolution and spectral resolution from the UV through NIR (esp. in UV and blue wavelengths); the HST was undoubtedly most suitable for achieving my objectives. However, it no longer carries the working spectroscopic instrument and hence the HST is no longer a viable asset for my need.
Today, it is probably more cost-effective to go back to expendable space missions. It's not at all hard to build a 2-m class space telescope. It's not servicable, but for the cost of servicing, we can build another telescope with a similar specification. So if one breaks, we can launch another.
The only retarded thinking I have is that I don't want to feed the STScI to create the monopoly in the space-based astronomy. The HST is costing a lot more than other missions (x2 FTE is what I heard, compared to other major missions) for little return in terms of the telescope operation and calibration. This is the institution that produces very crappy software to handle the HST data (I've written my own code to process and done my own calibration to improve its science return...why was the STScI not doing that?). They allocate their budgest lucratively toward the support for scientists (not operator or calibration staffs) while other missions suffer from severe budget cuts and RIF'ing their science staffs.
I can't agree more. ISS is a major disaster. I tell you why the ISS will fail to achieve its goal:
(1) it will not be able to have no more than three crews on board (limited to the availability of the escape vehicle, e.g., Soyuz capsule at this point), (2) the three-person crew cannot run a laboratory, (3) there exists no viable design for a return vehicle to carry more than 5 or 6 (considering a space shuttle, if we are to park it), (4) each modules are more or less designed to do specific experiment, not very flexible, etc.
There really is no or little value in the ISS for scientists. For engineers, maybe. The only reason I can think of continuing this project is to support the space industry and the Russian federation (you don't want those Russian rocket scientists to run amok in the black market, right?).
It might have been an interesting idea if we were to discuss a decade ago. There are a number of problems:
(1) ISS is not equipped to "park" a trailer sized telescope, (2) to make it possible, NASA will have to design a module for parking the HST and then redesign the ISS as a whole (it is not very flexible in design...which is why I hate this space station). (3) this would cost NASA more shuttle visits and R&D for the new parking module, (4) even if you achieve all of these, then there is no guarantee that the HST is repairable in future.
I am a user of the Hubble Space Telescope. I've used it over 100 orbits in the last seven years. And I say this: let it die. The HST has been a great telescope, but would I spend every penny we have to keep it up? No. I'd rather prefer building new space telescopes for the money.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a room to cut the launch cost per gram further. Competitions between private organizations can drive the price down, while improving the quality as well (we lost one payload with Pegasus; I'm rather biased about that darn thing). That is what I am advocating here. I understand that the Scaled Composite currently do not have a plan to launch an orbital payload system from its space ship; but I would be interested in getting them involved in that.
This is a well written comment; worthy of 5+ insightful wihtout that "virgins in space" stuff!
Space tourism is reality today and this guideline means well for our safety. Just like a guideline for you to jump off a plane for skydiving. A ship for the space tourism basically exists; as for the research use (launching another satellite into sub-orbital or orbital trajectory), I think it is not implausible to view someday that all the small missions being canceled by NASA today can be done cheaply with private rockets and orbital systems.
What a cool world we live in.
Some regular folks thought the Game theory was like you described: useless. But then years later it's often practiced (with or without users knoledge) in many places to estimate the patterns in the stock index, etc.
So yeah the mathematics may be evolving into somewhat more abstract; but that doesn't mean that application is not there for us.
Any proof that it won't work? Who did the social study?
Never lived over there, have you?
No I did not RTA and I graciously stand corrected.
And who modded me "informative"??? My post deserves a "RTFA" tag.
Does this work like cable?
Cities in Japan are densely packed with business and residential users. Sharing 170Mb over the densely populated region may not be so advantageous (there you probably have a better bang for yen with DSL type networking). However, it'd be great for those who live in the remote area and have to do a 2+ hour commute every day. With the huge bandwidth, they can really telecommute. That is the kind of action that Japanese firms need to make to alleviate the social problems going over there, I'd guess.
Yeah, I know, I may be just a full of it.
Why now and not later?
I can suggest one reason: humans forget things.
Often it is important to continue learning and working on one topic without interruption. Suppose you work on one particular field, but then stop it adruptly. History tells us that the skill in the field becomes "lost art" in the region.
Yeah, you can write down what you did and some people can read and learn from it. But some experience may need to be handed down through work and practice. I bet a space travel would be like that.
Ask anyone at NASA if they can bring back the Saturn rocket. Many would tell you it'd be hard and they'd rather build a new one from scratch.
That question must be asked during his confirmation hearing. I will decide whether to work with or against this guy based on his answer.
[It doesn't matter if he cancels the Hubble or not; what matters to me is what he thinks of the fate of the Hubble and how he reached the conclusion. That is usually enough to tell me what kind of a man he is.]
A fine post there, pal. It is not often that I enjoy reading someone's comment on /.
Now only if our media is well informed as you are...
Yeah, but the real skill required for a NASA administrator is this:
Let engineers be engineers.
You can replace the word "engineer" with "scientist", too. There are too much bureaucratic work at NASA. It costs some money to file document; it costs money to spend money. The facility is on the constant maintenance mode, i.e., a fix is being fixed as being fixed. The money is wasted where science and engineering doesn't get involved. Laboratories and divisions at NASA have largely been run by bean-counting civil servants who worked very hard in the Apollo days and now lucratively hold the wallet to keep his friends happy (yet unproductive). Let that change. Let the engineers and scientists be engineers and scientists! And those bean-counters should merely be there to help achieve the goal, instead of getting in the way.
Furthermore, it lacks a clear vision for the future of this institution. Since the Bush administration speaks little about the Moon/Mars project after the election. So I consider that moot. This Griffin guy needs to be questioned what he sees as the future of NASA at a confirmation hearing in the Senate. I'm sure Barbara from MD would ask if he'd save the Hubble.
Actually $100M support only about 5,000 graduate students with all the overhead cost.
And the exit plan for the Hubble was to bring it back on earth with the Columbia. There was a concern that the landing gears may not hold up with all the
additional weight of the HST, but we were pretty sure that that was what NASA wanted to do.
I would expect a good politician to stand up for cause to support both their constituents and the nation. If he or she does anything else, the person should not be in the senate.
And as for the servicing...I'm willing to bet $100 that any attempt to a robotic rescue mission would fail. It's really hard to unscrew 100s of bolts in space. And the HST needs a deorbit module anyway.
So if we are to service the HST, my recommendation is to (1) design and complete a deorbit module right away, (2) complete the development of the WF3 (the COS is done), (3) produce the replacements for failed gyros, batteries and solar panel, (4) prepare astronauts to attach all (1) - (3) in one mission. It'd be nice if they can fix STIS as well, but then I'm asking from astronauts way too much already and I probably shouldn't push my luck...
I still think that we should let it die without servicing. But if there is no plausible way to bring up a deorbiting unit onto the HST and a shuttle servicing is required to attach the putative module, then we might as well service it to let it last another decade.
Precisely. I had done my time at NASA as well, and the best solution to fix NASA is to let inactive, older GSes retire. If not willing, make it expensive to stay being a civil servent. That's one step. Then, retrain all financial managers for disciplined spending; and mandate to review their spending pattern for identifying any waste (I actually mean to catch any fraud that GAO or Inspector General missed).
And for God's sake, reduce the bureaucractic level on getting through a job day by day!
You should look up the Nature article. The author himself is more cautious in the main text (c.f., his abstract says a bit firmly). And you will understand why the number 150 solar mass came about.
I've said this on other forums but...
That 150 solar mass limit is not a hard limit. There will be some statistical probability to find a star greater than 150 solar mass. Figer's finding indicates that he could not find a star any more massive than 130 solar mass (in the Archer cluster? is that the pistol star again?).
This will be an observational constraint for stellar model parameter. Any future stellar evolution theory has to take into account that there are very few number of stars that have a mass greater than 130 solar mass, and none above 150 solar.
[Hey, some stellar evolution scientists would tell you today that there can't be a star any more massive than 80 solar mass! This topic is still debated for its accuracy. So take it with a grain of salt.]
So, just because the STIS, the one you are interested in, is dead, you are willing to throw the others away?
In essence, yes. Look, we can't fund everything we want. Would I choose to support the HST over the ISS? You bet. But that's not how the NASA prioritized in their roadmap. I once fought the fight, just like you, to change NASA's mind. But as I studied the situation, it became clear to me that the continuation of the HST may not be as beneficial to the professional as I thought it would be.
[However, my guess is that NASA contractors would fail to build a remote deorbit module and as the last resort the shuttle would be employed to assist its deorbit. If that comes to reality, then I would say, "service it" and let it live on with the deorbit thruster til most of the instruments deem inoperable.]
Where is the software have you created & released for public use?
There is a good chance that you may be using one of mine. [and I still criticize...that's why I choose to remain anonymous. I'm growing tired of retaliation I've received in the past.]
You can use the arm to grab and move it. But not securing it to the ISS. If the ISS needs to reposition its roll (rare), you need to chance that the arm is designed to handle the torque. It also changes the profile of the ISS, which needs to be taken into account if the automated attitude control is being used on the ISS (though this is a solvable problem).
Besides, the arm will be there for other reasons. If you use it to hook the HST, it cannot be used for anything else.
Dude, X-38 was canceled in 2002. Check here.
For a second, I thought you're saying "what President Jeb Bush would do?"
*Shodder* Now that's a scary thought.
[Though Jeb is supposed to be more intellectual than his brother...]
A bit of clarification...the HST does not have a thruster.
... if I'm not wildly mistaken the hubble service has already been paid for, we just need to get up there and install it.
You are mistaken. Although one HST instrument (COS) is already built and WF3 has been developped, the cost for launching a shuttle and serving the HST is not paid up.
In any case, the STScI will continue to operate the HST even if it is left only with two surviving gyros. At the current rate, that mode of operation will last til 2007 to 2008 maybe (or longer if the battery lasts). In a mean time what we could do is to submit a proposal for SMEX or MIDEX (probably not EXPLORER) class mission for UV astronomy. Something as small as GALEX or FUSE would do just as good as the HST can serve today.
Just because it is not in the budget plan right now, it doesn't mean it is not doable in 5 -- 10 years timescale.
My work requires both high spatial resolution and spectral resolution from the UV through NIR (esp. in UV and blue wavelengths); the HST was undoubtedly most suitable for achieving my objectives. However, it no longer carries the working spectroscopic instrument and hence the HST is no longer a viable asset for my need.
Today, it is probably more cost-effective to go back to expendable space missions. It's not at all hard to build a 2-m class space telescope. It's not servicable, but for the cost of servicing, we can build another telescope with a similar specification. So if one breaks, we can launch another.
The only retarded thinking I have is that I don't want to feed the STScI to create the monopoly in the space-based astronomy. The HST is costing a lot more than other missions (x2 FTE is what I heard, compared to other major missions) for little return in terms of the telescope operation and calibration. This is the institution that produces very crappy software to handle the HST data (I've written my own code to process and done my own calibration to improve its science return...why was the STScI not doing that?). They allocate their budgest lucratively toward the support for scientists (not operator or calibration staffs) while other missions suffer from severe budget cuts and RIF'ing their science staffs.
I can't agree more. ISS is a major disaster. I tell you why the ISS will fail to achieve its goal:
(1) it will not be able to have no more than three crews on board (limited to the availability of the escape vehicle, e.g., Soyuz capsule at this point),
(2) the three-person crew cannot run a laboratory,
(3) there exists no viable design for a return vehicle to carry more than 5 or 6 (considering a space shuttle, if we are to park it),
(4) each modules are more or less designed to do specific experiment, not very flexible, etc.
There really is no or little value in the ISS for scientists. For engineers, maybe. The only reason I can think of continuing this project is to support the space industry and the Russian federation (you don't want those Russian rocket scientists to run amok in the black market, right?).
It might have been an interesting idea if we were to discuss a decade ago. There are a number of problems:
(1) ISS is not equipped to "park" a trailer sized telescope,
(2) to make it possible, NASA will have to design a module for parking the HST and then redesign the ISS as a whole (it is not very flexible in design...which is why I hate this space station).
(3) this would cost NASA more shuttle visits and R&D for the new parking module,
(4) even if you achieve all of these, then there is no guarantee that the HST is repairable in future.
I am a user of the Hubble Space Telescope. I've used it over 100 orbits in the last seven years. And I say this: let it die. The HST has been a great telescope, but would I spend every penny we have to keep it up? No. I'd rather prefer building new space telescopes for the money.
Technically speaking, a regular mirror does both scattering and absorbing.