Re: Space Shuttle Grounding....depressing....
- From: Josh Hill <usereplyto@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 22:41:00 +0000 (UTC)
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:36:22 +0000 (UTC), "Christophe Bachmann"
<Chris_CII@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Josh Hill wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 14:10:15 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Swallow
>> <am.swallow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Iain Rae wrote:
>>>> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Josh Hill wrote:
>>> [smip]
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Hubble can still do good work. I take it that it would be less
>>>>>> expensive to fix it with a shuttle mission than to replace it with
>>>>>> another unit . . .
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Almost certainly the other way round. Shuttle launches
>>>>> are very, very expensive. Hubble is also wearing out.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The average shuttle mission costs a little over $1 billion.
>>>
>>> The above price assumes that there are 5 launches in Financial
>>> Year 2006. If there are 2 launches the price is $4,531m /2
>>> = $2.2665 billion. Even more if there is only 1 launch.
>>>
>>> Since shuttle launches are restricted they are now heavily
>>> rationed. Finding an empty one before the shuttle is retired
>>> in 2010 could be difficult.
>>> http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/107495main_FY06_AOK_pres.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hubble cost
>>>> $2 billion to build in 1980's $. I think the remote control service
>>>
>>> For this discussion build costs and launch costs need separating.
>>>
>>>> mission was initially costed at $2 billion and Hubble's "kind of"
>>>> successor (JWT) is planned to cost $3.5 billion and I'm sure I've
>>>> seen
>>>> it described as "costing about 1/3 to 1/4 as much in real terms as
>>>> hubble".
>>>>
>>>> In terms of Hubble wearing out it needs the batteries and gyroscopes
>>>> replaced.
>>>
>>> The batteries and gyroscopes are just the start.
>>> Electronics lasts 10 to 15 years. (See the lifetime of
>>> communications satellites.) One by one each of Hubble's
>>> systems is wearing out and will need replacing. In a
>>> repair based scheme either several shuttle launch are
>>> needed to repair each system as it fails or we do without.
>>>
>>> It is far easier to replace the lot in a single go. Time
>>> to build son-of-Hubble. Hubble 2 does not need a shuttle
>>> to launch it.
>>
>> The idea, I think, is to repair Hubble while also launching its
>> successor.
>
>The problem is that AFAIK there are no plans to build a successor to
>Hubble. More specialised instruments yes but a good visible light
>telescope no.
I was thinking of the Webb, but I see it will be devoted to
observation in the infrared.
--
Josh
"You know I could run for governor but I'm basically
a media creation. I've never done anything. I've
worked for my dad. I worked in the oil business. But
that's not the kind of profile you have to have
to get elected to public office." - George W. Bush
.
- References:
- Re: Space Shuttle Grounding....depressing....
- From: Josh Hill
- Re: Space Shuttle Grounding....depressing....
- From: Christophe Bachmann
- Re: Space Shuttle Grounding....depressing....
- From: Josh Hill
- Re: Space Shuttle Grounding....depressing....
- From: Andrew Swallow
- Re: Space Shuttle Grounding....depressing....
- From: Josh Hill
- Re: Space Shuttle Grounding....depressing....
- From: Andrew Swallow
- Re: Space Shuttle Grounding....depressing....
- From: Iain Rae
- Re: Space Shuttle Grounding....depressing....
- From: Andrew Swallow
- Re: Space Shuttle Grounding....depressing....
- From: Josh Hill
- Re: Space Shuttle Grounding....depressing....
- From: Christophe Bachmann
- Re: Space Shuttle Grounding....depressing....
- Prev by Date: Re: SF Movies for non-SF fans
- Next by Date: Re: SF Movies for non-SF fans
- Previous by thread: Re: Space Shuttle Grounding....depressing....
- Next by thread: Re: Space Shuttle Grounding....depressing....
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|