🚀 go-pugleaf

-From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
-Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
-Date: 31 Dec 92 02:05:00 GMT
-Organization: University of Houston

-In article <1992Dec30.205940.28699@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes...
->>    GRO and UARS are both candidates for return to earth. 
-> 
->Doing that would cost more then they are worth. It would be cheaper to
->build new ones and launch them commercially.

-I would dearly love to see your cost analysis on this Allen. Since the 
-marginal cost for a Shuttle mission is only 37 million dollars, this is
-what it would cost for a reflight. 

I think it would be more fair to use the $400-500 million figure, unless
there just happens to be a time slot where there's an orbiter available
but no other payload ready. It might be more worthwhile to use such a slot
to refly ASTRO or TSS.

-By the way your Titan IV cannot lift
-a payload like HST due to its adverse dynamic envelope. 

So what is the dynamic envelope of Titan IV?

->>    The Hubble repair could still prove too much for orbiting
->>    astronauts and thus require return to Earth for mirror replacement,
-> 
->No for two reasons: 1) it would be cheaper to build another and fly it
->and 2) in testimony before the House the program manager said Hubble
->wouldn't survive the return trip.

-For 1) see the above. For 2) from what I have heard from the HST program
-manager at Marshall, they could bring it back down. That is a contingency if
-the solar array replacement goes awry.

I think the general attitude is that HST could *probably* be returned safely,
but they would greatly prefer not to, for a variety of reasons.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov