Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!olivea!oliveb!amdahl!JUTS!duts!haw30
From: haw30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Henry A Worth)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: HST - Repair or Augment.
Message-ID: <32iu02bN05Of01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
Date: 10 Feb 91 23:59:56 GMT
References: <6814@harrier.ukc.ac.uk> <91039.210444NU128479@NDSUVM1.BITNET> <1991Feb10.022414.2365@zoo.toronto.edu>
Sender: netnews@ccc.amdahl.com
Reply-To: haw30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Henry Worth)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 51

In article <1991Feb10.022414.2365@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu
(Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>Because we'd be lucky to see HST2 in orbit before 2010, given the rate at
>which such large projects get funded and done these days.

   Frustrating...,But should we just give up?

   Now, as H.S. surely knows :-) , much of the cost and delay
of recent projects has been due to their relience upon the Shuttle.
This may have been a resonable decision back in the 70's when the
shuttle was expected to provide frequent, low-cost (compared to ELV's)
access to LEO. Unfortunately, the shuttle has been somewhat of a
disapointment... So, are we better off repairing the HST, or
would the HST's lifetime servicing costs significantly offset
(or even cover) the costs of a follow-on (or even a series) designed
with today's realities in mind? Besides, the HST is hardly useless,
it would still be up there doing its thing while the follow-on is
under developement.

   For example: by not servicing the HST and using an ELV to launch
a follow-on/supplement to the HST we would:

   > Save the cost of several shuttle flights (big $$$'s). Freeing
     up those shuttle flights for other purposes would also
     be of significant value.

   > By using an ELV we would also save the cost and complexity
     associated with man-rating a satellite for shuttle launch and
     on-orbit servicing.

   > Giving up on-orbit servicing opens up the possiblity of
     a geo-sync orbit with reduced operating (communications)
     costs and reduced solar array/battery capacity requirements.

   > With no on-orbit servicing the project lifetime may be reduced.
     But, some of that may be made up with a simpler, more-reliable
     design and a more stable orbit. Then again, the shuttle is hardly
     as dependable a repair service as the auto club, so there may
     not be that much gained from on-orbit servicing anyway; perhaps
     even a loss as there are more things to break...

   Using a commercial ELV also opens up the possibility of having NASA's
role reduced to that of a minor sub-contractor providing launch
facilities (and possibly, communications support if geo-sync is not
used). For example: funding could be provided through the NSF to a
university consortium with the appropriate demographic pork-factors.

--
Henry Worth  --  haw30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
No, I don't speak for Amdahl -- I'm not even sure I speak for myself.