Xref: utzoo sci.space:6811 sci.space.shuttle:1154
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!mike
From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST
Message-ID: <14240@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
Date: 2 Sep 88 16:18:44 GMT
References: <1988Aug16.040406.5434@utzoo.uucp> <6137@dasys1.UUCP> <1988Aug29.172104.10823@utzoo.uucp> <688@nancy.UUCP> <688@proxftl.UUCP> <14184@ames.arc.nasa.gov> <691@proxftl.UUCP>
Reply-To: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov.UUCP (Mike Smithwick)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.
Lines: 63

In article <691@proxftl.UUCP> greg@proxftl.UUCP (Gregory N. Hullender) writes:
>
>2) No one had to be up in space to see ocean currents; satellite pictures
>   would have done as well.

We've had oceanographic studies via unmanned satillites, but whether you
like it or not, the human eye is vastly more sensitive to some things
than any of the cameras ever launched. John Scully-Power was simply able
to witness very fine structures never detected in the years and years
of earth resource satillite studies.

>3) What, exactly, is 3M launching on?  Can't be the shuttle right now,
>   and it can't be too important if they've tabled it for almost 3 years.

It's called the Shuttle. The first CFES (Continuous Flow Electrophoresis
System) flight was on STS-3, and it has flown on 7 or 8 missions since 
then.

>4) My understanding of the Solar Max mission was that it cost a lot more
>   than it would have to simply launch a new one.

NASA didn't happen to have a warehouse full of spare Solar Max satillites,
to launch as needed. They would've had to construct
a whole new one practically from scratch, at a cost of at least $150 million.
Now double that to include the launch costs, and you end up with about
$300 million or more in total costs. Not to mention a minimum of 5 years
in construction. Alot of extra time and money when all that was needed
to be done was to replace a burned out fuse.

>5) Hubble has so far returned zero data.  

So has Galileo and Magellen.

>   There is nothing about a space
>   telescope that intrinsically requires human servicing.

Can you say "repair"? If we're going to put up a $billion dollar plus,
instrument in space, we damn well better be able to fix the thing
if struck by a micro-meteroid, or suffers a system failure. Not to mention
refueling it, cleaning the mirror, etc. Also, periodically, scientific packages
will be swapped out for new ones.

>Even though some of the items you mention have some merit, the shuttle has
>been at best irrelevant to them, at worst (and this is the usual case)
>inimical.

Read the above.

>I was being generous in giving it a zero.
             ^^^^^^^^
Nah, too easy. . .

>		Greg Hullender  uflorida!novavax!proxftl!greg
>		3511 NE 22nd Ave / Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308
>
>	    My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer.


-- 
			   *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick ***
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people
 some of the time, but you can't fool Mom".
[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]