Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Evil_Bomber
Unless NASA re-evaluates the unreasonable (IMO) safety requirements placed on shuttle launches, this is whole suggestion is moot. Since the current requirements (as I understand them) would require a backup "rescue" shuttle on the ground and ready to launch for each Hubble mission, or a complete replacement shuttle in operation (which will not be available by the estimated end date of 2010 for the Hubble).
Apparently in America, astronauts need to be protected from all possible dangers, since they are incapable of understanding the danger themselves.
Just ignore my ranting, I'm just annoyed with the society I now realize I'm forced to live in :-?
|
I for one am in favor of evaluating all possible alternatives for saving Hubble. I am, however, not in favor of sending the Shuttle to the HST. There have been a number of threads on this board and many of the posts are of the "spaceflight isn't safe so let's press on" variety. While I understand where this sentiment comes from, it just isn't a realistic way of looking at things. The Shuttle has shown itself to be less safe than originally thought, the fleet is aging and the post Columbia inspections are revealing even more potential safety issues (e.g. corrosion in single string rudder actuators that that could result in the loss of the Orbiter). My point is that you cannot simply brush off every risk with a wave of the hands and say "well, spaceflight is dangerous".