Quote from: libs0n on 03/09/2010 03:04 amCongress is not a unified block. The vast majority of Congress appears to hold no strong opinions over the course which NASA takes. Why would they, a majority, and a democratic majority, choose to go against the President's wishes concerning NASA on the behalf of a small predominantly self interested republican minority?Actually, some in Congress who ARE opinionated actually support Obama's plan, so the fight will be a lot weaker than many here expect. Of course, any blowback is bad, so its likely Obama will compromise somewhere. Just don't expect YOUR favorite Jupiter 2 Jumbo space rocket to be part of the mix.
Congress is not a unified block. The vast majority of Congress appears to hold no strong opinions over the course which NASA takes. Why would they, a majority, and a democratic majority, choose to go against the President's wishes concerning NASA on the behalf of a small predominantly self interested republican minority?
Quote from: Analyst on 03/09/2010 07:42 amQuote from: Serafeim on 03/08/2010 08:31 pmthe only way we can send a bigger succesor of Hubble to space without bigger rockets is i think the foldable mirrors or somehing like that.but for now without Hlv we will not have a visible light telescope to space for the next 10 years at least...You are wrong: Not the lack of a HLV, but the lack of funding for a telescope (payload) is the reason for not having one. FWIW, we aren't even at the 'how much would it cost?' stage on such a concept. As they are currently unlaunchable because of technical limitations, no one has sat down and seriously looked at how much it would cost and what would be the most cost-effective way of doing it. Why bother? It would make an interesting thought experiment, I'm sure but that's all right now.[edit]Just to clarify my point: Funding might become available if someone could come up with a reasonable and non bank-breaking idea of how to do it. As there isn't even a serious proposal, so there isn't funding. A major project like that would likely have its own unique budget line outside of the regular NASA & science budgets anyway.
Quote from: Serafeim on 03/08/2010 08:31 pmthe only way we can send a bigger succesor of Hubble to space without bigger rockets is i think the foldable mirrors or somehing like that.but for now without Hlv we will not have a visible light telescope to space for the next 10 years at least...You are wrong: Not the lack of a HLV, but the lack of funding for a telescope (payload) is the reason for not having one.
the only way we can send a bigger succesor of Hubble to space without bigger rockets is i think the foldable mirrors or somehing like that.but for now without Hlv we will not have a visible light telescope to space for the next 10 years at least...
And this seems to be your opinion. Just once I'd like to see you have some actual data to back up the many statements that you through around here, usually in an attempt to go after others.
Quote from: OV-106 on 03/09/2010 01:51 pmAnd this seems to be your opinion. Just once I'd like to see you have some actual data to back up the many statements that you through around here, usually in an attempt to go after others. BTW, are there any reports on new cosponsors for the Hutchinson bill?
Also, OV: David asked about co-sponsors, not conversations. Stick to the facts. If you don't know, then tell him to look it up himself. Ok, I will: David: Look it up yourself, and keep us posted. It would be nice to know who is co-sponsoring Hutchinson's bill.
Some good info about this recent shuttle extension study at the end of today's 131 overview conference. John says he gets results on Thursday.
Quote from: Analyst on 03/09/2010 07:42 amQuote from: Serafeim on 03/08/2010 08:31 pmthe only way we can send a bigger succesor of Hubble to space without bigger rockets is i think the foldable mirrors or somehing like that.but for now without Hlv we will not have a visible light telescope to space for the next 10 years at least...You are wrong: Not the lack of a HLV, but the lack of funding for a telescope (payload) is the reason for not having one. FWIW, we aren't even at the 'how much would it cost?' stage on such a concept. As they are currently unlaunchable because of technical limitations
Quote from: Bill White on 03/09/2010 01:30 amWhy fight Congress head on when you can get what you want without the fight? Unless it's ideologically driven?Actually I think it's kind of the reverse in this case.I'm beginning to think he's trying to MAKE congress work together, to fight together (as one).Or I'm 180 out and he wants congress to fight each other, rather than just Obama all the time...like health care.Quite an interesting thought. Ah, politics.
Why fight Congress head on when you can get what you want without the fight? Unless it's ideologically driven?
Newsflash: Hubble's mirror is 2.4 meters. You heavy lift aperture snobs act as if we are buttressing up against the limits of current and possible EELV fairing diameters for a monolithic mirror, when we aren't even close to maxing out the available standard.A modern bigger successor to Hubble has been possible for quite some time; is possible today. If it does not exist for lack of a program, it is not because current fairing diameters don't offer the possibility of improved aperture size.
The Hubble Space Telescope took up the entire width and almost the entire length of the payload bay when it was launched on STS-31. Here is a link to a picture of it before launch that shows how it filled up the bay. http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/HIGH/9009375.jpg That bay is 4.6 meters wide by 18m. The Delta IV offers a 5 meter fairing 19.8 meters long so yes the EElVs can haul up a larger diameter but it only improve upon the Shuttle by 40cm wide by 1.8 meters long. Thats not a huge improvement on volume. The mirror is always going to be smaller then the fairing diameter by a bit to make room for the spacecrafts structural elements and other design considerations.
That bay is 4.6 meters wide by 18m. The Delta IV offers a 5 meter fairing 19.8 meters long
Quote from: notsorandom on 03/09/2010 07:58 pmThat bay is 4.6 meters wide by 18m. The Delta IV offers a 5 meter fairing 19.8 meters longYou are comparing internal diameter with external diameter.It might surprise you to learn that the external width of the Shuttle main fuselage is... ...drum-roll please... ...5.0m.And it might equally surprise you to learn that once you account for the thickness of the Delta's PLF structure and acoustic matting, the internal usable diameter is... ...can you guess? ...4.6m.It is NOT a coincidence that 5.0m PLF's are used. They needed for Titan-IV specifically so that USAF could launch all of the Shuttle payloads after Challenger was lost.And Delta-IV was then designed to fly with the existing Titan-IV PLF's so that integration of existing payloads could be simplified.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 03/09/2010 03:34 pmAlso, OV: David asked about co-sponsors, not conversations. Stick to the facts. If you don't know, then tell him to look it up himself. Ok, I will: David: Look it up yourself, and keep us posted. It would be nice to know who is co-sponsoring Hutchinson's bill.Having worked on campaigns for bills that became law, my experience was that the people working on the campaigns updated co-sponsorship as it happened. In this case, there are still no co-sponsors for S3038, which is a very bad sign for prospects for enactment of this particular legislation.This doesn't mean that there are no negotiations with the Administration concerning Shuttle extension and the like, just that this particular bill seems to be DOA. Probably we should close this thread soon, and have a new topic about negotiations, since if there are no discussions about the bill here, its a dead thread.
Newsflash: Hubble's mirror is 2.4 meters. ...
First, a simple statement of observed experience, based on my thirty-plus years of working in the Congress: the number of cosponsors of a bill is NOT a determining factor in passage of a bill. I have seen many bills with an actual majority of members cosponsoring them, which have never even been reported our of committee. I have seen even more bills with either no or very few cosponsors get enacted into law.