Re: The Hubble Space Telescope...

A Hubble Hubble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: 

> Jorge R. Frank wrote:
> 
>> A Hubble Hubble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: 
>> 
>>>Jorge R. Frank wrote:
> 
>> I wouldn't take the FAWG manifest too seriously (if that's the one
>> you're referring to); the HST flight has moved around quite a bit on
>> that manifest the last few months. Anything after STS-116 is written
>> in sand. 
> 
> Given that the FAWG is the only long range planning manifest that I
> know of, and given that prior to the latest manifest only the first 4
> flights were not labelled "Under Review", but now all the flights up
> through STS-124 (HST SM-4) are not "under review" and given that SM-4
> was placed where it is after discussions with the Administrator,

OK, I didn't know this had gone to O'Keefe.  Thanks for the info.

> I
> believe this FAWG isn't going to change much (in terms of flight
> order) in the near future.

Hmm, I must have an out-of-date FAWG.  Mine (11/13) has flights after STS-
124/HST SM-04 labeled "under review" (as yours does), but mine also shows 
STS-124 on OV-105 on 8/24/06, right smack dab in the middle of an OV-104 
OMM with only two orbiters available (which yours doesn't) and with 123 and 
125 scheduled for 6/30/06 and 11/30/06 on OV-103 (way too quick a 
turnaround for a rescue mission). So it looks like SM-04 has already moved 
once since the "under review line" moved from post-116 to post-124. What's 
the date on your FAWG?

Anyway, as the saying goes, "Standby to stand by."


-- 
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.