Hansel wrote:

It's silly isn't it... You know any savings from the launch will just fall
thru the cracks, so what do they do with the stuff they already got built?
Seems like an aweful waste to me.

Kris
my Energia HLLV site: http://www.k26.com/buran/

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in message
...

http://www.sunspot.net/news/health/b...ocal-headlines

snip above article

The issue is not the cost of the extra flight, but that of the
additional safety hoops the current environment would demand for
such a "unique" flight. The shuttle is basically required to
complete the ISS, and in the remaining "life span" ,as dictated by
the CAIB and reinforced by the President's speech, there are not
many non-ISS slots available.

How many of the congress folk quoted in this article joined the "how
could NASA let this happen" dog pile following the Columbia breakup?
Funny how their tune changes when the solution negatively affects
folks in their districts. If they really want to save Hubble, maybe
they should be supporting a faster schedule for the proposed ApolloR2
vehicle as a ISS/shuttle assured return vehicle. Mostly I suspect
that this was simply a "free" opportunity to whine about the actions
of the current administration without having to commit to an
alternative solution.