Brian Gaff wrote:

"Allen Thomson" wrote in message
m...
| while the disposal-orbit option at least moves the problem way
| into the future, Not On Their Watch.
|
| Initial checks indicate that "way into the future" is many
| thousands of years, maybe into the hundreds of thousands.
|
| Time enough to make other plans.
And more to the point, they can then hope it will be forgotten as well. I
still think that there would be plenty of takers for a service mission crew,
though I suppose the simple logistics of losing another Shuttle could be a
problem when trying to fulfil US commitments for the ISS, which they want to
keep going for life science research for the eventual goals already noted.

However, it will be interesting to see what happens if we get a change of
administration at the Whitehouse in November.

Brian


A post in another thread indicated that the astronauts were not
interested in a manned mission to simply decommision or collect
the Hubble telescope (HST). There is astronaut support for a mission
to extend the useful life of the HST, which could include deorbit
or parking orbit boost system. The announced CEV schedule does
not support using this system before critical HST systems are
expected to fail, and the shuttle is the only current manned system
that could perform a servicing mission. A practical unmanned mission
would be limited to deorbit or parking orbit boost.

The funding for HST ground control will remain an issue, regardless
of who is in the White House. As the RTF date continues to slip,
reaching ISS complete before the CAIB "life limit" becomes more
difficult. If no further RTF complications or schedule slides occur,
Hubble's systems last longer than expected, some nonpublic funding
source is identified for HST ground control, and there is enough
popular support to give congress cover to mandate such a mission,
a servicing flight _might_ be possible, though not likely.