In article , David Nakamoto
wrote:

I'm very worried about the Hubble's end. It's big enough to have some of
its bigger parts survive re-entry, and it definitely doesn't have enough
fuel to change course enough to guarentee a splashdown somewhere.

Boosting it to any higher orbit would have to be done with an attachable
expendible, since the Shuttle can't go high enough to guarentee it won't
fall back. If we're talking about putting it up in a higher orbit without
worrying about using it again, then the only problem is to fly the shuttle
up there, grab Hubble, attach the rocket, release it, have the rocket align
itself and Hubble in the right direction, and fire away.

That is the whole problem in the first place, NASA decided not to
fly another shuttle mission to Hubble, and that is why it is facing
the end of its life. If NASA were to consider another Hubble flight,
then they would simply keep Hubble in operation.

There is talk of sending a booster pack up to Hubble to ensure
that it is under control as it comes back in.

I would like to see Hubble come to a better ending, such as doing
the additional Shuttle flight despite the risk, or putting Hubble
into some parking orbit to save it until it can be brought back
to the Air & Space Museum (or the NASM Annex to be built on the
moon). But the money, which could be $500-million or so to fly
that mission and build the hardware, could do so much more down
here on Earth. Consider that the Keck cost something like $30-
million each. We could build an enormous amount of space and
astronony hardware for what it would cost to save Hubble.

-john-

--
================================================== ==================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ==================