Shuttle...carry a lifeboat?

Could the shuttle be arranged to carry
something like the Soviet Soyuz,
with the intention of 'landing' the crew
in the ocean, and then automated shuttle landing
(if it makes it) at some convienient airfield.??
If so, perhaps one last mission to the HST
is possible.

Menwith

"Menwith" wrote in message
...
Could the shuttle be arranged to carry
something like the Soviet Soyuz,
with the intention of 'landing' the crew
in the ocean, and then automated shuttle landing
(if it makes it) at some convienient airfield.??
If so, perhaps one last mission to the HST
is possible.

If NASA had been given the money to finish
the X-38/CRV, this would theoretically have
been possible.

But for want of a few billion, this is no longer
possible.

Bruce

In message , Bruce
Sterling Woodcock writes

"Menwith" wrote in message
...
Could the shuttle be arranged to carry
something like the Soviet Soyuz,
with the intention of 'landing' the crew
in the ocean, and then automated shuttle landing
(if it makes it) at some convienient airfield.??
If so, perhaps one last mission to the HST
is possible.

If NASA had been given the money to finish
the X-38/CRV, this would theoretically have
been possible.

But for want of a few billion, this is no longer
possible.

The topic's been flogged to death in the sci.space newsgroups, and isn't
the problem that any sort of lifeboat uses up all your payload?
--
Save the Hubble Space Telescope!
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message ...
In message , Bruce
Sterling Woodcock writes

"Menwith" wrote in message
...
Could the shuttle be arranged to carry
something like the Soviet Soyuz,
with the intention of 'landing' the crew
in the ocean, and then automated shuttle landing
(if it makes it) at some convienient airfield.??
If so, perhaps one last mission to the HST
is possible.

If NASA had been given the money to finish
the X-38/CRV, this would theoretically have
been possible.

But for want of a few billion, this is no longer
possible.

The topic's been flogged to death in the sci.space newsgroups, and isn't
the problem that any sort of lifeboat uses up all your payload?

Exactly. The shuttle would become even more useless than it already
is were they to lug up a lifeboat every time. And it's not as if
they've mothballed the remaining fleet at any rate. For the
foreseeable future there will be more shuttle flights- to the space
station. If it's safe enough to fly to the ISS, then it's safe enough
to rendesvous with the telescope.

Of course, it may be reasonable to propose that the shuttle *isn't*
safe enough to carry people for any reason. So what then becomes of
Hubble? Well if people really, really, REALLY want to maintain it,
then go into a joint venture with Russia to send up a Soyuz and a
personal propulsion unit to install new instruments.

But the real kicker is simply that it'd be cheaper & easier to just
build new telescopes and lift them on throw-away rockets as frequently
as service missions have been launched.

-Mark Martin

"Menwith" wrote in message
...
Could the shuttle be arranged to carry
something like the Soviet Soyuz,
with the intention of 'landing' the crew
in the ocean, and then automated shuttle landing
(if it makes it) at some convienient airfield.??
If so, perhaps one last mission to the HST
is possible.

Menwith


It would make more sense to use the extra weight involved to strengthen the
heat shielding on the shuttle's wings and fuselage. Of course, it would
also mean having to have extra missions to make up the difference in
carrying capacity, thus increasing the astronauts' exposure to danger
through extra missions.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)