XPost: sci.space.history, sci.space.shuttle   
   From: hubble.hugger@nospam.att.net   
      
   Ash Wyllie wrote:   
      
   > Leaf Fan opined   
   >   
   >   
   >>Unfortunately many things changed after February 1.  Even the official   
   >>position of the astronaut office at JSC is that astronaut lives will not   
   >>be risked for an HST retrieval mission, i.e. the benefit of returning   
   >>HST to Earth is not worth the risko of astronaut lives.  The risk is   
   >>acceptable for servicing missions where the benefit is scientific knowledge.   
   >   
   >   
   >>The HST Program did a study to determine what would have to be done to   
   >>bring HST back to in the payload bay and while the study assumed   
   >>Columbia, i.e. no external airlock, a return mission could be performed   
   >>with an orbiter that has the external airlock, although additional work   
   >>would have to be done (servicing hardware mods for HST to fit farther   
   >>back in the bay).   
   >   
   >   
   >>The current thinking is that some sort of propulsion module will be   
   >>attached to HST to provide a controlled re-entry at the end of HST's life.   
   >   
   >   
   > If NASA is going to delibrately change Hubbles orbit, why not do 2 burns and   
   > boost into a 6,000km orbit and give some future generation the option of   
   > retrieving it for the Smithsonian?   
   >   
   >                          -ash   
   >                          for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX   
   >   
      
   Boosting HST into a higher orbit has been discussed, but you'd have to   
   ask those who said "no" why they don't want to leave HST retrieval to   
   another generation.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)