Who killed Hubble?

> From: Ed Minchau [mailto:spider_boris@...]

> ... on a specially launched mission for that purpsoe. Hubble is
> already up there, the equipment already works, and a deorbit mission
> is set to go up anyhow. Why not kill two stones with one bird?

And two or three years down the line we'll be back in exactly the same situation, only Hubble will be far beyond any possiblility of economic repair! At that point we have no choice but to abandon it. No amont of data it could gather in the mean-time would make that worth it.

Hubble's also designed to look at far-away stars, not close up planets. To look at the moon you'd need to replace the cameras which requires a shuttle mission. (The existing cameras will burn out within seconds if you point them at something as bright as the earth, moon or sun.) At that point it becomes far cheaper to build and launch a new sattilite. There's also no garantee that hubble will automatically work perfectly after being switched off for the 20 month manouver either mission will take. Again though, if it doesn't work in proximity to the station, the astronauts can go out and poke it. ;)

> Ion engines are also proposed for the mission to bring Hubble to the
> ISS. Be kind of a shame if it got halfway through course
> correction...

Except it would still be in reach of the space-shuttle, or a soyuz once they start launching from french guiana, who would then be able to fix the situation if needed. Hubble is one of the few sattilites that can be *repaired* and *upgraded*. Putting it in a location where these things can't be done seems foolish to me.

ANTIcarrot.