Who killed Hubble?

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "ANTIcarrot"
wrote:
> > From: Ed Minchau [mailto:spider_boris@y...]
>
> > No it won't
>
> And the soyuz option?
>
> > > 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.
>
> > And wasting it utterly is even more foolish.
>
> Moon: Hubble orbits happily then breaks down in five years when
it's equipment wears out.
> ISS: Hubble orbits happily with periodic service and upgrade
visits to ISS. Lasts twenty years before eventually retired.
>
> Who's wasting it more?

Curent plan: let it run until there is only one gyro left and it is
completely uncontrollable, then take $300 million from the astronomy
budget to develop a vehicle to rendezvous with and deorbit Hubble.

I kind of like the idea of takeing Hubble to the ISS, if it is to
continue to be used on deep-space astronomy. In either your or my
scenario, the craft we are discussiong would be nearly the same and
would be capable of other salvage missions. I suggest the moon as a
way of using Hubble to support the later unmanned and manned
missions, thus bringing it in line with the new space plan.

>
> > add a polarized filter to the aperature during the
> > salvage mission.
>
> Please read what you're saying. And read some of the specs on
those cameras and luna-orbiters whilst you're at it. They're not
designed for planets and a filter is hardly going to improve their
resolution. If telescopes were more useful then spectrometers they'd
have been sent there already. Camera installation requires a manned
presence. That means a shuttle visit, two from soyuz or a trip to
the ISS. An ion-drive OTV, no matter how sophisticated, cannot do
the needed maintinance work.
>
> ANTIcarrot.

Remote manipulator arms are not science fiction. They have been in
use in space for two decades; there is currently one on the ISS.
This is proven technology. A (robot) no matter how sophisticated,
cannot (replace a human)?

If a robot cannot replace a human presence for limited tasks at
384000km, then the unmanned missions to the moon later this decade
are in serious trouble.

Ed