re hst servicing mission scheduled for days in article apr samba oit unc edu bruce scott launchpad unc edu bruce scott writes if re boosting the hst by carrying it with a shuttle would not damage it then why couldn t hst be brought back to earth and the repair job done here reboost may not be a problem if they have enough fuel if they don t do a reboost this time they will definitely have to do one on the next servicing mission but try to land a shuttle with that big huge telescope in the back and you could have problems the shuttle just isn t designed to land with that much weight in the payload is it because two shuttle flights would be required adding to the alredy horrendous expense of course that is a concern too and the loss of science during the time that it is on the ground plus a fear that if it comes down some big wig might not allow it to go back up but the main concern i believe is the danger of the landing just to add another bad vibe they also increase the risk of damaging an instrument finally this is a chance for nasa astronanuts to prove they could build and service a space station hubble was designed for in flight servicing bringing the telescope down to my understanding was considered even very recently but all these factors contribute to the decision to do it the way it was planned in the beginning gruss dr bruce scott the deadliest bullshit is max planck institut fuer plasmaphysik odorless and transparent bds at spl n aug ipp garching mpg de w gibson rob rob douglas space san martin drive ai software engineer telescope baltimore md usa advance planning systems branch science phone internet rdouglas stsci edu institute fax disclaimer type thingie these opinions are mine unless of course they fall under the standard intellectual property guidelines but with my intellect i doubt it besides if it was useful intellectual property do you think i would type it in here rob douglas space san martin drive ai software engineer telescope baltimore md usa advance planning systems branch science phone
