Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!wciu!abode!eric
From: eric@abode.wciu.edu (Eric C. Bennett)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Recovering HST from orbit
Message-ID: <1991Feb6.214941.316@abode.wciu.edu>
Date: 6 Feb 91 21:49:41 GMT
References: <6814@harrier.ukc.ac.uk>
Organization: Abode Computer Systems
Lines: 24

In article <6814@harrier.ukc.ac.uk> sss3@ukc.ac.uk (S.S.Sturrock) writes:
>While this seems to be a cost effective method, I was wondering if there were
>some other reason why the HST was not just recovered and the mirror replaced.
>Is it because the Shuttle would not be able to land safely with the added
>weight, or maybe it could land but would be so damaged that it could not
>be re-used?
>
>Thanks in advance.

I think you are probably right on both accounts. The shuttle can carry more
weight into orbit than it can bring back. But, of the two above, I would say
the second would be closer to the point. There would almost certainly be
some damage to the HST during re-entry and landing. Also, since the HST is
so large, they would have to dedicate an entire shuttle mission to putting
it back into orbit. If they just go up there and fix it, they could also
do other shuttle expirements, launches, etc.

Eric

-- 
     Eric C. Bennett     uucp: {elroy|cit-vax}!wciu!abode!eric
     El Monte, Ca    Internet: eric@abode.wciu.edu

If you can read this you aren't looking through the hubble space telescope!