Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!unmvax!uokmax!jabishop
From: jabishop@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Jonathan A Bishop)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Recovering HST from orbit
Message-ID: <1991Feb6.225351.17907@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu>
Date: 6 Feb 91 22:53:51 GMT
References: <6814@harrier.ukc.ac.uk>
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK
Lines: 31

sss3@ukc.ac.uk (S.S.Sturrock) writes:

>Hi chaps,

>This week on BBC2 there was a Horizon programme about the HST titled "A small
>problem with the mirror".  There was a discussion about how to correct the
>problem.  The eventual method decided on was to remove one of the four
>experiment pods from behind the mirror and replace it with a correcting
>set of mirrors.

>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?

     The problem was not discovered until after the Shuttle had landed.
Another Shuttle mission would have to be scheduled.  Also, Hubble is
considerably more delicate than other satellites which have been returned
to earth aboard the Shuttle; it could become damaged, and the payload bay
would not be a clean environment.  All in all, it's easier to give it the
spectacles.

--------
jabishop@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu

"I'm with you, LEM, though it's a shame that it had to be you.
 The mother ship is just a blip from your train made for two.
 I'm with you, boys, so please employ just a little extra care.
 It's on my mind, I'm left behind when I should have been there."
                      --Jethro Tull, "For Michael Collins, Jeffrey, and Me"