Comments on: Hutchison and Hubble http://www.spacepolitics.com/2004/05/29/hutchison-and-hubble/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=hutchison-and-hubble Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway... Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:35:41 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38 By: Harold LaValley http://www.spacepolitics.com/2004/05/29/hutchison-and-hubble/#comment-555 Tue, 01 Jun 2004 19:33:35 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=191#comment-555 Not knowing how much the deorbit booster wieghs here is a rough accounting with available lift capabilities.
If either are capable of the lift requirement.

Booster 2004 Cost($ millions)
Atlas 5 551 125.1
Delta 4 Heavy 193.4

Added to that the estimated cost of approximate
300 million for developing deorbit unit or more..

]]> By: Harold LaValley http://www.spacepolitics.com/2004/05/29/hutchison-and-hubble/#comment-554 Tue, 01 Jun 2004 02:44:34 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=191#comment-554 I have heard all the arguments for and against the servicing mission. It’s cancellation for in regards to safe haven, lack of inspection capability from a secure platform and many other such items.

Some would say build Hubble II from the upgrade pieces and the backup mirror in the museum.

Some would say do the robotic mission with maybe some minimal success of the upgrades including a deorbit package to be affixed to the Hubble to stabilize it for later use.

Sending the shuttle still leaves the deorbit problem even if the shuttle makes it up there ok and unless the deorbit unit can be brought with the rest of the upgrade package for this mission then why do anything at all.

]]>