Wayne Hale concerned about 2010 deadline for ISS ??

[thereiwas]

Or it could come down on top of an apartment building and kill hundreds. Are you feeling lucky?

 

[MeteorWayne]

Thanx for catching that. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[windnwar]

The fact of the matter is no one has been killed by orbital debri "yet", but it's bound to happen sooner or later and letting extremely large and hard to burn up items like Hubble come it uncontrolled is a great way to up the ante that it happens sooner then later. <br /><br />Personally I think they should service it so it can be made ready for a controlled reentry later, not to mention the fact that it still produces significant amounts of world class science and has been pointed out, it's our only good optical scope in space, something the JWST will not replace. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font size="2" color="#0000ff">""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein"</font></p> </div>

 

[solarspot]

Hundreds? The stuff that would likely survive reentry would be small things... gyroscopes and the like. Even if one of those landed on the top of an apartment building, it wouldn't kill hundreds. Destroy an air conditioner? perhaps... But not kill hundreds. Not to mention the majority of Earth's surface area is water, followed by forests and deserts... Feeling lucky would be betting Hubble debris would land within 10 kilometers of a specific spot.<br /><br />About the scientific returns from keeping HST operational, we've already had it for a decade-and-a-half... how much more could we do with an optical telescope for an extra 4 years? Some certainly, but I doubt it would be enough to justify the costs of the mission. The universe isn't going anywhere, if we really need an optical telescope once Webb is operating, we can start planning for it's replacement to be an optical. That one might be even better than Hubble, and probably less expensive (due to the necessary exclusion of STS from that mission).<br /><br />I would rather not continue this subject much further. I've already made my personal opinion known and explained, and this is way off topic in this thread.<br /><br /><br />

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

I reckon that if they done like what they did with Skylab, that is crash it into the Australian outback, that it would be kinda cool. Could make a hobby of going out there to try to find bits. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[askold]

NASA controllers didn't crash Skylab into Australia, Skylab crashed itself into Australia:<br /><br />"In the last hours of Skylab's existence on July 11, 1979, ground controllers tried several attitude control maneuvers, which they believed could at least slightly alter the station's reentry path, even if it couldn't control it. It could land anywhere on Earth, raining fiery debris on unsuspecting people. And their property. They almost succeeded, as most of the station's fiery debris fell in the Indian Ocean off the Australian Coast. Nevertheless, multiple pieces of Skylab have been found in the sparsely populated grasslands of western Australia. Nobody was injured. But the U.S. State Department received a $400 fine for littering from the authorities in the town of Esperance, Australia."<br />

 

[qso1]

askold:<br />I'd love to see that - have the Russians fix Hubble with a 40-year-old clunker because NASA can't.<br /><br />Me:<br />NASA can fix the Hubble with the shuttle, its only a question of if they are going to. The Soyuz is not equipped to support Hubble. No HST pallet or fixture to mount it on. No remote arm to grapple it with. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Almost forgot, it was a space shuttle servicing mission that corrected Hubbles initial mirror problem back in 1993. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[askold]

I realize it's not practical for the Russians to fix Hubble. I do admire their plucky, can-do spirit.