Does anyone else remember the design life of HST? Or that we got the STS instead of the SSC? Now the jewel HST depends on the obsolescent (I considered an alternative epithet) STS for its extended life and the SSC is forgotten.
The Hubble was designed to fit into the STS bay. Like the STS, the Hubble is getting pretty old. My view, FWIW, is that the Shuttle should be retired immediately and the completion of the ISS abandoned. If the ISS is to be completed, it should be done with expendible heavy-lift boosters. Also, the pieces of crap ISS modules designed and built by the Russians should be removed and jettisoned.
If the STS is to be flown at all, it should be for repairs to the Hubble. However, a repair bay for the Hubble could be launched with the same expendible boosters; the Hubble could be taken inside (robotically by remote control from the ground); the technicians to do the repair/refit to the Hubble could do so in a shirtsleeve environment, and arrive at the bay using the new crew vehicle now being developed.
If deployed on it's original timetable the HST was supposed to have been retired sometime before 2000 and replaced by one of several more advanced telescopes, almost all scrapped by either Congress or Clinton. It was delayed several times and finally launched in 1990 after several mission design changes:
When originally planned in 1979, the Large Space Telescope program called for return to Earth, refurbishment, and relaunch every 5 years, with on-orbit servicing every 2.5 years. Hardware lifetime and reliability requirements were based on that 2.5-year interval between servicing missions. In 1985, contamination and structural loading concerns associated with return to Earth aboard the shuttle eliminated the concept of ground return from the program. NASA decided that on-orbit servicing might be adequate to maintain HST for its 15- year design life. A three year cycle of on-orbit servicing was adopted. (from the Space Telescope Institute web site... which is really out of date...)
So even with the amended launch schedule it's a year beyond planned end of life.
If by SSC you mean either Spitzer Space Telescope or Superconduncting Super Collider, the Space Transportation System predates both of them by a good many years. Or are you referring to some other launcher/orbiter? The vertical launch STS was indeed a bastard compromise. The alternative, however, was not a better space ship. It was no space program at all.
Right now it looks like Burt Rutan's t/Space is in the lead to win the commercial contract for launch capabilities to get crew and supplies to the ISS and low Earth orbit. President Bush has pushed us in exactly the right direction, putting NASA back in the exploration business and turning over LEO to commercial operators. The added benefit is that it should work the way air mail service did to fund the development of a new industry.
On a seperate note, I was obviously confused by your use of the abbreviation SSC. It's always helpful to use the full spelled out version of an acronym before starting to use the acronym. There are too many duplicates floating around now to not lead to terminal confusion. I traded six emails with a colleague about how to deal with a security problem. We were both using the acronym VM. I meant virtual machine and he meant virus management. We couldn't understand why we were having so much trouble making our respective points. ;^>
Indefinite. Was designed to be serviced as parts wear out and new cameras designed. Should last into the 2020s, However, I fear it will not make it till 2008.