Replies

But it is not to valuable to let die. Even if they do go fix it they would only extend the life a few more years. The cost of doing more safety modifications to the shuttle plus building the necessary repair hardware and launching a mission is very prohibitive. Now they could do it with a modified Soyuz mission but that would be horrible PR and they would never seriously consider it. Yeah the Hubble is an amazing piece of engineering but sooner or later it will come down on it’s own. Putting it in a parking orbit is just storing something that is obsolete. Once the gyros go several other systems will be destroyed due to solar heating and after that repairing it will be worse that building a new one. No, drop the thing and build the next big scope on the moon where it will never fall to earth and will not need flaky gyros.

Build the next big scope on the moon? So no visible light spectrum space telescope for 20 years or more? Why is that a good idea?

I agree that NASA can't/won't service the Hubble. I agree that NASA servicing the Hubble with a Soyuz mission or two is almost totally out of the question.

But maybe NASA should put the Hubble on eBay and let the new owners decide what to do with it. Russia is always ready to sell space on Soyuz rides.

NASA didn't save Skylab primarily because the shuttle wasn't ready in time. What did the shuttle have to do with it? Nothing except it was supposed to be NASA's darling project.

The Bush plan shelves the shuttle and ISS, but doesn't make any replacements likely to arrive on time. Manned spaceflight by NASA is going to hit another low spot like the late 70s around 2010 or so and it will last for years.

I hope someone has the dollars and the know-how by then to pick up the slack.