Re: MSNBC - How a 'safe haven' could help save Hubble
From: Explorer (Explorer8939_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 12/09/04
- Next message: genedigennaro_at_hotmail.com: "Re: Felxibility of Apollo design (was Re: Space station future adrift (Soyuz purchase crisis) )"
- Previous message: Tom Kent: "Re: MSNBC - How a 'safe haven' could help save Hubble"
- In reply to: John Savard: "Re: MSNBC - How a 'safe haven' could help save Hubble"
- Next in thread: Eric Pederson: "Re: MSNBC - How a 'safe haven' could help save Hubble"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 9 Dec 2004 06:28:58 -0800
Because if you wait too long to fix Hubble, it will be dead. And once
its dead, its dead. So, why do the 2nd mission if there is zero chance
that Hubble can be saved?
According to your scenario, the smart thing to do would be to have the
first robot boost Hubble down into the Pacific, rather than into a
higher orbit.
- Next message: genedigennaro_at_hotmail.com: "Re: Felxibility of Apollo design (was Re: Space station future adrift (Soyuz purchase crisis) )"
- Previous message: Tom Kent: "Re: MSNBC - How a 'safe haven' could help save Hubble"
- In reply to: John Savard: "Re: MSNBC - How a 'safe haven' could help save Hubble"
- Next in thread: Eric Pederson: "Re: MSNBC - How a 'safe haven' could help save Hubble"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|