Article View: sci.space.shuttle
Article #6187Re: Misc. Shuttle questions (combined)
From: michael.j.burns
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 1990 04:32
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 1990 04:32
18 lines
1347 bytes
1347 bytes
In article <1990Jan28.012650.19697@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article <33348@cci632.UUCP> djw@cci632.UUCP (David Wright) writes: > > 2) I'm curious about the upcoming Hubble Space Telescope mission. > > I would assume that it is due to be placed in a geosynchronous orbit. > > Nope. The astronomers would probably prefer it, but HST is going to be in > low Earth orbit like most other major science missions. The reason is > economic: a low orbit maximizes payload with a given launcher. HST is > just too big for the boost up to Clarke (geostationary) orbit. The low orbit also makes it possible for astronauts to perform maintenance on HST as needed later. When I worked at Lockheed at NASA JSC back in 1985 and 1986 some of my co-workers were evaluating EVS scenarios for such maintenance missions. Mike Burns AT&T Bell Laboratories Holmdel, NJ
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<7870@cbnewsh.ATT.COM>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rutgers!bellcore!att!cbnewsh!mjbReferences:
<33348@cci632.UUCP> <1990Jan28.012650.19697@utzoo.uucp>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rutgers!bellcore!att!cbnewsh!mjb From: mjb@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (michael.j.burns) Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle Subject: Re: Misc. Shuttle questions (combined) Summary: Hubble Orbit Message-ID: <7870@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> Date: 2 Feb 90 04:32:08 GMT References: <33348@cci632.UUCP> <1990Jan28.012650.19697@utzoo.uucp> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 18