To Infinity, and Beyond!

and they do have a large st enterprise collection.

Or is he referring to "A Christmas Story". You'll put your eye out is what eveyone tells him will happen if he gets the Red Ryder BB gun he wants so badly.

Doug Wagner

Yeah...sort of makes our newsgroup lurking seem like normality.

One poster wondered if the Shuttle could take a landing with cargo. In the same vein, could the Hubble bear the strain of a landing? Kim M

as opposed to a take off? i reckon.

I had been considering the former, and looking up the numbers when I realized that the shuttle would need to land with the Hubble in the event of an abort after launch, so it would not exceed max landing weight. As for the latter, if some instruments don't work after landing, it wouldn't be particularly important. I'm pretty sure it would survive structurally.

As for what someone else said about the fakes in museums, some are but many aren't quite. The Skylab and HST in the NASM are spares, as is the LM IIRC.

Dom

I was referring to A Christmas Story, one of my favorite movies.

Tom

Outgassing of water and volatiles from the non-metal structural components may cause problems when dealing with landing shocks.

A number of smaller space items are either qual birds or manufacturing mockups from the original manufacturer, they aren't really fakes, they are real items used when building the bird in orbit. A few qual birds we sent to NASM got all the techs that knew about it thumbprints applied here and there on aluminum surfaces.

I thought you meant keeping it in use for some reason. I too would be for preserving it if that were practical.

Well, the HST test vehicle is already on display at the NASM and configured to look just like the actual Hubble. Why spend money and/or risk shuttle crew members to recover the real thing?

ok let me rephrase...would you rather have a wright flyer made from wilbur and orvilles scraps or the one they actually used?

Do we have to risk lives to get the original?

For the record, I think it would be neat to have the actual Hubble on display, but it might not be worth the cost, either financial or otherwise.

Dean

Neither. I'm impressed by the men that created it. A replica, if more practical, pays the same homage to them aswould the original.

Mark Schynert

I'd like to think so, but it is possible that it can't. Most jet aircraft can't land as heavy as they can take off.

But if I had to guess, I'd guess that it could...anyone know for sure?

I guess you'd have to take the "abort" scenario into account - after the briefing I attended, I laft with the impression that an abort doesn't always mean a safe landing - a safe bailout is equally acceptable.

But from my gut, I have to agree with you - I think it could land that heavy.

So why do so many folk here cry in their oatmeal every time a vintage airplane crashes?..

Cuz somebody died in the process?

Okay, facetious mode off. One, I don't number among the lacrimous when this happens. All human constructs are transitory, and even an artifact in a museum can be consumed by fire or hurricane (I can think of at least four air museums that have been ravaged by one or the other.) Two, I would be just as enthusiastic about seeing a replica Wright flyer fly as the real one. Three, in the majority of cases, a really rare type that crashes can and often is rebuilt from whatever fragments are salvable. So, while I'm not eager to see vintage flying machines destroyed either from flight accident or the vagaries of ground storage, I think those that get weepy about it are losing perspective. It's wonderful that folks try to keep vintage aircraft flying, and I'll always stop and watch if one comes into view, but no tears here for the machine.

Mark Schynert

Yeah - I have to agree and also share your point of view, Mark. But I remain aware that there have been a sizable number of folk here whom have not only displayed a callous disregard and indifference to the loss of human life over the "sanctity" of the machine just because it was an airplane...seems when the discussion turns to preserving history in general the disregard then turns to the machine.

Point being that any and all objects deemed by us to be of a certain historical "value" are equally worth attempting to preserve when possible. Sometimes that effort bears some risk, and sometimes those risks may catch up to us. That doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt the effort just because of that risk.

Getting back to the subject of Hubble and the Shuttles - I'm still of the opinion that the retrieval and return to terra firma of the instrument would be a fitting close out to the Shuttle program; that in an of itself it would be an historic event - the first orbital telescope and the orbiter which made the last Shuttle flight sitting side by side in the Smithsonian's collection...the REAL things, not replicas. I just think it's one of those times where there is an opportunity for an historically relevent achievement of sorts. Would be a shame to pass it up, given that manned space flight WILL go on, and it will always be risky. If NASA stands in need of "direction and a goal", it woud make a nice first step.

Truthfully, I'd like that too, but perhaps for selfish reasons--my wife worked on the Hubble project as one of the cost-control people for the integrating contractor. It's still my favorite operational satellite.

Mark Schynert