I see from the back lash from the Hubble cause is some what justified by the opions in the NY TIMES.

remark from paper of O'Keefe's decision:
The toughest recommendations would require that any shuttle sent to the Hubble have the capability to inspect and repair damage to its own thermal protection system while in orbit. Shuttles traveling to the international space station can rely on the station for help. Mr. O'Keefe has expressed doubt that NASA can develop sufficient onboard inspection and repair capabilities for shuttles in time for a mission to the Hubble. But he appears to be exaggerating both the safety requirements and the risks of servicing the Hubble.

Harold Gehman Jr., the retired admiral who was chairman of the board that investigated the Columbia accident, suggested in an advisory opinion that NASA had more latitude than Mr. O'Keefe let on. The admiral said his board did not expect the same robust inspection and repair capabilities available at the station to be provided on shuttles headed elsewhere. In other words, he said, NASA should simply "do the best you can" on a Hubble mission.

Admiral Gehman also indicated that the risk of losing a shuttle on a single servicing mission to the Hubble was small compared with the risks entailed in multiple flights to complete the space station. He rightly suggested that "only a deep and rich study of the entire gain/risk equation can answer the question of whether an extension of the life of the wonderful Hubble telescope is worth the risks involved." That is precisely the kind of study that Congress should demand.

I see that O'Keefe is exagerating to get a small amount of cash for the cancellation of the repair mission. IMO

Here is another way of looking at the Hubble budget situation.

Citing new shuttle safety rules and his pledge to protect astronauts' lives, NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe said yesterday that it would be "fundamentally irresponsible" of him to reverse his decision to scrub a final maintenance mission to the Hubble Space Telescope.

The risk of crew is only in there thought process for what to them is a safe haven. Not safe return home and leave shuttle parked in orbit for later repairs which should also be an option. In addition to sending backup shuttle there are other possible contingencies as part of the worst case scenario that could happen.

Suppose orbiter remains parked in orbit (un-crewed) near Hubble or for even that fact near the ISS after crew has returned safely home via Soyuz or CEV if development time line is pushed up.

By late 2009 or early 2010 the Kouru launch site will be Soyuz ready and a Soyuz could fly "back up" to the orbiter to provide on orbit inspection and emergency landing for the crew if necessary. At this time the Soyuz approach from the Kourou launch site will not be initially configured to support manned launches. There's been some discussion about performing manned launches there in the future, but at least initially—particularly in the critical 2009-2010 timeframe, when the facility opens—it will only have the infrastructure to support unmanned launches.

If repairs are feasible, and a manned Soyuz could lift a repair kit and a repair team from the Kouru launch site. This could be done for a lower total cost than sending the 2nd orbiter from Kennedy. Also if craft needs to be larger due to repair materials send a progress to carry the needed supplies as well.

Being such good partners with the Russians, then isn't it about time to show it by granting launch capability from Florida for specific functions and to give us a cheaper vehicle for such projects to use as well.

The potential public relations coup (Bush, Putin and Chirac standing together smiling as they work together to save a scientific treasure) would seem to benefit everyone. And justify a sincere push by the ESA to get Kouru ready on time.

Since we're talking about a crew rescue option, how about the following idea. I'm assuming a Hubble repair crew would be 6 people at most.

Could two Soyuz descent modules (with a minimalist retro pack each) be mounted in the shuttle's cargo bay along with whatever needs to be brought along for the Hubble repair mission? That way if something does go wrong during ascent the crew could get still get home if they still manage to reach orbit. Granted it wouldn't be comfortable or elegant but it just might work.

A Soyuz descent module weighs about 3000 kg.

Cheers,
Erik

This Idea of rescue capsule being in the cargo bay has been posted by myself and others on various web sites in also other configurations depending on other projects of capsule construction by both the Rusians (klipper) and Americans (CEV) constellation.
The cargo bay demensions are 15 ft by 60 ft but it may not be of a cylinder shape due to inside wall apperatus that I do not know of. The approximate diameter of a soyuz will fit less solar panels and other sections that are not needed. Each capsule was designed for 2 but 3 can just squeeze into it. Weight is only a problem if needed for cargo.
In fact the shuttle to ISS missions could also bring up extra capsules as well as cargo. To aid with increasing the size of the crew aboard the ISS. That would also lower the russian expenses once the shuttle gets going again also a plus.

I still think that the Delta 4 heavy could be transformed into a massively powerfull booster by the addition of 2 more strapped on boosters to a compliment of 4 plus the core booster...The payload fairing could be expanded to accomodate a 6 man capsule design or a powerful upper stage for trans lunar injection.....seeing that the Delta 4 is already built and ready for its flight,it wouldn't be a stretch to have Boeing look into this idea as the components are already in place........................Jake

You are correct in you line of thinking to use what we has with slight alterations. This could be done for both competing companies of Boeing as well as lockheed products with litte effort.

But the CEV design needs to be universal for both to use.