View Single Post
  #1  
Old February 13th 04, 04:39 AM
Scott M. Kozel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Don't Desert Hubble

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040...3526-3983r.htm

Don't desert Hubble
By Robert Zubrin
February 12, 2004

On Jan. 16, NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe announced his decision
to cancel all future space shuttle missions to the Hubble Space
Telescope, including SM4, the nearly ready-to-go flight that would have
installed the new Cosmic Origins Spectrograph and Wide Field Camera 3
instruments. This decision came atop an overall policy shift by the Bush
administration to phase out the Shuttle and International Space Station
(ISS) commitments by 2010, thereby clearing the way to redeploy their
budgets toward supporting human exploration of the moon and Mars. While
the redirection of NASA's human spaceflight program from Earth orbital
activities toward planetary exploration was a valuable step, canceling
the Hubble upgrade mission was a huge mistake.
The Hubble Space Telescope has been the most scientifically
productive spacecraft in history. Through Hubble, we have observed
directlytheplanetary cometary impacts that drive the evolution of life,
witnessed the birth of stars that make all life possible and measured
the size and age of the universe itself. The astronaut missions that
have made this possible stand as epic achievements in the chronicles of
humanity's search for truth. How can the decision to abort such a
program be justified?
Certainly not on the basis of cost. Given the commitment to continue
flying the shuttle program through 2010, adding the two shuttle flights
required to upgrade Hubble and then reboost it to make it operational
through 2015 would only add about $200 million to the shuttle program's
$24 billion cost, while increasing its science return by several orders
of magnitude.
Safety arguments won't wash either. It is true that when flying to
the ISS, the crew has a safe-haven on orbit, which is not available to
Hubble flights. However, Hubble missions leave the Cape flying
east-southeast, while launches to ISS go northeast. Thus, in the event
of a launch abort, Hubble missions can ditch in warm tropical waters,
while ISS flights must come down in the frigid North Atlantic, where the
crew's chances for survival would be much less.
Furthermore, because ISS flights take off with much heavier payloads
than Hubble flights, they require full functionality of all three
engines for nearly 100 seconds longer than Hubble missions if they are
to perform an abort-to-orbit. This makes landing in the drink on ISS
missions considerably more likely. In addition, NASA calculations show
that the danger of fatal impacts by micrometeors and orbital debris
(MMOD) to be over 60 percent greater on ISS missions than Hubble
missions. For example, on STS 113, the last shuttle station flight, the
calculated probability of loss of vehicle and crew by MMOD was 1/250. In
contrast, the last Hubble servicing mission (STS-109) had a much lower
calculated MMOD probability of 1/414. If we put this information
together with the fact that only two shuttle missions are needed to make
Hubble operational for another decade, while more than 20 are needed to
complete the ISS, it is apparent that Mr. O'Keefe's assessment that the
Hubbleprogramposes greater risk than the ISS program is nonsense.
The decision to flee the Hubble program will cause harm far beyond
the damage it does to astronomy. In fact, it completely undermines
thepresident'scallfor human planetary exploration. Unless we are willing
to accept risks equal to, and in fact significantly greater than, those
required to upgrade the space telescope, human explorers are not going
to the moon, Mars, or anywhere else. And if we are not going to engage
in humaninterplanetary travel, then the primary rationale for the Space
Station program learning about the effects of long-duration
spaceflight on human physiology falls apart as well.
The point is not that we should be blase about risk. The point is
that there are certain things that require accepting risk to achieve and
are worth the price that such a course will entail. The search for
truth, carried forward by necessarily perilous human activities in space
whether at Hubble or on Mars is one of them.
In the face of massive public outrage about his decision, Mr.
O'Keefe has agreed to allow it to be reviewed by Columbia Accident
Investigation Board ChairmanAdm.Hal Gehman. Hopefully, Mr. Gehman will
rectify the situation. But if he does not, then Congress will have to
act. Lawmakers will have to take action, because ultimately the question
of whether we do what it takes to keep our eyes open upon the heavens is
not one of the technicalities of shuttle flight safety, but of societal
values.
The desertion of Hubble is an offense against science and
civilization. It represents a departure from the pioneer spirit, and its
ratification as policy would preclude any possibility of a human future
in space. It is an inexcusable decision, and it needs to be reversed.

Robert Zubrin is president of the Mars Society and author of the
books "The Case for Mars," "Entering Space" and "Mars on Earth."

[end of article]

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
Ads