(Bill Clark) wrote in message . com...
So NASA cancels a shuttle maintance mission and says it's cheaper to

(1) re-write the shuttle software program to work with three gyros
operational instead of four; then probably with two instead of three
(we don't even know this is POSSIBLE yet)

(2) design, test, and built a new experiental robot spacecraft that
when launched will rendezvous with the Hubble, attach to it, then
guide it to splashdown in a remote part of the ocean (we don't know if
this is POSSIBLE either)

I find it hard to believe that a single shuttle trip to Hubble to do
regular maintenance will be cheaper than these very risky, unproven
elaborate programs.

As far as that goes, what happens if Bush loses the election and the
next President disagrees with his plans for NASA? Then several
billion dollars will be spent, and many priceless missions canceled,
for nothing at all.

There really is no alternative to canceling the Hubble mission. The
simple reality is that if the shuttle hooks up with hubble, it can't
then change orbits to hook up with the ISS in case of damage to the
shuttle that prevents a safe reentry.

America has made the decision that dead astronauts are absolutely
unacceptable. That decision has consequences.

Besides, Hubble has been up for quite a long time, trying to jiggle a
couple more years of results out of it instead of concentrating on
future missions and an HST replacement is silly. Its done its duty,
let it rest.

I'm as much of a fan of a mission to the moon and to Mars, but I
believe that NASA should not act on what the President says. Changes
in space policy of this magnitude must be approved by Congress, and
officially written into law after lengthy public debate. Otherwise
we're just chasing our tail like a dog.

As a note, I hate manned missions in general, if mars is important
then my preference would be to pave the planet in rovers and stations.

That said, congress approves things on a year by year basis when you
get down to it, and what *really* matters is what the next year's
appropriation bill looks like. If congress would rather have a fleat
of space telescopes or a jupiter orbiter or whatever, then *that* is
what is going to get the money, and that is what will happen. That
said, you can bet your paycheck, Bush has already felt out those on
the appropriation committees and mostly certainly has a majority of
members ready to appropriate according to the new directive.

We should also be thanking him for the timing he chose, the media only
covers landings, crashes, and big policy statements. With his timing,
and a little luck on MER-B, we will get three decent, positive
headliners in a row about space exploration. All in one month's
time.