Death Sentence for the Hubble?

New York Times
February 13, 2005

EDITORIAL
Death Sentence for the Hubble?

Sean O'Keefe, the departing administrator of the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, has yanked the agency's most important
scientific instrument off life support. His refusal to budget any funds
to service and upgrade the Hubble Space Telescope looks like the
petulant final act of an administrator who made a foolish decision and
then refused to back down in the face of withering criticism from
experts. The only uncertainty is whether the decision to let the Hubble
die prematurely was solely Mr. O'Keefe's or reflects the judgment of
higher-ups in the administration that servicing the Hubble would be a
diversion from the president's long-range program of space exploration.

The Hubble by all accounts has been one of the most productive
instruments in the history of science, largely because periodic
servicing missions by shuttle astronauts have extended its life and
upgraded its instruments. A fifth servicing mission had been planned,
and the new instruments already built, when the Columbia disaster
grounded the three remaining shuttles for repairs. Then, without any
warning, Mr. O'Keefe shocked scientists by announcing that the
servicing mission would be canceled for good because it would be too
risky.

Nothing, it seems, can budge him from that snap judgment. When a
dumbfounded Congress insisted that he seek advice from the National
Academy of Sciences, he reluctantly agreed, but made it clear that
nothing the academy said was apt to change his mind. He urged the
academy instead to focus on ways to extend Hubble's usefulness without
the help of astronauts. As it turned out, a panel of experts assembled
by the academy concluded that there was little chance the robotic
mission favored by Mr. O'Keefe could be mounted in time. The panel
urged instead that astronauts be sent to the rescue. It judged such a
flight only marginally more risky than a flight to the International
Space Station.

Undeterred, Mr. O'Keefe is now blaming the academy for sealing the
Hubble's doom. He still insists that a shuttle flight would be too
risky, mostly because there would be no place to take refuge should
problems arise, and now he complains that a robotic mission would be
impractical as well because the academy dismissed its prospects for
success. So he has wiped the budget clean of all rescue funds except
for a future robotic mission to ensure that Hubble falls out of orbit
safely.

Congress, which declared in a conference report last year that
servicing the Hubble should be one of NASA's highest priorities, needs
to order NASA to keep planning for a rescue mission. Some legislators
may wonder if a servicing mission is worth the effort, given recent
testimony by eminent scientists that they would be reluctant to see
NASA's science programs socked with $1 billion to $2 billion in charges
for the Hubble rescue - a huge sum that would disrupt other
high-priority programs - but would consider $300 million to $400
million acceptable. That bookkeeping issue is a diversion. The
refurbished shuttles will eventually return to flight, and the marginal
cost for sending one to the Hubble would not be prohibitive. Upgrading
the Hubble is probably the most important contribution today's
astronauts could make.

That's ok, the NGST will be many times better.

"MrPepper11" wrote in message
ups.com...
New York Times
February 13, 2005

EDITORIAL
Death Sentence for the Hubble?

Sean O'Keefe, the departing administrator of the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, has yanked the agency's most important
scientific instrument off life support. His refusal to budget any funds
to service and upgrade the Hubble Space Telescope looks like the
petulant final act of an administrator who made a foolish decision and
then refused to back down in the face of withering criticism from
experts. The only uncertainty is whether the decision to let the Hubble
die prematurely was solely Mr. O'Keefe's or reflects the judgment of
higher-ups in the administration that servicing the Hubble would be a
diversion from the president's long-range program of space exploration.

The Hubble by all accounts has been one of the most productive
instruments in the history of science, largely because periodic
servicing missions by shuttle astronauts have extended its life and
upgraded its instruments. A fifth servicing mission had been planned,
and the new instruments already built, when the Columbia disaster
grounded the three remaining shuttles for repairs. Then, without any
warning, Mr. O'Keefe shocked scientists by announcing that the
servicing mission would be canceled for good because it would be too
risky.

Nothing, it seems, can budge him from that snap judgment. When a
dumbfounded Congress insisted that he seek advice from the National
Academy of Sciences, he reluctantly agreed, but made it clear that
nothing the academy said was apt to change his mind. He urged the
academy instead to focus on ways to extend Hubble's usefulness without
the help of astronauts. As it turned out, a panel of experts assembled
by the academy concluded that there was little chance the robotic
mission favored by Mr. O'Keefe could be mounted in time. The panel
urged instead that astronauts be sent to the rescue. It judged such a
flight only marginally more risky than a flight to the International
Space Station.

Undeterred, Mr. O'Keefe is now blaming the academy for sealing the
Hubble's doom. He still insists that a shuttle flight would be too
risky, mostly because there would be no place to take refuge should
problems arise, and now he complains that a robotic mission would be
impractical as well because the academy dismissed its prospects for
success. So he has wiped the budget clean of all rescue funds except
for a future robotic mission to ensure that Hubble falls out of orbit
safely.

Congress, which declared in a conference report last year that
servicing the Hubble should be one of NASA's highest priorities, needs
to order NASA to keep planning for a rescue mission. Some legislators
may wonder if a servicing mission is worth the effort, given recent
testimony by eminent scientists that they would be reluctant to see
NASA's science programs socked with $1 billion to $2 billion in charges
for the Hubble rescue - a huge sum that would disrupt other
high-priority programs - but would consider $300 million to $400
million acceptable. That bookkeeping issue is a diversion. The
refurbished shuttles will eventually return to flight, and the marginal
cost for sending one to the Hubble would not be prohibitive. Upgrading
the Hubble is probably the most important contribution today's
astronauts could make.

On 12 Feb 2005 20:45:16 -0800, "MrPepper11" wrote:

New York Times
February 13, 2005

EDITORIAL
Death Sentence for the Hubble?



bla bla bla..

-JATO
http://jatobservatory.org

In article ,
Rodney Kelp wrote:
That's ok, the NGST will be many times better.

For some applications, not for all of them. (No UV capability in
particular.)

And that assumes that NGST actually flies.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

JATO jato wrote:
On 12 Feb 2005 20:45:16 -0800, "MrPepper11" wrote:


New York Times
February 13, 2005

EDITORIAL
Death Sentence for the Hubble?




bla bla bla..

-JATO
http://jatobservatory.org

Notice no discussion of the risks.

"Our heroic cosmanauts must undertand that the State demand sacrifices..."

Sorry, about that - wrong station.

Seriously, if you are going to say that there is no reason not to do a
Hubble visit, you need to address the safety issue - as some on this
group have done.

The article above is poorly researched because of this.

In article , Max Beerbohm
wrote:


Seriously, if you are going to say that there is no reason not to do a
Hubble visit, you need to address the safety issue - as some on this
group have done.

The article above is poorly researched because of this.

The expected risk cost is ~0.1 lives and 0.015 shuttles (assuming a
1/70 chance of disaster with each shuttle mission not to ISS).

The deaths are equivalent to ~12 million passenger miles of automotive
travel, or every member of the American Astronomical Society driving
2000 miles, or every U.S. amateur astronomer driving about a dozen
miles, or every person who has ever looked at a Hubble picture and
thought 'wow! that's cool' driving a few hundred meters.

Or to put it another way, it's equivalent to each of the seven
astronauts who decide that they are willing to risk a Shuttle flight to
fix Hubble doing so.

Now that the safety issue has been addressed (although not compared to
that of the dozens of planned trips to the ISS, with only a marginal
increase in safety per flight) let's go and fix it.

--
David M. Palmer (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)

David M. Palmer wrote:
In article , Max Beerbohm
wrote:



Seriously, if you are going to say that there is no reason not to do a
Hubble visit, you need to address the safety issue - as some on this
group have done.

The article above is poorly researched because of this.


The expected risk cost is ~0.1 lives and 0.015 shuttles (assuming a
1/70 chance of disaster with each shuttle mission not to ISS).


Recalculate for 1/50 That is the current safety rating.


It's not a safety issue. It is quite a bit of a project management
issue. The 2007 launch to Hubble would be right in the middle of
ISS flights. They would have to take a shuttle offline and do
a one-off flight to another destination. If they go with a
safety net of a spare shuttle, then you have created a gap of
a couple months when ISS construction and processing is interrupted.

It's also a 40% chance of vehicle loss over the remaining number of
flights, to where no one individual flight is more risky than any
other, it is the aggregate total that is the issue. Without ISS,
shuttle would be permamently grounded already. There is zero push
to get it back into service for anything else.

The deaths are equivalent to ~12 million passenger miles of automotive
travel, or every member of the American Astronomical Society driving
2000 miles, or every U.S. amateur astronomer driving about a dozen
miles, or every person who has ever looked at a Hubble picture and
thought 'wow! that's cool' driving a few hundred meters.

Or to put it another way, it's equivalent to each of the seven
astronauts who decide that they are willing to risk a Shuttle flight to
fix Hubble doing so.

Now that the safety issue has been addressed (although not compared to
that of the dozens of planned trips to the ISS, with only a marginal
increase in safety per flight) let's go and fix it.

In article , Charles Buckley
wrote:

David M. Palmer wrote:
In article , Max Beerbohm
wrote:



Seriously, if you are going to say that there is no reason not to do a
Hubble visit, you need to address the safety issue - as some on this
group have done.

The article above is poorly researched because of this.


The expected risk cost is ~0.1 lives and 0.015 shuttles (assuming a
1/70 chance of disaster with each shuttle mission not to ISS).


Recalculate for 1/50 That is the current safety rating.

OK, increase the equivalent amounts of travel with 50% more.

It's not a safety issue.

I agree.

I was replying to someone saying it was a safety issue.

--
David M. Palmer (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)

Charles Buckley wrote in
:

David M. Palmer wrote:
In article , Max Beerbohm
wrote:



Seriously, if you are going to say that there is no reason not to do a
Hubble visit, you need to address the safety issue - as some on this
group have done.

The article above is poorly researched because of this.


The expected risk cost is ~0.1 lives and 0.015 shuttles (assuming a
1/70 chance of disaster with each shuttle mission not to ISS).


Recalculate for 1/50 That is the current safety rating.

According to whom? Cite your sources, please.

At *worst*, it's 1/56.5 (+ post-CAIB safety improvements).

*Reasonably*, it's 1/88, (+ post-CAIB safety improvements).

Again, *cite* your sources, if you have any.
--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

In article ,
Rodney Kelp wrote:
That's ok, the NGST will be many times better.

Not if you do optical or UV work.