Space telescope future

After the outcry that ensued his decision of killing the space
telescope, NASA administrator O'Keefe has been forced to
reconsider his decision.

The chairman of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board,
Adm. Harold W. Gehman Jr., is to review the safety of having
shuttle astronauts refurbish the orbiting observatory.

This shows that protests can have an impact. It is critical now
that the research community voices a strong support for the
instrument.

jacob navia wrote:
After the outcry that ensued his decision of killing the space
telescope, NASA administrator O'Keefe has been forced to
reconsider his decision.

The chairman of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board,
Adm. Harold W. Gehman Jr., is to review the safety of having
shuttle astronauts refurbish the orbiting observatory.

This shows that protests can have an impact. It is critical now
that the research community voices a strong support for the
instrument.

I suspect that the protest of Senator Mikulski carried more weight
than the rest of us comnbined!

For those getting involved, a few reminders:

The decision was "not to mount a space shuttle mission for HST servicing",
The NASA administrator seems to have specifically encouraged other
approaches. This probably will end up meaning COS launched behind
a lightweight ~2m telescope as an Explorer-class mission of some kind
(since that possibility was explicityly mentioned right away and is
a really obvious avenue). Also, since NASA had already more or less
committed to robotic docking and deorbit circa 2010, there is some
possibility that a robotic (Waldo) system could be developed to
start from that design and do the minimal life-extension servicing
(I haven't seen enough detail yet on whether the gyro and battery
changeout can be done with such limited dexterity - the odds are
certainly better than rewiring the STIS power system...).

Even the most ardent supporters of HST operations can still be
leery of the oddsof having blood on our collective hands if something
goes wrong after a major protest campaign...
To my mind, what worries more of us is whether this is only the
first step in a major realignment of NASA priorities and funding
toward the new Moon/Mars initiative. As I wrote for a local
newspaper, if there are political or technical setbacks 8-10
years away, that could lead to no civilian space program for the
US and $50 billion worth of PowerPoint presentations.

Bill Keel

"William C. Keel" writes:

The decision was "not to mount a space shuttle mission for HST servicing",
The NASA administrator seems to have specifically encouraged other
approaches. This probably will end up meaning COS launched behind
a lightweight ~2m telescope as an Explorer-class mission of some kind
(since that possibility was explicityly mentioned right away and is
a really obvious avenue).

IMO, it is even more obvious that this whole scenario has been designed
to manufacture a causus belli that will attempt to ensure that the far more
expensive "James Webb" Telescope (and the even more expensive Manned Cislunar
Operations capability that will be required to service it) will be fully funded,
"To Replace The Valiant But Sadly Lost Hubble."

Cynical? Youbetcha.


-- Gordon D. Pusch

Gordon D. Pusch wrote:
"William C. Keel" writes:

The decision was "not to mount a space shuttle mission for HST servicing",
The NASA administrator seems to have specifically encouraged other
approaches. This probably will end up meaning COS launched behind
a lightweight ~2m telescope as an Explorer-class mission of some kind
(since that possibility was explicityly mentioned right away and is
a really obvious avenue).

IMO, it is even more obvious that this whole scenario has been designed
to manufacture a causus belli that will attempt to ensure that the far more
expensive "James Webb" Telescope (and the even more expensive Manned Cislunar
Operations capability that will be required to service it) will be fully funded,
"To Replace The Valiant But Sadly Lost Hubble."

Cynical? Youbetcha.

I could get even more cynical after hearing that the MIDEX program
has had its budget trimmed so that the next round of concept
review will be delayed by (at least) a year. However, I still can't
grok the "even more expensive" bit about JWST - especially since
the ESA partnership has thoughtfully chipped in on-site
delivery with an Ariane V. The project has always had a budget
cap (admittedly creeping with inflation) that would bring it in
at something life half of the cost of HST (up to launch), with
no servicing missions. This cap is why it's gone from 8 meters
to 6.5 to 6.5 measured on the longest possible dimension of the
combined hexagons, and seems to have given up most of the optical
"stretch" wavelength range too.

Bill Keel

Gordon D. Pusch wrote:

IMO, it is even more obvious that this whole scenario has been designed
to manufacture a causus belli that will attempt to ensure that the far more
expensive "James Webb" Telescope (and the even more expensive Manned Cislunar
Operations capability that will be required to service it) will be fully funded,
"To Replace The Valiant But Sadly Lost Hubble."

Cynical? Youbetcha.

More plausibly, it's to provide cover for NASA when they do go back to HST.
They will be able to argue they were pressured into it, and so they
won't be susceptible to the claim they're ignoring a part of the CAIB's
recommendations. This will also cover them if that mission has an accident.

Paul

In article , William C. Keel writes:
| Bill speaking about JWST: ..., and seems to have given up most of
| the optical "stretch" wavelength range too.
|

An extremely important point that is being ignored or at least
unappreciated by certain critical figures (i.e. people with power
and influence) within the astronomical and NASA communities.
There seems to be an attitude that JWST can do the same science
in the optical (or at least half of it) range as HST, with the
small price of just waiting a few years for it. This is complete
nonsense. Even if JWST could deliver the same image quality in
the optical as HST, none of the current science instruments have
the necessary filter sets to make any good use of it. Nor will
it be operational at the same time as Spitzer, Chandra, Galex, etc.,
like HST will be (or at least would've been until recently) which
means there will be no opportunity to do high-resolution UV or
optical follow-up to these missions.

In message , William C. Keel
writes
[[Mod. note -- excess quoted text trimmed -- jt]]
[[about the James Webb Space Telescope, a.k.a. JWST]]
The project has always had a budget
cap (admittedly creeping with inflation) that would bring it in
at something life half of the cost of HST (up to launch), with
no servicing missions. This cap is why it's gone from 8 meters
to 6.5 to 6.5 measured on the longest possible dimension of the
combined hexagons, and seems to have given up most of the optical
"stretch" wavelength range too.

Bill, not everyone reading this is a professional :-) Could you explain
that line about "stretch"?

[[Mod. note --
I think this refers to the split (about 5-7 years ago, back when NASA
and its contractors were doing the basic design of the project (then
called the Next Generation Space Telescope = NGST project)) of the
scientific goals into "base" goals (those which must be achieved) and
"stretch" goals (those which are desirable, but which might get dropped
if achieving them would be too hard (= too expensive)).

Good infrared performance has always been in the "base" category, but
most (all?) of the optical performance goals wound up in the "stretch"
category. I think Bill is saying that due to budget crunches, most of
the optical "stretch goals" have now been dropped, i.e. that JWST will
now be mostly an IR instrument with only limited visible-wavelength
capabilities. -- jt]]

--
Save the Hubble Space Telescope!
mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk