Aerospace Monday, February 9, 2004 . This is a SciScoop post by Ricky James
Hubble Receives Congressional Support
The Space Telescope Science Institute, suspected source of the leaked NASA documents, is located in the district of powerful U.S. Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), who said she was “shocked and surprised” by NASA’s Jan. 16 decision to terminate what would have been the fifth and final Hubble servicing mission.
In a Jan. 21 letter to NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe, Mikulski, the ranking minority member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that oversees NASA’s budget, asked the space agency chief to reconsider his decision. Mikulski also asked O’Keefe to appoint an independent panel of outside experts to assess all the ins and outs of conducting another space shuttle mission to Hubble.
“Hubble has become the most successful NASA program since Apollo,” Mikulski wrote. “It cannot be terminated prematurely with the stroke of a pen without a thorough and rigorous review while planning, preparation and training activities continue.”
In response to Sen. Mikulski’s letter, NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe has asked retired U.S. Navy Adm. Harold Gehman, the chairman of the now disbanded Columbia Accident Investigation Board, to take a second look at NASA’s decision to curtail the use of the space shuttle for any further servicing of the Hubble Space Telescope. The two have spoken about the matter several times since then, according to O’Keefe, and the decision to ask Gehman to weigh in was made out of respect for the senator.
O’Keefe said he did not set a deadline for Gehman to report back, but that he would “expect a pretty expeditious answer.” He also said that he has not reversed orders that the Hubble team wind down preparations for the servicing mission and transfer personnel to other activities.
Previously: « A Growing Martian Photo Album
SciScoop Science News is a forum for news, views and controversial conjectures. Please contact us if would like to submit a guest post.
3 Responses to Mutiny At NASA Over Hubble Decision
apsmith
February 9th, 2004 at 11:51 am
However, from the summary (no I haven’t read the details) it seems they’re making a faulty statistical analogy:
They’re comparing a no-conditions probability to a one-condition probability – i.e. if there’s only a 10% chance that a shuttle will fail to reach ISS, then the risks for a Hubble flight could be 10 x that of the average ISS flight and this comparison could still be true. Does it seem safe phrased that way?
They do seem to have some other good arguments; however it seems to me there are better solutions to “saving Hubble” that don’t involve another shuttle mission.
By the way, my second review for the Huntsville Times is up – of Greg Klerkx’s book “Lost in Space”, all about NASA’s past mistakes particularly relating to small companies and organizations trying to make a difference.
teece
February 10th, 2004 at 12:32 am
The Hubble can not be simply allowed to burn up — it violates international treaty. We either must bring it down (the original plan), or guide it to a safe burn up in an ocean.
Well, both of those require a mission to the HST. Can the burn up be done robotically? I was under the impression that is could not. If that is the case — we are going to HST anyway!
But even if it is not, and the HST can be fitted with boosters robotically, this still stinks.
HST is worth the risk. Period. Indeed, astronauts have volunteered to service it, regardless of risk. HST is the greatest astronomical instrument ever created by human beings. It is also in the contention for greatest scientific instrument ever. To let it die when we could continue its use for several more years is insane.
There is something other than risk in this decision — that was quite obvious before any leaked memos.
SEWilco
February 12th, 2004 at 11:10 am
There is an obvious weakness in planning to use a Space Shuttle for a Space Shuttle rescue. The same thing which caused the problem on the first Shuttle might happen to the second one. Maybe the Shuttle mission should be synchronized with the Russian launch schedule.
A possibility when two Shuttles are flying in formation is that they could repair each other.
However, note that any non-ISS mission requires the development of a self-repair ability. At present the timing of any Hubble mission is based upon that being ready.