The Hubble Space Telescope is in danger. Not the rogue asteroid with "HST" engraved on it, running the final sprint. Neither creeping old age turning its bowels ever less capable. It is in danger because some budget minded number crunchers saw fit to let the over 12 ton, school-bus size instrument burn ignominiously out of harm's way over some forgotten, far away patch of sky.
Servicing Hubble
If it were a demonstrated fact that the Hubble Space Telescope remains an expensive sink of preciously scarce funding in comparison with fresh projects that should be better served with those resources, hard as it may be the decision I should endorse it.
Certainly there is no hard and fast metrics by which reasoning can bring an answer, something even minded people can understand and accept. There is controversy on the HST issue even leaving aside intangible cultural values that should not be discarded. For the Hubble is an unquestionable icon of modern science and culture for that matter, it deserves a place in the Smithsonian once its career can be considered terminated, when time comes for a well deserved dignified retirement.
Problem is Hubble needs regular servicing by design. Launched April 24/1990, a total of 4 house calls on Dec/1993, Feb/1997, Dec/1999 and March/2003 provided regular replacement of failing gyroscopes, upgrading of cameras and computer, replacement of solar panels and multiple maintenance chores - some improvised on the spot as a result of direct visual inspection and ingenuity like the repair of cracked insulation - and orbital boosts to keep it from falling because of feeble yet accumulative atmospheric drag at its 400 km altitude.
HST is placed by design in an orbit accessible to Shuttle servicing and this is just what has been done for over a decade.
Then the Columbia disaster struck and all house calls have been indefinitely suspended. NASA fears a Shuttle mission with a minor mishap like the Columbia loss of some critical tiles should leave the crew out of any possible escape option. There is no way to reach the International Space Station from Hubble's orbit, you launch a mission to either but not both at the same time.
Dangerous attitude
Yet I cannot help but get a nagging feeling there is more than strict rationality behind the former destruction proposal. NASA head Sean O'Keefe was known to be the budget hawk type in contrast to flamboyant Daniel Goldin. And I may risk to be unfairly wrong, but I cannot help to smell some kind of "I can do it if I want, no matter what you say" attitude.
| Here's the follow-up discussion on this article: | View all related messages |
For a complete listing of article comments, questions, and other discussions related to Rodolfo Astrada's Astronomy topic, please visit the Discussions page.