Premature Death for the Hubble (NYTimes editorial)

[Dudley_DUright]

By all accounts the Hubble Space Telescope is one of the most productive scientific instruments in history. Orbiting high above the distorting effects of Earth's atmosphere, it has peered far out into space and back toward the beginnings of time, producing images of startling clarity. It has detected extremely faint objects that can't be seen from the Earth, calibrated the age and expansion rate of the universe, detected supermassive black holes in the cores of galaxies and generally helped revolutionize our understanding of the universe. A distinguished panel of astronomers judged that Hubble "has arguably had a greater impact on astronomy than any instrument since the original astronomical telescope of Galileo."

Yet now, just as Hubble was scheduled for a major rejuvenation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has consigned it to slow death. The agency has canceled a planned servicing mission that would have upgraded Hubble's instruments and extended its life past the end of the decade, making it likely that the telescope will run out of battery power and functioning gyroscopes by about 2007. Congress needs to prevent the premature loss of this valuable instrument.

Cancellation of the servicing mission is being justified on safety grounds, but that is not the whole story. Indeed, it looks as if Hubble is being sacrificed primarily to make way for President Bush's grand new plans to send astronauts to the Moon and Mars in future years. Once the shuttles are deemed safe enough to resume flying, probably early next year, a shuttle flight to Hubble will be no more risky — and possibly even less risky — than flights to the space station. The real safety issue comes up if something goes wrong. A shuttle near the station might find safe haven and help in repairs. A shuttle near Hubble could not.

Our guess is that with NASA on high alert after the Columbia tragedy, the next shuttle flights will be the safest ever. Astronauts are paid to take risks, and there would be no shortage of volunteers for a Hubble mission that seems no more risky than other flights and a lot more important scientifically.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/29/opinion/29SUN1.html

[pmbryant]

1. Glad to see this back in the news

Thanks for posting this.

Peter

[1monster]

2. Which is of course, why

"A distinguished panel of astronomers judged that Hubble "has arguably had a greater impact on astronomy than any instrument since the original astronomical telescope of Galileo."

The Bush Administration and his NASA appointees have decided to kill Hubble.

Can't have Hubble discovering or uncovering anything that might contradict pre-Renaissance beliefs.

[Alpharetta]

3. Hubble is collateral damage. The shuttle is the problem

The moon trip is the White House's avoidance of the Shuttle problem.

Pretend like you have a moon project, you can let magnificent technology like the Hubble fall into the dumpster without having to admit the Shuttle is in terminal disorder.

(in my view, from the cheap seats. I don't claim to be an expert)

[vajraroshana]

4. Hubble has been relatively cheap

as far as NASA goes, and look at the tremendous amount of science that's been done with it. And look at how the space program has always been closely tied with the missile programs and nice juicy Republican pork.

Having a better Hubble would be a most worthwhile goal, but it's probably a little too cerebral for the chimp to understand the pictures.