An article by the Scripps Howard News Service on Friday, essentially a grab bag of Washington-related news, offers what at first glance appears to be a scoop about the fate of the Hubble Space Telescope:
Don’t expect much from a NASA review of its decision to shutter the Hubble telescope. Astronomers and some politicians want NASA to reconsider scrapping a shuttle mission to install new batteries on the device, but the agency needs the money for the Mars mission and a successor telescope.
The problem with this analysis is that canceling the SM4 servicing mission will save very little money. A significant fraction of the cost of the mission has already been spent in the development of the two new instruments to have been installed during the mission, equipment that has already been completed. In addition, the oft-quoted estimated price of a shuttle mission, $500 million, will not go very far towards “the Mars mission” (which appears to be a vague reference to the overall exploration initiative). There’s also the problem of transferring the money out of the shuttle program into either the space science program (for Hubble’s successor, the James Webb Space Telescope), or the new exploration office. If one instead uses the incremental cost of an additional shuttle mission—$100 million or less—the savings become almost insignificantly small.
Any decision to cancel the SM4 servicing mission will be made primarily, if not totally, on the basis of safety, not cost. (One can argue whether how legitimate those safety issues are, but throughout the debate cost has not been an issue.) This is something the author of this (unbylined) piece misses totally.
I do not know if it is simply because I have not been paying close attention before, or if something else is happening, but I seem to be noticing a lot of very bad reporting on NASA lately. This seems like the latest example.
But I also think that NASA has not been doing a good job of getting its message out there. For some reason they appear to have decided that in the case of Hubble, they will only _respond_ to questions or editorials, but will not actually be proactive and provide information in the form of formal statements or fact sheets–so far, all the justifications for the Hubble decision have been delivered verbally and not in writing. The problem with this strategy is that it puts the agency constantly on the defensive.
There is a good article on the Hubble issue in the current Aviation Week. It is worth reading.
Dwayne–
“Lately”?
In what golden age was it good?
The reporting IS worse lately, I think; and part of it is because the policy statements don’t begin to add up on even the most cursory examination. In short, we have the situation in the space body politic right now where ‘almost everyone is wrong’, in one way or another. And that’s not good.
“Any decision to cancel the SM4 servicing mission will be made primarily, if not totally, on the basis of safety, not cost. (One can argue whether how legitimate those safety issues are, but throughout the debate cost has not been an issue.)”
While correct, the safety ‘issue’, isn’t, really; since after all, no one is seriously talking of letting Hubble come in a la Skylab; which means there must be a mission to rendezvous, capture, dock…and return….which, frankly, is unquestionably more ‘dangerous’ than simply reservicing it and leaving it up there.
Dave Huntsman
Does the Bush vision include a lunar “Cape Canaveral” as attacked by John Glenn last week? Frank Sietzen says “yes” in the Washington Times, others say no.
Zubrin’s attack on this lunar tollbooth was rather more “colorful” than Glenn’s yet they basically said they same thing, IMHO. Now people are attacking Glenn (and Zubrin) saying no permanent lunar base is intended.
Does the Bush vision include using shuttle derived, or an entirely new HLLV, or everything goes up on EELV? Any clue, anyone?
If Sherwood Boehlert remains “on the fence” because he lacks sufficient details, how the heck can the media get it right? If Sherwood Boehlert remains “on the fence” how committed is the White House to this vision anyways?
Bill,
No, the vision doesn’t allude to a lunar “Cape Canaveral”. No, the vision doesn’t say anything about shuttle derived, HLLV, or EELV.
“[…] how committed is the White House to this vision, anyways?” Committed enough to trust the implementation recommendations to the Aldridge Commission. Committed enough to give the Aldridge Commission the promised 120 days to draft its report. Committed enough to lead with a vision, and allow more qualified space professionals to make the implementation recommendations.
The White House is leading, not micro-managing. Let’s all wait for the Aldridge Commission report to be released before we start criticizing implementation policy that doesn’t yet exist.
Dave,
Fair enough.
But is it surprising when the media gets stuff wrong when the right answer is – – not decided yet?
I guess I had better write some letters to the Aldridge people. And then to the Congressional committees that will evaluate the Aldridge report.
Nudevol
versicherungsvergleich und private krankenversicherung