The Mars Society (which, for rather unclear reasons, has been leading the push to save Hubble), sent out a statement yesterday claiming that the number of cosponsors for H. Res. 550, the resolution calling on NASA to review the SM4 cancellation decision, had grown to 21. However, the official list of cosponsors remains at the same seven as when the resolution was introduced last week. I don’t know if there is some kind of lag built into the system (which normally updates the status of legislation very quickly), or if there is some other issue with this. I may look into this further to see what’s going on. In any event, here’s the latest list of cosponsors, according to the Mars Society:
Mark Udall (D-CO), Todd Akin (R-MO), Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), Bart Gordon (D-TN), Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Nick Lampson (D-TX), Jim McDermott (D-WA), C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD), Vernon Ehlers (R-MI), Jay Inslee (D-WA), Ed Markey (D-MA), Elijah Cummings (D-MD), James Moran (D-VA), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Martin Frost (D-TX), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Rush Holt (D-NJ), Barney Frank (D-MA), Jim Matheson (D-UT), Michael McNulty (R-NY), Neil Abercrombie (D-HI)
It’s worth noting that Rep. Schiff’s district includes JPL, while Rep. Holt holds a Ph.D. in physics and was assistant director of Princeton’s Plasma Physics Laboratory before running for Congress in 1998 (not to mention a five-time Jeopardy champion).
Meanwhile, SPACE.com reports that the Senators Christopher Bond (R-MO) and Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), the chair and ranking members, respectively, of the Senate Appropriations Committee subcommittee that oversees NASA, have asked the GAO to review the decision to cancel the SM4 mission. They’ve also asked NASA to have the National Academy of Sciences review the decision as well. The article also indicates that Admiral Harold Gehman has completed his own review of the risks of the shuttle mission to Hubble, saying it “may be slightly more risky” that an ISS shuttle mission. The article offers few other details, though, and NASA has not yet released the report on its web site yet.
Today’s Baltimore Sun reports:
>> Citing new shuttle safety rules and his pledge to protect astronauts’ lives, NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe said yesterday that it would be “fundamentally irresponsible” of him to reverse his decision to scrub a final maintenance mission to the Hubble Space Telescope.
= = =
If the tipping point is “safe haven” then by late 2006 or early 2007 Kouru will be Soyuz ready and a Soyuz could fly “back up” to the orbiter to provide on orbit inspection and emergency landing for the crew if necessary. Accomplish SM4 with a total crew of 3 – – 1 crew flies in Soyuz and 2 in orbiter and dock Soyuz to orbiter for crew exchange as needed.
= = =
If Hubble rescue is “fundamentally irresponsible” why is it less irresponsible to fly orbiter for ISS completion purposes? How slight is the additional risk Gehman refers to?
Why isn’t all crewed spaceflight “fundamentally irresponsible?”
= = =
Baltimore Sun link: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.hubble12mar12,0,2556152.story?coll=bal-news-nation
Many thanks to spacetoday.net
The risk of crew is only in there thought process for what to them is a safe haven. Not safe return home and leave shuttle parked in orbit for later repairs which should also be an option. In addition to sending backup shuttle or other contingancies as part of the worst case that could happen.
Suppose orbiter remains on orbit (uncrewed) near Hubble after crew return via Soyuz launched from Kouru. This assumes the SM4 crew was unable to make repairs.
If repairs are feasible, one Progress and one Soyuz could lift a repair kit and a repair team from Kouru for a lower total cost than sending the 2nd orbiter from Kennedy. If Soyuz alone could lift the repair kit & team its even easier.
I thought I read somewhere that NASA has already begun open inquiry concerning lifting the ban on buying Soyuz over that Iranian controversy.
Bill,
The problem with the Soyuz approach is that the Kourou launch site will not be initially configured to support manned launches. There’s been some discussion about performing manned launches there in the future, but at least initially—particularly in the critical 2006-2007 timeframe, when the facility opens—it will only have the infrastructure to support unmanned launches.
I acknowledge that point. So what else is involved? How much additional money? And isnt an R-7 booster an R-7 booster?
The potential public relations coup (Bush, Putin and Chirac standing together smiling as they work together to save a scientific treasure) would seem to benefit everyone. And justify a sincere push by the ESA to get Kouru ready on time.
If we are such good partners with the Russians then isn’t it about time to show it by granting launch capability from florida for specific functions and to give us a cheaper vehicle for such projects to use as well.