A few tidbits this week about Hubble and yesterday’s Senate hearing that focused in part on the SM4 cancellation decision:
- NASA has finally published a detailed white paper outlining the reasons behind the cancellation decision. It also notes that the agency is “aggressively investigating innovative ways” to extend the life of Hubble without a shuttle mission, including “robotic servicing to provide extension of power storage.” It’s a good paper, but really something that NASA should have published back in January when the cancellation decision was made.
- NASA will apparently go ahead with plans to ask the National Academy of Sciences to review the risks and benefits of a shuttle servicing mission, according to reports from the New York Times and the Rocky Mountain News (see also my roundup at spacetoday.net.) However, as the Baltimore Sun notes, O’Keefe said it would be “fundamentally irresponsible” of him to reverse his original decision to cancel SM4.
- Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO), who introduced H. Res. 550, said in a statement that, not surprisingly, he agrees with his Senate colleagues who want an independent study of the decision.
- While The Mars Society has been at the forefront of efforts to get the Hubble servicing mission restored, there are some other sites of interest, including Save the Hubble (with a petition approaching 30,000 “signatures”), Save Hubble (with a pre-written letter one can personalize and send to the President and O’Keefe) and SaveTheHubble.com (with a more international bent).
I was intrigued by the statement about extending power storage on Hubble. Hubble has attach points and an umbilical hookup at its bottom. When Hubble is mounted in the shuttle payload bay, it can be powered by the shuttle.
This raises an interesting question–would it be possible to build some kind of tug that attaches at the bottom and provides both power and stabilization to the Hubble?
I should also add that I have heard that there is another “save astronomy” group forming. I don’t know much about it, but they are apparently concerned that astronomy other than the James Webb Space Telescope, is being shortchanged by NASA.