A front-page article in Sunday’s Washington Post describes the outpouring of public sentiment in support of Hubble in the wake of NASA’s decision to cancel the SM4 mission. The article argues, as many have, that the SM4 cancellation threatens the agency’s focus on the new exploration program:
What emerges from this outpouring is an “us-vs.-them” truculence that views the Hubble’s demise as collateral damage in what many see as the administration’s misguided march to the moon and Mars.
The article also notes that NASA offices “report a brisk traffic in Hubble mail”, and even quotes Sean O’Keefe as saying that his “e-mail system is clogged every day.” Oddly, though, in an article in Sunday’s Boston Globe, NASA spokesman Don Savage claims that “the agency has not received many direct calls and letters about the telescope.” Perhaps Mr. Savage should check with his boss…
On the one hand, NASA has to improve safety so that deaths do not halt (or shut down) the space program. On the other hand, it wants to do demanding missions such as Hubble services, ISS completion, and Moon/Mars exploration.
Is it time that we do riskier missions, and simply accept the background rate of lives lost for granted?
The military would be useless if it was restricted to NASA’s zero-tolerance safety policy. The military (and the American people) are willing to lose lives because there’s no other way of achieving its objectives.
The military still has plenty of volunteers. I’m sure that if NASA pursued riskier missions, there would still be plenty of people who want to be astronauts. The limiting factor isn’t the soldiers/astronauts, but the attitude of the American government and people.
Perhaps instead of a safety culture, we should have a risk management culture. The level of risk that is acceptable for each mission is dependent on that mission’s value. So, for a high value mission, such as Hubble service or ISS assembly, we should allow a higher degree of risk.
Recently several of the astronauts that had worked on the Hubble stated that it would be terrible lose. Due to not going back to make final repairs when the equipment for upgrade has been built and is ready.
I would like to propose a veteran crew from all previous flights be assembled to go fix the hubble if they are willing to fly the shuttle still. I am sure that it could be filled with a crew from these previous personel listings.
Hubble astronauts trying to save it Greg Harbaugh, Tom Akers article from the Houston chronicle. I think they would probably be the first 2 on the list.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/space/2456278
Previous Shuttle Mission to Hubble number and crew info.
STS-61
Richard O. Covey (4), Commander
Kenneth D. Bowersox (2), Pilot
F. Story Musgrave (5), Payload Commander
Kathryn C. Thornton (3), Mission Specialist 1
Claude Nicollier (2), Mission Specialist 2
Jeffrey A. Hoffman (4), Mission Specialist 3
Thomas D. Akers (3), Mission Specialist 5
STS-82
Kenneth D. Bowersox (4), – Commander
Scott J. Horowitz (2), Pilot
Mark C. Lee (4), Mission Specialist
Steven A. Hawley (4), Mission Specialist
Gregory J. Harbaugh (4), Mission Specialist
Steven L. Smith (2), Mission Specialist
Joseph R. Tanner (2), Mission Specialist
STS-95
Curtis L. Brown (5), Commander
Steven W. Lindsey (2), Pilot
Scott E. Parazynski (3), Mission Specialist
Stephen K. Robinson (2), Mission Specialist
Pedro Duque (1), (ESA) Mission Specialist
Chiaki Mukai (2), (NASDA) Payload Specialist
John H. Glenn (2), Payload Specialist
STS-103
Curtis L. Brown (6), Mission Commander
Scott J. Kelly (1), Pilot
Steven L. Smith (3), Mission Specialist
C. Michael Foale (5), Mission Specialist
John M. Grunsfeld (3), Mission Specialist
Claude Nicollier (4), Mission Specialist (ESA)
Jean-Francois Clervoy (3), Mission Specialist (ESA)
STS-109
Scott D. Altman (3), Commander
Duane G. Carey (1), Pilot
John M. Grunsfeld (4), Payload Commander
Nancy J. Currie (4), Mission Specialist
James H. Newman (4) , Mission Specialist
Richard M. Linnehan (3), Mission Specialist
Michael J. Massimino (1), Mission Specialist
Dwayne Day writes this in todays Space Review:
>> One unanswered question is why NASA did not choose to limit the damage and counter the widely-repeated $1 trillion cost estimate immediately. One of the rules of Washington politics is to get ahead of the story and control it, not be constantly responding to spurious charges, or worse, allowing them to propagate on their own. However, NASA apparently chose a different approach to dealing with negative press, and the agency soon found itself receiving more negative publicity about the decision to cancel the Hubble servicing mission. >>
This is the REAL story, IMHO. Where are the heavy guns to silence this trillion dollar myth?
Personally, I would be sad to lose Hubble but would gladly trade Hubble for the Moon and Mars. Yet, when the Administration botches the politics of Hubble so badly, I start to wonder whether they can deliver the Moon and Mars after all.
This is why the Mars Society cares about Hubble, IMHO. If Hubble SM4 is “fundamentally irresponsible” why is it responsible to ever send humans into space?
Our current reason for Hubble no service repair operation is due to risk assement of such mission to the shuttle, not the lack of crew of which most have said they would do it and not lack of funding within NASA budget.
The only way then to get things moving if the shuttle is to risky to fly then is to push both Beoing and Lockheed into there own respective CEV designs for a fully man rated vehicle to be used on the current shuttle infarstucture (shuttle C) and to lets get on with space exploration again.
What i want to know is why decide to want to look in space for tons of money when we might not find anything. That would be wasting tons of money and possibly quite a few deaths.
Hey where 11 and 13 year old kids wondering y there’s no why we should fix the hubble sits avalible and u shouold put some on hope and brooklynn