Tell you what — let’s ask the countries in question, in the UN, whether they’d rather have (say) $100 M in humanitarian aid, or have us spend $300 M on the deorbit package. The former would save orders of magnitude more lives in those countries than the latter.

Using the tsunami disaster in an attempt to make a point is disrespectful to the dead, disrespectful to those donating funds and disrespectful to those assisting in the recovery. It also makes the Mars Society appear to be a covey of strident, ignorant, myopic activists.

Stating the crew would have a better chance ditching in the South Atlantic versus the North Atlantic as a risk reduction in favor of the Hubble mission leads one to believe they do not understand physics and the relationship between the surface of the ocean and the velocity of a landing shuttle. No one will survive ditching the craft anywhere.

Reading the essay also leads one to believe that they believe the Hubble robotic repair mission is an autonomous one. It is not. The operator would be on the ground and command the robot just…like…the…Mars rovers. If we can succesfully tele-operate with such time delays, I believe we should be able to handle perhaps a delay of one or two seconds.

Personally, I am beginning to pay less and less attention to Mr. Zubrin and the Mars Society.

It seems to me that the Mars society is very confrontational and inflexible which doesn’t help space advocacy.

I hope NASA continues the development of robotic repair equipment because I think that has a place in commercial application and VSE. However I agree that there may not be enough time to develop it for Hubble.

I agree with Kevin that whatever we do with VSE, it should be sustainable.

Whatever we choose to do or not do, we must do it in a way that we can sustain:

If we go to Mars, we must do it in a way that we can return routinely.

Ditto if we go to the Moon.

Ditto if we visit asteroids (or they visit us).

Ditto if we want to be able to robotically fix telescopes in space.

That would be one humble step for NASA, and hopefully a GIANT step for WOMANkind !

If orbiter is too fragile and dangerous to fly for Hubble why is it safe and reasonable to fly for ISS completion? ISS safe haven merely means we save the crew and possibly destroy ISS in the process. To actually use the ISS safe haven will be the end of the STS program anyway and very possibly the end of ISS.

=IF= we deem losing ISS to be acceptable, why spend $50 billion to finish ISS? Cancel further participation in ISS today and ground the orbiter, today. And get going with the VSE.

= = =

If ISS completion is deemed essential, why is ISS safe haven an acceptable risk while an orbiter service mission to Hubble is so terribly unsafe?

= = =

If we are committed to finishing ISS, lets at least do it as efficiently as possible.

If the advantage of EELV over SDV is future spiral development of greater capabilities, then accelerate deployment of the RL-60 upper stage for Delta IV and use that to loft ISS payloads to the vicinity of ISS. Every enhanced Delta IV shot to ISS saves an orbiter flight.

Lets see, $1 billion for orbiter or $250 million for EELV enhanced to loft identical payloads?

Which is better?

Put the orbiter on orbit from Pad 39A/B and hook up with an ISS payload launched from Pad 37 on an enhanced (35MT) EELV. IF these EELV enhancements are as easy as advertised seems like an obvious move.

Or, go with shuttle C and launch TWO (2) ISS payloads to hook up with an on-orbit orbiter.

Deliver and install THREE (3) ISS payloads for every orbiter flight. Either way, we finish ISS for less money that is currently budgeted to finish ISS using orbiter only.

I consider a Mars colony to be of infinite value. I love the Hubble but it is a luxury. Ultimately, an off-world colony is a necessity if our civilization is to endure.

Frankly, I would not trade a Mars colony for a flotilla of space telescopes large enough to blot out the moon even if they were free.

Still, I think it is a binary argument. We can and should do both.

Yes. But why do you insist that expensive telescopes be privately funded whereas far more expensive Mars missions be publicly funded? Do you have any evidence that a private organization can raise the hundreds of millions of dollars necessary to build a new telescope?

“Besides, don’t we already have a scope that outclasses Hubble in the visible light range and aren’t we soon to have another in orbit to take the infrared pictures?”

You should read more closely. Both of those telescopes operate in the infrared, not the visible spectrum. And UV observations can only be done from space.

The astronomy community agrees that ground-based telescopes are never going to be as capable as the best space-based telescopes. There are simply things that they cannot do. UV is one, wide field optical is another.

“Hubble-mania is founded in ignorance”

So the American Astronomical Society and the National Academy of Science are ignorant?

http://www.aas.org/policy/PR/2005/hstservicing2.html

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309095301?OpenDocument

The U.S. Congress is ignorant too?

http://www.spacepolitics.com/archives/000378.html

“What’s needed is not a manned, robotic or any other mission to fix Hubble. Rather, NASA needs to educate through the press that Hubble isn’t needed anymore because we can do it better and cheaper.”

Can you provide some evidence that it can be done better and cheaper? You have asserted this, but provided no proof. Not a good approach for someone who accuses others of “ignorance.”