No Formal Risk Analysis of Hubble Rescue by NASA 186
Somegeek writes "
SpaceDaily.com is running a story that
NASA never performed a formal risk analysis of a shuttle mission to rescue the Hubble Space Telescope before they decided to cancel the mission on grounds of risk. The story quotes Fred Gregory, the current acting NASA administrator, as stating that previous NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe made the decision "based on what he perceived was the risk". This perceived risk is in performing a manned shuttle mission that is out of range of using the International Space Station as an emergency refuge. The Hubble's current batteries and gyroscopes will probably fail in a few years, leaving the dead telescope to crash back to earth around year 2020."
Well, then (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Well, then (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Well, then (Score:5, Insightful)
Now they've just spent 2 years and hundreds of millions just developing the capabilities for inspecting and repairing based on the ISS option. The autonomous option is many years and probably billions of dollars away, and they only have a few years to repair Hubble before it goes down. Add to this that they're not supposed to be schedule-driven anymore by Recommendation R6.2-1:
So NASA's in a tight spot here. Don't be schedule driven yet develop all of these capabilities that take years and huge budgets to develop but do it in time to save Hubble. And then they're retiring the shuttle fleet a few years later anyway so all of this effort and cost for the "non-ISS" flights is really just for Hubble. I'm not saying O'Keefe made the right decision, but I hardly think he deserves the trashing he's been getting on this decision, which isn't even final yet. It seems like a very sound decision given the circumstances, but we'll see how the political will finally responds.
Re:Well, then (Score:3, Insightful)
False.
In fact, R6.2-1 says that "schedule deadlines are an important management tool." It simply says that meeting a schedule is not more important than recognizing and understanding risks that come during the schedule, and adjusting the schedule accordingly. This is true, whether you're scheduled to pick your child up at school (don't drive at extremely reckless speeds in a residential area just because you're running late), or if you're planning a m
Re:Well, then (Score:2, Interesting)
With Hubble rendered nearly obsolete by ground-based computing and sensing advances, repairing Hubble is most likely not worth it unless it is also upgraded. Assembling Hubble on ground took months, upgrading would require significant (possibly delicate) disassembly and subsequent re-assembly which probably are
"obsolete" -- on ground only some wavelengths (Score:2, Informative)
For ground based telescopes to equal Hubble, you'll need to either remove the atmosphere, or fix Hubble (or replace it).
Re:Well, then (Score:3, Insightful)
No, a formal risk analysis for this is just a way t
Re:Well, then (Score:2)
That is what I meant by "schedule-driven". In the past NASA has been driven to take risks to meet an artificial (or real) deadline rather than waiting until the technical work and assessments can be properly completed. Nobody wants to be the one to delay a shuttle flight or expensive operations that's taken years of preparation, and
Re:Well, then (Score:3, Funny)
I've always said that I would be extremely disappointed in our nation's intelligence services if we did not have good nude photos of Natalie Portman and Britney Spears somewhere.
If it is up long enough... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps like an abandoned sailing ship the Hubble will be salvaged--and rescued--by private a private space craft.
Re:If it is up long enough... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:If it is up long enough... (Score:2, Interesting)
Will the US send up space marines to evict them? Not likely! Arrrrh.
Re:If it is up long enough... (Score:2)
Re:If it is up long enough... (Score:3, Interesting)
Just letting Hubble crash into some random spot on the Earth in a decade or two would be a bit risky.
sure seems like... (Score:2, Interesting)
I would just like to note. (Score:5, Insightful)
But just because public space development is good does not mean that NASA is bad, or that bad things happening to NASA are good.
I see a lot of people on slashdot, seemingly mostly libertarians, who seem to be cheering anything bad that happens to NASA on the theory this is somehow a victory for private space development. It isn't. This is not a zero sum game. NASA's loss is not private space development's gain. A gain for private space development is a gain for humanity's involvement in space; a loss for public space development is a loss for humanity's involvement in space, but nothing else.
The things NASA does in space don't supplant what private enterprise would be doing, they supplement it. NASA's goals in space are-- or should be-- to do the things that benefit humanity but which no clear profit model exists from. Meanwhile the advancements NASA creates in space can-- or should be-- models for private enterprise. NASA could and should do more to explicitly encourage private space development and explicitly see themselves as to some extent partners with private space enterprise (I don't know who owns the technology NASA uses in space, I assume the aerospace contractors who built everything do, but I think that technology should be publicly documented and the patents available to the public for use by private operators, since after all the public paid for it) but even as it is private space development can and will benefit from NASA and its presence, and vice versa. Private space development and NASA aren't enemies, this isn't football.
Meanwhile even in the areas where the actions of NASA and private space operators overlap, private space operators simply aren't ready to replace NASA even if they should. Private space development shows great promise but it is truly at an infant stage.
Aside from the above, I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying; you may well be right about salvaging or reclaiming Hubble. looks like Hubble will be entering the atmosphere sometime between 2010 and 2032. [wikipedia.org] They're not there now, but it seems likely private space enterprise may get to the point where they can rescue it before it is lost forever even if NASA isn't interested...
Gacck typo. (Score:2)
Should have been
But just because private space development is good does not mean that NASA is bad, or that bad things happening to NASA are good.
I hope it was still clear what I meant there.
Re:I would just like to note. (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem many libertarians have with NASA is that they've completely destroyed the spaceflight market, so it isn't like anything remotely resembling a thriving free market. When NASA needs to get a person into space, they don't do it by simply buying a ticket from a rocket launch company which offers the best combination of reliability, quality, and cost. Such a solution would be highly favored by libertarians, as it would operate within the market and would help ensure a steady decrease in launch costs and an increase in reliability.
Rather, what NASA does is give a cost-plus contract to one of the aerospace giants (Boeing, Lockheed, etc.) to develop a launch vehicle. With a cost-plus contract the aerospace giant has absolutely no incentive to decrease launch costs or exercise any sort of fiscal restraint; it's actually quite the opposite, as the more money the contractor uses up the more money pads their pockets. The fact that the launch market has been so distorted by contracts like this prevents private spaceflight companies from effectively competing and keeps launch costs absurdly high.
The only reason a private space market is starting to emerge nowadays is because NASA has pretty much no interest or influence on the suborbital tourism market. This will allow market forces to actually come into effect.
Personally, what I'd like to see is for NASA to stop with cost-plus contracts and act as more of a customer within the market. Things like the Centennial Challenges [nasa.gov] are great, where companies are paid a flat amount based on results, rather than however much they say they need to develop a solution.
Re:I would just like to note. (Score:5, Interesting)
The Atlas and Delta that are the prime candidates to launch the CEV? Developed by commercial enterprises, for commercial enterprises, with their own money. The problem however is that launch rates aren't really price sensitive. Boeing or Lockmart could spend millions cutting launch costs by 25%, and only get a 5-10% (if any) increase in launch rates. That's a net loss for them. And commercial enterprises don't generally lose money on that scale on purpose.
Boeing, Lockmart, and others (all private companies) have been competing in a free and open market for thirty years. It looks to many as if it's not effective competition as they don't understand how a limited demand, price insensitive market works - it's not like hamburgers or cars. You mean the way they've bought the majority of their launches (I.E. expendables) for thirty years? You mean the way they are planning to for the CEV?All I can conclude is Libertarians don't understand economics.
Re:I would just like to note. (Score:2)
Re:I would just like to note. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I would just like to note. (Score:2)
When does hubble become legal to grab by first-commers?
Re:If it is up long enough... (Score:2)
maybe they've realised that the shuttle sucks and doing anything with it is a too big risk to take unless the payoff is hefty or the risk can be reduced(like using the iss as a rescue point).
though, what would be more intresting would be if they could fix it with an unmanned probe or contract it out to russians.
What does that say about the safety of the shuttle (Score:3, Insightful)
a long time ago... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:a long time ago... (Score:2)
Re:a long time ago... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:a long time ago... (Score:2)
I think allowing private corps access to any sort of space venture is bad news.
You gonna back that up with something, or what? That's a pretty silly generalization to make.
Re:a long time ago... (Score:2)
Re:a long time ago... (Score:5, Informative)
For starters but with regard to the 27 January 1967 entry. That accident was due to poor work on that unit.
http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/Risk
http://www.floridatoday.com/columbia/113003columb
That was within 2 mins of googling. My bad for thinking it was common knowledge
Re:a long time ago... (Score:2)
Re:a long time ago... (Score:2)
Re:a long time ago... (Score:2)
I get the feeling it had something to do with the ISS, because that's around when the problems really began.
Yet you cite Skylab as a NASA success? I would argue the Internaitonal Space Station has been exponentially more useful than Skylab was.
Anyway, these "problems" you speak of didn't necessarily begin at any certain time; they've always been inherent with having a large, publicly-owned, government-run space agency. Things get done faster and more efficiently with a private company because they're
Re:a long time ago... (Score:2)
Re:a long time ago... (Score:2)
NASA really knew what they were doing. they spent quite a bit of money, but we did Apollo, we did Skylab, we did Hubble, and they managed to maintain public support. Then they just somehow fucked it up. I get the feeling it had something to do with the ISS ...
NASA screwed the pooch long before even Skylab. With the early Apollo landings a done deal, NASA submitted thier plans for the future. Obvious follow ups were a space station, lunar base, and Mars mission. The Battlestar Galactica (i.e., BIG)
Re:a long time ago... (Score:2)
(1) it will not be able to have no more than three crews on board (limited to the availability of the escape vehicle, e.g., Soyuz capsule at this point),
(2) the three-person crew cannot run a laboratory,
(3) there exists no viable design for a return vehicle to carry more than 5 or 6 (considering a space shuttle, if we are to park it),
(4) each modules are more or less designed to do specific experiment, not ver
Re:a long time ago... (Score:2)
Re:a long time ago... (Score:2)
Meanwhile, the people who never the less try to actually get shit done take the most flak; getting anything done inevitably means stepping on toes or running against a rule or two, s
If space is so simple, go ahead and do it better (Score:2)
There are lots of projects: lunar mining, asteroid detection/diversion/mining, serious propulsion experiments...terraforming experiments on Mars...
Let's face it, we can easily see where we need to go next, spending another $10,000,000,000 on a new (or even 20 year old) eyepiece ain't neccesary.
I'll ask. How do you find the asteroid worth mining without the 10 billion dollar eyepiece? It's easy enough to throw out slogans. But lets get real. The reality is that there is absolutely no econo
Re:If space is so simple, go ahead and do it bette (Score:2)
Re:If space is so simple, go ahead and do it bette (Score:2)
And, it's not a simple matter of detecting asteroids, you have to do mineral assays of them before you can determine if they are worth mining. To do that, you need to either go to the asteroid, or you need at least good spectroscopy, and even Hubble is not high res enough for t
What the goddamn hell (Score:3, Interesting)
People keep questioning whether NASA should continue, given the disaster it's been. Man, NASA's fine. It's people like Sean O'Keefe that have to go. Thank God he's retiring. Unfortunately I'm afraid of who his replacement will be, especially since his replacement seems to be coming in as part of a program to cut out what little science is left in NASA's programs in order to dump all the budget to a vague "let's go to mars!" plan that seems about as well-conceived and likely to turn out as planned as any of those five unsuccessful shuttle replacement programs NASA blew its budget on at the end of the 90s.
Re:What the goddamn hell (Score:2)
"Unaffordable, unrealistic, and unachievable"? Maybe the financing would have been problematic, but the latter two are virtually never a problem for engineers left to do their work. The robotics would have to be adapted, yes, but that's not an impossible job.
This is the kind of t
Re:What the goddamn hell (Score:2)
For What It's Worth.. (Score:5, Insightful)
So, you say your current telescope is old and you need a budget for something new and bigger and better, technology progresses, right?
What we can infer is that NASA has something else they want to put up that, if they "rescued" the Hubble, would cut into the budget for their new thing they want to put up.
Re:For What It's Worth.. (Score:2)
Re:For What It's Worth.. (Score:2, Interesting)
NASA has some of the brightest scientists around, but is headed by a bureaucratic mess, and especially given that Bush selected chairs who would loyally cut programs to push whatever Bush wanted.
Build a bigger new one (Score:5, Insightful)
Contract small companies that are willing to build one for peanuts.
Find some other material other than glass to construct it from to save on weight. Maybe a thin ceramic that can be slightly bent with heat or electricity.
some facts:
# How big is it? This mirror measures 2.5 meters (98 inches) across and weighs 748 kilograms (1,650 pounds). The useable surface of the mirror in the Hubble was slightly smaller-about 2.4 meters (94 inches)-because the mirror mounting covered the outer edge.
# Why doesn't it look like a mirror? This mirror was never used, so it never received a reflective coating. The mirror in the Hubble was coated with a thin layer of aluminum and also overcoated with magnesium fluoride, so it could better reflect ultraviolet light.
# What is it made of? The mirror is made of Corning ultra-low expansion glass. The front and back surfaces are fused to a lattice core and to the inner and outer bands, creating a sturdy but lightweight structure.
Re:Build a bigger new one (Score:2)
You should credit [si.edu] your sources when posting someone else's material. Wouldn't want to be accused of plagerism, after all.
Re:Build a bigger new one (Score:2)
biggest problem with a space telescope is putting it up there(and making it not need repairs, because getting up there again is very expensive).
Emotion vs logic (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Emotion vs logic (Score:4, Informative)
Hubble has some other great advantages over any ground telescope: a much darker background, and possibility of _much_ longer observation times, for certain things this is not important, but for other tasks this is _fundamental_.
When you request some time at Hubble you already have to explain _why_ that task can't be done in any other way, so Hubble is already being used only for things that can't practically be done with anything else.
And JWST wont help with this, because as anyone with a clue knows, it's designed to _complement_ Hubble, not to replace it, and their capabilities do not overlap.
Currently there are not even plans to build anything that could replace what Hubble provides.
And for those that say that Hubble is old, thanks to the previous Shuttle missions to it, many of it's instruments have been replaced with much better and improved versions keeping it at the front of the state of the art.
(Actually the cancelled servicing mission was going to install some really cool and powerful bits that costed various hundreds of millions of $ and now are just gathering dust)
So stop the FUD already and inform yourself.
Re:Emotion vs logic (with accurate information) (Score:2)
Except that the other telescopes do not cover the same frequency. Yes, Shri Kulkarni (I believe he was the one) developed some impressive adaptive optics for the Keck Telescopes, but people still need Hubble because it's in space instead of under the earth's absorptive atmosphere. Similarly, Spitzer and other planned telescopes are not replacements because they operate at different frequencies. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the only option is to service Hubble, though I think it would be a good PR m
Re:Emotion vs logic (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a common misconception. Ground based telescopes cannot see what Hubble can see because the earths atmosphere filters out over 99% of radiation useful to astronomers. To view anything other than the visible spectrum and x-ray you have to get into orbit.
Re:Emotion vs logic (Score:2, Insightful)
And I'm disputing your original incorrect claim that a replacement ground based telescope can give just as good images as the Hubble can.
A very narrow observing program is exactly what you get with a ground based telescope because these telescopes can only see a very narrow part of the observable universe.
Re:Emotion vs logic (Score:3, Informative)
I'm getting emotional just thinking about it.
I, too, think that would be fantastic- but the recovery cost would be enormous. You'd basically be talking about a $100,000,000 exhibit.
Probably a little steep....
Re:Emotion vs logic (Score:2)
Re:Emotion vs logic (Score:2)
It's an inanimate object. Why should we spend the money to bring it back to Earth. Sure we obtained some amazing photographs from it, but it's the designers and engineers who should be thanked. Not some telescope in the sky.
Re:Emotion vs logic (Score:2)
Well, I would have liked to have saved it too, but Galileo's telescope is probably long since gone.
that's sad (Score:3, Interesting)
A bit misleading (Score:3, Insightful)
I rather suspect that the risk analyis for Hubble would be something along the lines of "For non-strategic flights on Shuttle, we have to have a 99.5% chance of success". Since the baseline Shuttle analysis for the risks on return-to-flight are already outside that boundry, then it makes zero sense to spend money digging deeper.
Little to do with safety (Score:5, Interesting)
Loose consensus at sci.space.tech is that O'Keefe's decision has virtually nothing to do with safety and everything to do with the extremely tight schedule necessary to complete ISS (International Space Station).
O'Keefe stated that he would abide by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) report. My understanding is that board did not insist that the Shuttle be able to seek refuge at ISS.
It's interesting that the article speaks of "risk" but doesn't explicitly use the term " safety risk" which is assumed. Indeed, the risks of any extra Shuttle flights go beyond the safety of the crew. Consider that the Shutle's only mission is ISS assembly after which the fleet will be retired -- and rightfully so. If a Shuttle were even to be reparably damaged with no injuries to the crew, the ISS program would be seriously threatened.
In fact, .... (Score:2)
*sigh* (Score:3, Interesting)
Two sides to this story (Score:4, Insightful)
Thank Bush's mars program (Score:2)
Obviously funding to fix hubble had to be cut to pay for the shoe string budgeted mars exploration.
The safety hazard is really a coverup.
Hubble Origins Probe: replace instead of repair (Score:4, Interesting)
An international team led by Johns Hopkins University astronomers have proposed an alternative [spaceref.com] to sending a robotic or manned repair mission to the ailing Hubble Space Telescope [wikipedia.org]. Their proposal is to build a new Hubble Origins Probe [jhu.edu], reusing the Hubble design but using lighter and more cost-effective technologies. The probe would include instruments currently waiting to be installed on Hubble, as well as a Japanese-built imager which 'will allow scientists to map the heavens more than 20 times faster than even a refurbished Hubble Space Telescope could.' It would take an estimated 65 months and $1 billion to build and launch, approximately the same cost as a robotic service mission.
Here's the official web site, with slideshows and posters explaining the planned scientific instruments:
http://www.pha.jhu.edu/hop/ [jhu.edu]
In my opinion the original Hubble is mostly valuable for sentimental/historical reasons. From a pure cost/benefit analysis, replacing it seems the best solution in pretty much every possible way.
Political Decision, As It Shoud Be (Score:4, Insightful)
O'Keefe's decision was a political decision made for political reasons. Choosing not to fly the Shuttle's most dangerous mission was the right decision in the aftermath of Columbia. Not a popular decision, but the right decision.
Risk analysis is an engineering tool, but leading NASA is not an engineering task.
Shuttle's most dangerous mission (Score:2)
"...not an engineering task".
Actually, we refer to some forms of management as "electropolitical engineering".
Interesting point (Score:2, Interesting)
But a friend of mine (and a robotics engineer) made a good point: Hubble sure kicks ass, but we've got bigger and better technology now. Maybe we can spend all the "Hubble Rescue" money on something even more impressive, which would yield even better imagery than our good ol' HST.
Sure, I'll be very sad when (n
Unpossible!! (Score:2)
Did they suddenly switch to an achievement based payroll?
Soyuz service mission? (Score:2, Interesting)
FUD, FUD, FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
You might want to try reading that again... (Score:2)
On your comments about no need for formal risk assessment;
Basically, I don't believe that having a scientific risk assessment done would be all that foolish when deciding between various possibly multi-billion dollar options. It is becoming more and more clear that O'Keefe made the wrong judgement; of the groups that have since looked at the issue, now including the Nati
What was I thinking? (Score:2)
Since no one has ever done a "rescue mission" of one manned space craft using another manned space craft (with the possible exception of a few of the trips up to Mir), designing everything needed to make it work, and to make sure it would work under most plausible failure modes would take far longer than Hubble can wait.
If one
more proof that Sean O'Keefe is a political hack. (Score:2)
Why start now? (Score:3, Insightful)
And why should they do a formal analysis? The whole point of making Hubble human-serviceable was probably to serve as another ustification for the shuttle program. The rational, low-risk decision would have been to start planning on sending up an entire replacement telescope years ago, for less money and less risk than the service missions.
So, why start now with formal cost/risk/benefit analyses? No manned mission would survive that kind of analysis at this point: at this point, it's pretty much always cheaper and less risky to achieve whatever scientific or technological objective we have with unmanned missions.
Not NASA! (Score:4, Insightful)
Same with Mir (Score:2)
Re:Enterprise money? (Score:2, Insightful)
What kind of trolling is this? Fans are having a hard time coming up with $32 million to continue the production of Enterprise and you expect them to be able to cough up $2 billion to save Hubble? Good luck.
Re:Enterprise money? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why kill Hubble? (Score:2, Informative)
You could, its just that Hubble is so massive that it world take a ridiculous amount of fuel.
For instance to get Hubble to the same orbit as ISS you are looking at about 40 tonnes of fuel. To get to a gravity neutral point (say earth-moon LaGrangian) would take a lot more than that.
Re:Could They wait for it? (Score:5, Insightful)
(1) ISS is not equipped to "park" a trailer sized telescope,
(2) to make it possible, NASA will have to design a module for parking the HST and then redesign the ISS as a whole (it is not very flexible in design...which is why I hate this space station).
(3) this would cost NASA more shuttle visits and R&D for the new parking module,
(4) even if you achieve all of these, then there is no guarantee that the HST is repairable in future.
I am a user of the Hubble Space Telescope. I've used it over 100 orbits in the last seven years. And I say this: let it die. The HST has been a great telescope, but would I spend every penny we have to keep it up? No. I'd rather prefer building new space telescopes for the money.
I don't think that's what he meant (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't think this is possible even if they were at the same level orbit.
Hubble's inclination is about as low as you can get (launching from kennedy that is), about 28.5 degrees. ISS's orbit was optimized for revinue (passing over as many countries as possible so as to get funding) and is about 51.6 degrees.
http:/ [spacetelescope.org]
Re:I don't think that's what he meant (Score:2)
This is just hogwash.
ISS orbit was carefully selected to maximize the number of launch windows available for a shuttle from florida, and for soyuz/progress from Balkinour. In the end, this little bit of foresight turned out to be a DAMN good thing, cuz shuttles dont seem to show up on the promised schedule. the high inclination opens a lot more windows for progress from B
ISS is in the wrong orbit (Score:2)
Re:You dork (Score:5, Informative)
Today, it is probably more cost-effective to go back to expendable space missions. It's not at all hard to build a 2-m class space telescope. It's not servicable, but for the cost of servicing, we can build another telescope with a similar specification. So if one breaks, we can launch another.
The only retarded thinking I have is that I don't want to feed the STScI to create the monopoly in the space-based astronomy. The HST is costing a lot more than other missions (x2 FTE is what I heard, compared to other major missions) for little return in terms of the telescope operation and calibration. This is the institution that produces very crappy software to handle the HST data (I've written my own code to process and done my own calibration to improve its science return...why was the STScI not doing that?). They allocate their budgest lucratively toward the support for scientists (not operator or calibration staffs) while other missions suffer from severe budget cuts and RIF'ing their science staffs.
Re:You dork (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems fair to me, since people with HST-blinders don't seem to care that making hubble last a couple of more years will take a fairly large chunk out of the total US science budget. There's a very limited a
Re:You dork (Score:2)
In essence, yes. Look, we can't fund everything we want. Would I choose to support the HST over the ISS? You bet. But that's not how the NASA prioritized in their roadmap. I once fought the fight, just like you, to change NASA's mind. But as I studied the situation, it became clear to me that the continuation of the HST may not be as beneficial to the professional as I thought it would be.
[However,
Re:Could They wait for it? (Score:3, Interesting)
You are mistaken. Although one HST instrument (COS) is already built and WF3 has been developped, the cost for launching a shuttle and serving the HST is not paid up.
In any case, the STScI will continue to operate the HST even if it is left only with two surviving gyros. At the current rate, that mode of operation will last til 2007 to 2008 maybe (or longer if the battery lasts). In a
Re:Could They wait for it? (Score:2)
Besides, the arm will be there for other reasons. If you use it to hook the HST, it cannot be used for anything else.
Re:of course (Score:4, Insightful)
Dude, start taking your meds. That tirade doesn't make any sense. You could accuse Bush of not caring whether or not the telescope lives, but you're gonna have to come up with some kind of source to make that allegation. As for the militarization stuff, that's not happening at NASA.
The reality is fixing the Hubble will be damn expensive, and there's some question as to what is the most reasonable allocation of funding. As much as I think the NASA is full of boondoggles, I'm not sure the amount of useful science in the Hubble is worth the cost of fixing it.
If I were in charge I'd send the shuttle up for its final mission to fix Hubble then scrap the shuttle and the ISS. Then I'd take the money they were soaking up and use it for robotic missions.
Re:of course (Score:2)
The White House has eliminated funding for a mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope from its 2006 budget request and directed NASA to focus solely on deorbiting the popular
Mod parent up (Score:2)
There was a story on slashdot a year ago about this subject. No rish analysis even attempted for a paranoid department like Nasa shows its true intentions were never saving it.
I just wonder how they will de-orbit it? This is a very large and potentially dangerous object.
Re:of course (Score:2)
And that has nothing to do with the war. No war =/= hubble funding.
Re:of course (Score:2)
Re:of course (Score:3, Interesting)
OK, first of all, the white house doesn't make budget choices. They gin up a budget request, but all the decisions get made by congress. That's in the document. In fact, congress can completely ignore the president in budgetary matters, provided they're willing to override a veto. I real life that doesn't happen, but the truth is GWB can't do squat on his own.
the "other places" are the comparatively pointless mars and dangerous militarizati
Re:of course (Score:3, Interesting)
They are now servely cash stripped and its impossible with a mere 8 billion dollar budget to put man on mars. The figure could be ten times that.
But yes this killed Hubble since it would make it expensive and distract for Nasa's new mission.
Nasa does risk assesments for everything. Its odd nasa would make such a quick decision if it were not political.
Re:of course (Score:3, Informative)
Sure, but as I point out in my response to another poster, none of that is funded to the level you would need to fix Hubble.
They are now servely cash stripped and its impossible with a mere 8 billion dollar budget to put man on mars. The figure could be ten times that.
But yes this killed Hubble since it would make it expensive and distract for Nasa's ne
Re:What would Jebus do? (Score:2)
*Shodder* Now that's a scary thought.
[Though Jeb is supposed to be more intellectual than his brother...]