From: Walter Watts (wlwatts@cox.net)
Date: Sun Mar 21 2004 - 11:19:12 MST
Astronauts Try to Save Hubble Telescope
Mar 20, 11:15 AM (ET)
By MARCIA DUNN
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - They risked their lives for the Hubble Space
Telescope and did so gladly. Now, many of the astronauts who worked on
Hubble hundreds of miles above Earth are dismayed, bewildered or both by
NASA's decision to pull the plug on the mighty observatory.
"I just think it's a huge, huge mistake," says Greg Harbaugh, who
performed Hubble repairs during a pair of spacewalks in
1997. "It is probably the greatest instrument or tool for astronomical
and astrophysical research since Galileo invented the telescope, and I
think it is a tragedy that we would consider not keeping the Hubble
alive and operational as long as possible."
Though the decision is not absolute, there appears to be little chance
NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe will change his mind about a Hubble
servicing mission, deeming it too risky to astronauts in the wake of
Columbia.
That would mean a premature death for the 14-year-old observatory whose
latest snapshot - revealed last week - showed the deepest-ever view of
the universe, a mishmash of galaxies dating almost all the way back to
creation.
Tom Akers, part of the spacewalking team that restored Hubble's eyesight
in 1993, also favors another mission.
"I definitely think that's an asset that we shouldn't throw away," says
Akers, who teaches college math in Missouri. "That's my position and
they know it."
NASA has been fending off heavy criticism ever since O'Keefe decided in
January to cancel the last servicing, set for 2006.
Last week, at congressional urging, O'Keefe agreed to ask the National
Academy of Sciences to study the issue from all perspectives, including
using robots to install new cameras or augment battery power.
But he does not expect to reconsider sending up astronauts despite the
outcry.
An Internet petition has collected thousands of names, O'Keefe's e-mail
system is clogged with complaints, members of Congress are demanding
reviews by independent groups, and the chief Columbia accident
investigator is urging a public policy debate on the Hubble gains versus
shuttle risks.
Even John Glenn has weighed in, telling President Bush's commission on
moon and Mars travel that another servicing mission is necessary "to get
every year's value out of that thing."
The canceled servicing mission would have been the Hubble's fifth and
would have equipped it with two state-of-the-art science instruments
already built and worth a combined $176 million, as well as fresh
batteries and gyroscopes. The work by spacewalkers would have kept
Hubble humming until 2011 or 2012.
Without intervention, Hubble will probably take its last picture in 2007
or 2008. O'Keefe says he does not see how NASA could launch a servicing
mission before then without shirking the recommendations of the Columbia
Accident Investigation Board.
As an alternative, engineers are trying to figure out how to prolong the
telescope's life with robotic help.
NASA is quick to point out that when Hubble was launched, 15 years of
service were promised, a goal that will be met next spring. The space
telescope has helped scientists gauge the age and size of the universe
and confirmed the existence of black holes.
Regardless of Hubble's merit, O'Keefe says he cannot let astronauts fly
to the telescope and risk being stuck there if their shuttle is damaged
by foam or other launch debris.
There's no way a stranded shuttle crew could get from Hubble to the
international space station in an entirely different orbit.
The NASA chief insists his decision is rooted in safety, and he's
recruited the agency's chief scientist, John Grunsfeld, a two-time
Hubble space repairman, to help defend his decision.
Yet eyebrows were raised given the timing of the announcement: It came
two days after President Bush unveiled a plan to complete the space
station and retire the shuttle by 2010, and to send astronauts back to
the moon by 2020.
Glenn worries the Columbia accident may be making NASA gun-shy.
Harbaugh, now director of the Florida Air Museum, says he felt no more
danger flying to Hubble than anywhere else in space. There is little
difference, he says, "in risk between launching to Hubble and launching
to station and just launching period."
Astronomers would be at a loss if Hubble is abandoned and its powerful
replacement, the James Webb Space Telescope, is lost in a rocket
explosion or has crippling design flaws. That's why so many would rather
wait to decommission Hubble until Webb is launched, now set for 2011.
While NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and Spitzer Space Telescope see
the universe in X-ray and infrared, respectively, Hubble observes
visible light and peeks into the ultraviolet and near-infrared. Webb
will focus on the infrared and outdo Hubble with a mirror more than
double its size.
Astronauts - Hubble repairmen included, who say they would do it again -
like to point out that a ship is safe in the harbor, but that's not what
ships are built for.
Says Bruce McCandless, who helped deliver Hubble to orbit and now works
in industry: "John Paul Jones is also reported to have said, 'Give me a
fast ship for I intend to sail in harm's way.' He wasn't going to sit in
the harbor, either."
--- On the Net: NASA: http://hubble.gsfc.nasa.gov/ Save Hubble Initiative: www.savethehubble.com -- Walter Watts Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc. "Pursue the small utopias... nature, music, friendship, love" --Kupferberg-- --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 21 2004 - 11:20:33 MST