[rant]

Recently NASA cancelled Hubble servicing missions on the grounds that it was 'unsafe' for the astronauts.

Human spaceflight is a real tricky question when it comes to the scientific community. Why do we need humans in space to do the stuff much more expensively and with higher risk than we can do with robotic missions? The space shuttle was always supposed to be this big workhorse for NASA, building space stations, servicing telescopes, launching science missions, etc. All supposedly things that couldn't be done using non-manned launches.

NASA has always led the public into believing that 'big science' is happening with humans in space. A huge part of NASA's budget goes to the shuttle / space station instead of robotic missions. I mean, we still haven't visited Pluto yet and put to rest the planet / minor planet debate! They mention things like crystals, velcro, and Tang that have benefitted earthly lives as a result of spaceflight. Unfortunately all of these things actually were developed independently of spaceflight but got their main advertizing through NASA. Better crystals are grown on earth for much cheaper.

So what about launching science missions? Well, the cost of launching a payload on the Shuttle has always been prohibitive. NASA claimed that eventually the price would come down with increased volume of payloads and increased missions. After Challenger, missions never increased, costs never decreased, and so it was eventually decided to cut the Shuttle as the vehicle for launching space probes.

So what about the actual science experiments on the shuttle and space station? Well, most of them could just as easily have been done with an unmanned probe for a lot cheaper. Are they 'big science'? No. Experiments like 'can spiders weave webs in weightlessness', etc are honestly not all that useful.

So, from a scientific perspective that leaves servicing science satellites. The Hubble has been the one science jewel in the manned spaceflight crown. It performs good science, makes new cosmological discoveries, and gives the public 'pretty pictures'. We need the Hubble or some space-based observatory for optical wavelengths because there's just too much distortion and light polution for land-based telescopes. You can only get good land-based pictures occasionally with clear weather and a lot of computer processing. There are no current plans for an optical wavelength telescope to replace Hubble. Without servicing missions, the Hubble is doomed to de-orbit in just a few years, with no replacement. (The James Webb Space Telescope operates in the red-infrared range.)

The servicing missions are too dangerous?!? Servicing missions were supposed to be like stopping by the store to pick up some milk in the broader picture of all of the glorious things the shuttle could do. Sticking a person in a leaky space station for months is less dangerous than a couple of spacewalks to tinker with a satellite? Really? Servicing a satellite is MORE dangerous than going to the moon and Mars?? Where's that bridge you want to sell me? Are they finally admitting that human spaceflight has just outlived its scientific usefulness? No. The PR engines are getting back in gear for going to the moon and to Mars. Oh, it will be such a great and glorious day for science when men can sniff the rocks on Mars instead of robots! Pah, I say, Pah!

So NASA, stop taking our science budgets for useless stuff, claiming it's 'big science'. Imagine all of the graduate students that could be paid for their entire graduate program WITH stipends with the amount of money that goes into the space station alone. It boggles the mind. I think human spaceflight is a Good Thing(TM), but for a simply human desire to explore, NOT from a 'big science' point of view. If you're not going to do science, stop lying to the public about why you want their money. People are willing to pay for explorers and entertainment... just look at pro sports salaries to see that's true.

I know, let's do a reality show based in the Space Station! The last person to not get shoved out the airlock gets to go to Mars!

[/rant]

2004.02.10 update: Check out the STSCI page on the cancellation for a few interesting letters back and forth between various senators and O'Keefe about the topic.
2004.03.03 update: a resolution supporting a servicing mission for Hubble was introduced by Congressman Udall.
2004.04.28 update: After all of the uproar, O'Keefe says Robotic Options for Hubble More Promising than Thought
2004.06.01 update:
NASA CONSIDERING ROBOTIC SERVICING MISSION TO HUBBLE
NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe today announced the agency's decision to pursue the feasibility of a robotic servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). NASA initiated the first step toward enabling such a mission with the release of a Request for Proposals today. The due date for proposal submissions is July 16, 2004. "This is the first step in a long process of developing the best options to save Hubble," Administrator O'Keefe said. "We are on a tight schedule to assure a Hubble servicing mission toward the end of calendar year 2007. But we must act promptly to fully explore this approach." Although the primary goal of a robotic mission is to install a deorbit module on the HST, NASA is studying the feasibility of performing other tasks.
2004.07.14 update: In yet another oscillation, the Committee on the Assessment of Options for Extending the Life of the Hubble Space Telescope has released a report recommending that NASA keep the shuttle servicing mission available as an option since the robotic technology is too young. Come on people! We need to present a united front or the thing will be DESTROYED!

Glenn Mahone/Bob Jacobs
NASA ADMINISTRATOR SUPPORTS EFFORTS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES ON BEHALF OF HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE
The following is a statement from Administrator Sean O'Keefe regarding today's release of an interim report from the Committee on the Assessment of Options for Extending the Life of the Hubble Space Telescope from The National Academies in Washington.

"I deeply appreciate the timely efforts of Committee Chair Louis Lanzerotti and the other distinguished members of the National Academies committee. Their thoughtful diligence in preparing this interim report will inform the ongoing discussion and help reach a definitive resolution in our efforts to extend Hubble's service life.
"We agree with the Committee's view that the Hubble Space Telescope is arguably the most important telescope in history. NASA is committed to exploring ways to safely extend the useful scientific life of Hubble.
"The challenges of a robotic mission are under examination and we'll continue our exhaustive and aggressive efforts to assess innovative servicing options. In parallel with the Committee's ongoing research and deliberations, NASA will evaluate proposals we expect to receive shortly. Along the way, we'll keep options open to assure the best possible outcome.
"I look forward to receiving the Committee's final report. The Hubble Space Telescope is a national treasure. Just as we are committed to meeting the recommendations and findings of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board and returning the Space Shuttle to safe flight, we're committed to doing everything possible to safely extend the scientific life of this valuable asset."

On a related note, the DART (Demonstration for Autonomous Rendezvous Technology) vehicle arrived at Vandenberg AFB today to get ready for its fall launch.

2004.08.18 update: The argument has been made that it might be cheaper, better scientifically, and longer lasting to replace Hubble with a couple of new telescopes rather than trying to repair it.

2005.04.15 update: New NASA chief nominee, Griffin, has decided to reevaluate the decision to not send a shuttle to repair the Hubble. However, a robotic servicing mission is 'off the table'. space.com article

13:14 - 2004-02-05