Today’s lead story over on SpaceRef is a must-read. Entitled “NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope: A Fate Far From Certain,” author Keith Cowing covers the major flurry of activity last week in the ongoing debate over fate of the Hubble Space Telescope. Of particular interest are the various links scattered throughout the article and collected at the end of it.
Bottom line summary: Previous pleas that Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) head Adm. Hal Gehman review the cancellation of further servicing flights to the Hubble has resulted in a wishy-washy multipage letter released March 5 ending: “I suggest only a deep and rich study of the entire gain/risk equation can answer the question of whether an extension of the life of the wonderful Hubble telescope is worth the risks involved, and that is beyond the scope of this letter.”
With no major support coming from the former head of CAIB, politicos Sen. Barbara Mikulski, Rep. Mark Udall, Sen. Kit Bond and several others (all representing districts with considerable Hubble vested interests) have tried to seek new support for saving Hubble via further studies from the National Science Foundation and Congressional Budget Office and have fired off numerous letters to NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe.
However, O’Keefe made it very clear in a meeting with reporters on the afternoon of 11 March after meeting with Congress on NASA budget hearings: “I will not authorize a [Shuttle] mission that is not in compliance with CAIB [recommendations].” He noted that no member of Congress had yet called for this mission to happen – rather they were calling for the decision process be reviewed. With regards to Mikulski’s concerns, he said, “We both agree that the servicing mission needs to be done in accordance with CAIB recommendations.” To emphasize his view, O’Keefe said, “There is only one person who will make that judgment – that person is sitting here.”
…to Russians, they’re more flexible when it comes to risk assessments! Besides, they’ll make it cheaper.
.
I am reminded of an incident during the cold war, maybe fifteen or twenty years ago, when a Soviet pilot defected to the west flying their latest and greatest jet fighter. This particular aircraft was supposed to be as good as or better than anything in the American arsenal.
Imagine the surprise of our military to discover that while our fighter had advanced avionics, better armament and safety, plus titanium wings, the Soviet jet was made of steel. It was ordinary, with limited sophistication. In fact, the wings were already pitted by the weather. But, it flew fast and well eneough, despite a shorter life span.
That’s when I learned a lesson about getting the job done. It doesn’t take the latest and greatest with all the safety features and bells and whistles and colors as long as it can do the job.
What NASA needs to redefine is the job — getting astronauts and supplies to and from a space station and Hubble safely. And if it can’t do it fast or cheap enough, outsourcing to the private sector is probably the best idea around.
Consider that perhaps one of the named Senators that are so hot to fly the mission gets to be a passenger on the flight?
It might either shut them up or add to the pressure… but then, someone politically visible is in the loop (or the hot seat, as the case may be).