NASA budget would kill Hubble

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/02/0 ... tml#hubble

CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida (AP) -- With the moon on its horizon, NASA sees a slight increase in the budget proposed by President Bush on Monday, but it's not enough to save the Hubble Space Telescope.

Only $93 million in the space agency's $16.45 billion budget would go toward Hubble's survival: $75 million to develop a kamikaze robot that would steer the orbiting observatory into the ocean at the end of its lifetime, and $18 million to try to eke out as much scientific observing time as possible from the telescope through clever remote controlling.

No money is in the budget to send either a robotic repairman or shuttle astronauts to Hubble to extend its lifetime, a decision that is sure to anger astronomers and members of Congress.

Late last year, a National Academy of Sciences panel recommended one final visit to Hubble by astronauts.

The proposed budget for NASA -- 2.4 percent higher than last year's -- sets aside $9.6 billion for science, aeronautics and exploration, and $6.7 billion for exploration capabilities.

That includes $4.5 billion for the space shuttle program, on track for resuming flights this year for the first time since the 2003 Columbia disaster, and $1.85 billion for the international space station.

Just over a year ago, Bush announced a new exploration vision for NASA geared around returning astronauts to the moon by 2020. Everything now revolves around that.

NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe said even though the space agency is not getting as much money as envisioned by the president a year ago, a 2.4 percent budget increase is "rather remarkable" given the federal deficit and the spending cuts elsewhere in the government.

As for Hubble, O'Keefe said the National Academy of Sciences panel presented such a bleak assessment of a robotic mission to install new parts on the space telescope that it made little sense to presume success and, consequently, no money was put aside for such an endeavor.

"We'll see. In a month's time, there may be an epiphany," O'Keefe said. "But I think it's going to be a very difficult mountain, a steep hill, to climb."

O'Keefe reiterated his long-held view that a shuttle flight to Hubble poses too many dangers in the wake of the Columbia catastrophe.

"It is a judgment call and this is a judgment call that is my responsibility for however period of time that I reside here," said O'Keefe, who will leave NASA in less than two weeks to assume the chancellor's job at Louisiana State University.





Yeah, thanks a lot Bush.

i agree it sucks, but the man gets criticized for his spending, he gets criticized for his cuts.

*sigh*

I'll miss the nifty pictutres from Hubble, being a space nerd and all, but it should be over-obvious to anyone that scientific discovery is *not* on this administration's agenda.

Yeah, the distant nubula are too far away to conquer. Mars on the other hand...

--PunkDavid

They might have oil! And their gravity could send meteors of mass destruction toward us! This threat must be eliminated.

Before I condemn Bush for this one, how much longer is Hubble projected to survive?

Why is sending more men to the moon such a feat that it can't be accomplished for another 15 years? We sent men there 40 years ago. Shouldn't it be fairly easy to do so today if we wanted?

**Waits for moon landing conspiracies**

Without futher maintenance, I think I remember hearing that it has under five years. With periodic service calls, it could last quite a long time. How much those service calls would cost, I couldn't tell you.

--Punkdavid

Alot, think a couple billion every year. The HST has been a money pit since its inception (though not as bad as the ISS, christ...). The Bush administration probably had nothing to do with this, but if so, I would congratulate them.

Anyone familiar with the space program realizes that the budget cuts in the last 2 decades have crippled NASA, but be serious for a moment, the ORGINS and SOFIA programs have greater potential and practical applications than Hubble, which is stone age in comparison. It gives us pretty pictures, but we have reached the limits of what ultraviolet telescopes can teach us. Plus it will be replaced SAFIR and LifeFinder, much more powerful. If you are bitching about the HST cancellation you are completely out of touch with space policy, period.

http://safir.jpl.nasa.gov/index.asp
http://origins.jpl.nasa.gov/index1.html

http://www.berkshireeagle.com/Stories/0 ... 25,00.html

The case for the Hubble

NASA's track record isn't so spectacular that it can afford to abandon one of its unmitigated successes, but that is what it appears determined to do with the Hubble space telescope. The 14-year-old telescope is fighting for its life before the House Science Committee, and a space agency that appears to grow more timid with every challenge it faces can't bring itself to rally to the Hubble's defense.
The Hubble is renowned for its range of breathtaking photographs, from the planets of the solar system, most notably Mars and Saturn, to the nebula that serve as factories for new stars. These photographs alone, available on NASA's Web site, stir the soul and may help create a new generation of astronomers, but beyond those contributions are Hubble's considerable achievements in science. Hubble has lent tangible support to the theory that black holes are at the center of most galaxies, photographed the deaths of sun-like stars, has helped scientists move closer to determining the age of the universe with photographs approaching the time of the Big Bang, and has pushed the search for elusive dark energy.

The Hubble's batteries and gyroscopes will fail between 2007 and 2010, and advocates within the space program argue that a space shuttle mission to replace those parts, while adding new sensors and state-of-the-art cameras, could make the Hubble even more productive for decades to come. NASA brass, however, are concerned by the cost of the mission and also its potential danger.

The cost would be an estimated $2 billion, and in these times of raging budget deficits, every project must undergo scrutiny. The likelihood of Hubble's continued contributions to science make that a bargain, however, and the price tag pales in comparison to the estimated $800 billion cost of the manned program to Mars that President Bush launched in last year's State of the Union speech, only to see it land like a discarded booster rocket. Canceling a Mars effort that will bear fruit when one of the Bush twins is in the White House, if at all, would free up money for a variety of worthy space programs, including the Hubble.

NASA has proceeded with understandable caution in rehabilitating and redesigning its shuttle fleet following the crash of the Columbia, but if it is going to fix the shuttles it has to commit itself to actually use them again. The Hubble mission is a worthy goal. And while other telescopes, such as the powerful James Webb telescope scheduled to come on line in 2011, are being developed, none are planned that can do better what the Hubble does best.

It would be shameful if the Hubble, given what it has already accomplished, is steered into the ocean with what could be its best years ahead of it. It should be saved.

You are going to have to sacrifice this technology for breakthroughs that could be accomplished with funding towards future projects. The photographs it has taken have indeed been breathtaking but the information that we can ascertain from them can also be gathered by more powerful telescopes which have roles in additional projects, it does not make sense to defend the HST.

I say we shut down this entire "space exporation" bullshit spending. And concentrate that money on finding cures for cancer, diabetes, aids, and alziemers.

But what if the cure for cancer is on Mars?

--PunkDavid

seeings as i have had relatives die from all the above diseases or suffer from them, im going to disagree

as cold hearted as it sounds, these diseases, imo, trim the herd. if those diseases were wiped out, how taxing would the people who would have died from them be on the world, environment and so on....

I don't know, I just feel that if all it takes is one mission to replace the gyroscopes and batteries, and add a few new features, then it's more than worth it if extends it's lifespan and performance capabilites by that much. But I understand your point.

So... eight hours in Iraq?

This could be resolved by how we manage our land and help the other nations of the world manage their land.

If we do it correctly, we get to live. If we don't, we all get the Bird Flu.

Yeah this Space exploration "bullshit" has yielded advances in communications, weather forecasting, electronics, and countless other fields. For example, the image processing technologies used in lifesaving CAT Scanners and MRIs (used to research alzhiemers btw) trace their origins to technologies engineered for use in space. If only stupidity were fatal.

That isn't even apples to oranges, thats apples to battleships (almost literally).

So science is not important, and blowing up brown people is.