Wednesday, March 23, 2005
What about Bob?
I've been a member of the Mars Society for about 4 years now. I've usually been proud of my membership. The Society is the only space advocacy society I know of that relies so heavily on its volunteer members to do its work. The Society doesn't just want dues from its members in exchange for a magazine. In fact, there is no magazine. Instead, in exchange for paying dues members have the opportunity to participate in the Society's work, including its analog research program. That program conducts research at two simulated Mars bases in Utah and the Arctic Circle. Volunteer crews live and work at these bases as if they were on Mars and participate in an ongoing scientific research program. The Society has gotten some good publicity out of the program that has drawn international attention to the goal of sending humans to Mars. The Society's plans, drawn up by its president and founder Robert Zubrin, have become the model for human missions to Mars. These accomplishments have made me proud to be a member.
Yet in the last year or so the Society's resources have been diverted to a task not part of its mission, saving the Hubble space telescope. I don't agree that saving the Hubble is part of the Mars Society's mission in any way. But what I find most disagreeable are the tactics of personal destruction aimed at former NASA Director Sean O'Keefe that are being employed by the Society. Those tactics are an embarrassment. The latest embarrassing salvo was launched in the Society's email newsletter last week. (A version of the newsletter was also published by spacedaily as an article.)
In the newsletter O'Keefe's decision to spend $300 million to de-orbit the Hubble is described this way:
Actually, what is irresponsible and irrational is to make wild charges that it amounts to the mass murder of 100,000 people to spend money to safely return a large piece of space debris to Earth without harming anyone.
But what is even more problematic with the newsletter is the advice given to Mars Society members. Here's the recommendation:
It's counterproductve to the cause of the Mars Society and the manned space program to have Society members call their representatives and tell them the $300 million that was proposed to de-orbit the Hubble would be better spent on Earth saving lives and that Congress should adopt a fall back position that spends $100 million to save the Hubble but takes $200 million (presumably from NASA) and spends it on Earthbound charity.
I know from my own experience of public speaking on the importance of funding the manned space program that inevitably somebody will respond that we should be spending money here on Earth instead. Yet now members of the Mars Society are being asked to call their congressional representatives and tell them to do just that.
I don't care if Hubble is saved or not. I think a good argument can be made that it's time to replace the scope rather than fix it. Consequently I think the Mars Society should not involve itself in a crusade to save the Hubble. The mission of the Society is to promote human exploration of Mars. Saving the Hubble is not part of that mission.
But if saving the Hubble is going to be a part of the Mars Society's mission, it should at least do it in a way that brings credit to the Society rather than shame. It should do it without hyperbolic rhetoric and personal attacks and without adopting the arguments made by opponents of manned space programs.
A reasonable argument to save the Hubble should be limited to stating how much science Hubble has produced, how popular the scope is, how much cheaper fixing it would be than de-orbiting it or launching a new scope, how much more of a useful life we could get out of it with a simple fix, and how we've done it before so we can do it again. If that argument succeeds, great. If the argument fails, it's not the end of the Mars Society or of the manned space program. The goal of saving the Hubble is not so closely tied to the Mars Society's mission that it justifies pulling out all of the rhetorical stops.
-tdr
Yet in the last year or so the Society's resources have been diverted to a task not part of its mission, saving the Hubble space telescope. I don't agree that saving the Hubble is part of the Mars Society's mission in any way. But what I find most disagreeable are the tactics of personal destruction aimed at former NASA Director Sean O'Keefe that are being employed by the Society. Those tactics are an embarrassment. The latest embarrassing salvo was launched in the Society's email newsletter last week. (A version of the newsletter was also published by spacedaily as an article.)
In the newsletter O'Keefe's decision to spend $300 million to de-orbit the Hubble is described this way:
"This proposal is remarkable for its irrationality. NASA calculates that if Hubble were to re-enter without direction, there is a 1/10,000 chance that the resulting debris would strike someone. That works out to a probability of one life saved per $3 trillion spent. If life-saving is the mission, $300 million could do a lot more good spent on tsunami relief, body armor for the troops, highway safety barriers, childhood vaccinations, swimming lessons, take your pick.
Humanitarian and scientific budgets cannot be directly compared, because they serve different objectives. However the proposed Hubble deorbit budget is NOT a scientific expense; its purpose is to save lives, and thus it must be considered a humanitarian
expense, and judged accordingly. A reasonable estimate is that one life is saved for every $3,000 spent on Tsunami relief. At that rate, the decision to waste $300 million in potentially useful humanitarian funds on deorbiting Hubble amounts to the willful killing of roughly 100,000 people – mostly children. It is irresponsible, irrational, and immoral in the extreme."
Actually, what is irresponsible and irrational is to make wild charges that it amounts to the mass murder of 100,000 people to spend money to safely return a large piece of space debris to Earth without harming anyone.
But what is even more problematic with the newsletter is the advice given to Mars Society members. Here's the recommendation:
"Americans committed to a sane, moral, and courageous space policy need to mobilize now to save Hubble. Everyone should call their own Senators and Congressional representatives, ask to speak to their legislative aides, and demand that the SM4 mission to save and upgrade Hubble be reinstated, and that not a penny of the taxpayers' money be spent on the immoral Hubble de-orbit mission.
If NASA has funds available for humanitarian purposes, those funds should be spent to save lives, not wasted to validate the capricious decisions of a Philistine careerist bureaucrat who has since moved on to greener pastures.
Given the decision to maintain the Shuttle flying in a given year, the incremental cost of flying an additional Shuttle mission such as SM4 is only about $100 million. Instead of stupidly and heartlessly wasting $300 million to destroy Hubble, we should
use $100 million to save and upgrade this gem of science and civilization, and spend the other $200 million to save the lives of tens of thousands of destitute children far more worthy of our charity than the Hubble deorbit program. Call congress and tell them so!"
It's counterproductve to the cause of the Mars Society and the manned space program to have Society members call their representatives and tell them the $300 million that was proposed to de-orbit the Hubble would be better spent on Earth saving lives and that Congress should adopt a fall back position that spends $100 million to save the Hubble but takes $200 million (presumably from NASA) and spends it on Earthbound charity.
I know from my own experience of public speaking on the importance of funding the manned space program that inevitably somebody will respond that we should be spending money here on Earth instead. Yet now members of the Mars Society are being asked to call their congressional representatives and tell them to do just that.
I don't care if Hubble is saved or not. I think a good argument can be made that it's time to replace the scope rather than fix it. Consequently I think the Mars Society should not involve itself in a crusade to save the Hubble. The mission of the Society is to promote human exploration of Mars. Saving the Hubble is not part of that mission.
But if saving the Hubble is going to be a part of the Mars Society's mission, it should at least do it in a way that brings credit to the Society rather than shame. It should do it without hyperbolic rhetoric and personal attacks and without adopting the arguments made by opponents of manned space programs.
A reasonable argument to save the Hubble should be limited to stating how much science Hubble has produced, how popular the scope is, how much cheaper fixing it would be than de-orbiting it or launching a new scope, how much more of a useful life we could get out of it with a simple fix, and how we've done it before so we can do it again. If that argument succeeds, great. If the argument fails, it's not the end of the Mars Society or of the manned space program. The goal of saving the Hubble is not so closely tied to the Mars Society's mission that it justifies pulling out all of the rhetorical stops.
-tdr
Labels: Mars
Saturday, January 22, 2005
Hubble, Hubble, toil and trouble.
In a decision that is sure to alienate space activists, astronomers, and members of Congress, and to confuse members of the public, the Bush Administration has bitten the bullet and de-funded any mission to save the Hubble. Space.com's story (linked in the title above) suggests the move was made by the Administration as "an opening gambit in the annual struggle that goes on every budget year, fully expecting that Congress will add money to the agency's budget over the course of the year to pay for a mission that has strong public support."
The Hubble question ought to involve deciding how much is the science that Hubble provides really worth, and how can that science be provided for that cost. Is it better to repair the Hubble? Is it better to replace the Hubble with a new space telescope? Are land-based telescopes good enough now that a space-based telescope is no longer needed?
But the issue won't be decided that simply because it's not really a science issue or a space issue, it's a political issue that is used by special interests to advance their own agendas.
For instance, astronomers unanimously want to save the Hubble. Their position is driven by their own special interest because they get to use the Hubble. Never are they asked whether the science is worth the cost, how much must we spend and for how long to keep this telescope flying, and what they would do if the Hubble is lost. Surely astronomy won't stop in place once the last Hubble gyro freezes.
Space activists have hijacked this issue and taken the position that astronauts should service the telescope. Their motivation for this position is to prove two points, one positive and one negative. The positive point is that humans can fix the telescope better then robots can. Their negative point is to prove that the American space program is not paralyzed by fear. But neither point needs proving. First, NASA has already sent humans to service Hubble in the past so we know that astronauts can do it. Second, whatever anyone may think of NASA and the Space Exploration Initiative, the fact remains that astronauts continue to staff the International Space Station, progress continues towards returning the shuttle to flight, and planning to send humans back to the moon is beginning There seems to have been no thought given to whether spending the millions of dollars that would be needed to service the Hubble might not be better spent on some other human mission. For instance, in the case of the Mars Society's reason for being, sending humans to Mars.
Members of Congress will respond to the issue the way they respond to any issue by acting politically and by protecting their special interests.
In the end, whatever is done to Hubble likely won't be done because it's the most sensible thing to do. It'll be done because the politics support it. Perhaps there's no way around this fact. We went to the moon to prove that capitalism was better than communism not because of any intrinsic worth in going there. But one has to wonder whether this is any way to run a space program.
-tdr
The Hubble question ought to involve deciding how much is the science that Hubble provides really worth, and how can that science be provided for that cost. Is it better to repair the Hubble? Is it better to replace the Hubble with a new space telescope? Are land-based telescopes good enough now that a space-based telescope is no longer needed?
But the issue won't be decided that simply because it's not really a science issue or a space issue, it's a political issue that is used by special interests to advance their own agendas.
For instance, astronomers unanimously want to save the Hubble. Their position is driven by their own special interest because they get to use the Hubble. Never are they asked whether the science is worth the cost, how much must we spend and for how long to keep this telescope flying, and what they would do if the Hubble is lost. Surely astronomy won't stop in place once the last Hubble gyro freezes.
Space activists have hijacked this issue and taken the position that astronauts should service the telescope. Their motivation for this position is to prove two points, one positive and one negative. The positive point is that humans can fix the telescope better then robots can. Their negative point is to prove that the American space program is not paralyzed by fear. But neither point needs proving. First, NASA has already sent humans to service Hubble in the past so we know that astronauts can do it. Second, whatever anyone may think of NASA and the Space Exploration Initiative, the fact remains that astronauts continue to staff the International Space Station, progress continues towards returning the shuttle to flight, and planning to send humans back to the moon is beginning There seems to have been no thought given to whether spending the millions of dollars that would be needed to service the Hubble might not be better spent on some other human mission. For instance, in the case of the Mars Society's reason for being, sending humans to Mars.
Members of Congress will respond to the issue the way they respond to any issue by acting politically and by protecting their special interests.
In the end, whatever is done to Hubble likely won't be done because it's the most sensible thing to do. It'll be done because the politics support it. Perhaps there's no way around this fact. We went to the moon to prove that capitalism was better than communism not because of any intrinsic worth in going there. But one has to wonder whether this is any way to run a space program.
-tdr
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
Let's just build a new Hubble
What to do with Hubble? The debate over how to save this telescope has typically involved choosing between sending a robotic mission to service or de-orbit it or sending a shuttle mission to service it. So far NASA's choice is to send a robotic mission on the ground that a shuttle mission will not be safe enough under the new guidelines in effect since the Columbia disaster.
Now the National Academy of Sciences has weighed in on the side of sending a shuttle mission.
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309095301?OpenDocument
They have a point. The cost of sending a robot to the Hubble simply to de-orbit it has been estimated at about $300 million. However, the estimated cost of sending a robot to do the tricky repair work necessary to keep Hubble running is a hefty $1.6 to $2.3 billion. Worse than this is the fact that the work is so hard for a robot to do that the prospect of a successful robotic rescue mission is not good.
Shuttle astronauts have successfully serviced Hubble four times in the past. However, the cost of each of those missions has been about $1.3 billion, meaning Hubble's cost is $5.2 billion more than its original cost of $2 billion.
Hubble was designed to last about 15 years. It was launched in 1990 so 2005 is when it was designed to end anyway. For the life of me I don't understand why nobody on the inside is stepping back and simply recommending that we build a new Hubble and launch that into orbit. For the cost of fixing a telescope that is near the end of its designed useful life we could have a brand new telescope.
We shouldn't save Hubble. If people weren't so sentimental about Hubble, or weren't using it to advance an unrelated agenda (for instance the way my own Mars Society is using the issue to promote humans in space) we would look at this issue practically and scrap the old telescope and launch a new one. When you own an old car you don't spend as much money to fix it as it cost to buy it in the first place. You sell the old car and buy a new one. Why should it be any different for space telescopes?
Now the National Academy of Sciences has weighed in on the side of sending a shuttle mission.
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309095301?OpenDocument
They have a point. The cost of sending a robot to the Hubble simply to de-orbit it has been estimated at about $300 million. However, the estimated cost of sending a robot to do the tricky repair work necessary to keep Hubble running is a hefty $1.6 to $2.3 billion. Worse than this is the fact that the work is so hard for a robot to do that the prospect of a successful robotic rescue mission is not good.
Shuttle astronauts have successfully serviced Hubble four times in the past. However, the cost of each of those missions has been about $1.3 billion, meaning Hubble's cost is $5.2 billion more than its original cost of $2 billion.
Hubble was designed to last about 15 years. It was launched in 1990 so 2005 is when it was designed to end anyway. For the life of me I don't understand why nobody on the inside is stepping back and simply recommending that we build a new Hubble and launch that into orbit. For the cost of fixing a telescope that is near the end of its designed useful life we could have a brand new telescope.
We shouldn't save Hubble. If people weren't so sentimental about Hubble, or weren't using it to advance an unrelated agenda (for instance the way my own Mars Society is using the issue to promote humans in space) we would look at this issue practically and scrap the old telescope and launch a new one. When you own an old car you don't spend as much money to fix it as it cost to buy it in the first place. You sell the old car and buy a new one. Why should it be any different for space telescopes?
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
About That Hubble Servicing Mission ...
A story in Aviation Week, floats an apparent trial balloon about the fate of the Hubble. The next Hubble servicing mission might be the last one.
But as NASA's Colleen Hartman aptly puts it in the Aviation Week story, "'At some point you are going to come the point where getting a new car is the right thing to do.'" Makes perfect sense to me. (Here.)
-tdr
Technorati:
Hubble, 
astronomy, 
NASA.
"Matt Mountain, director of the Space Telescope Science Institute that manages use of the Hubble, told a Capitol Hill breakfast May 11 that one more servicing mission may be all scientists will want to give Hubble. 'This telescope is 17 years old,' he told a session organized by the Maryland Space Business Roundtable and the California Space Authority. 'It's done an amazing job. But there are other great things we need to do.'" (Here.)I've advocated scrapping the Hubble for over two years now. (Here.) Rather than spending the money, time, and energy trying to keep Hubble going past its "use by" date, we should have been focused on building a replacement. (Here.) But space scientists pushed back hard when plans surfaced to scrap Hubble. The telescope is their baby and they weren't going to let it be abandoned. It will be interesting to see how high this trial balloon flies before space scientists begin to take aim.
But as NASA's Colleen Hartman aptly puts it in the Aviation Week story, "'At some point you are going to come the point where getting a new car is the right thing to do.'" Makes perfect sense to me. (Here.)
-tdr
Technorati:
Hubble, astronomy, NASA.Labels: Astronomy, Hubble, NASA
Friday, February 04, 2005
Hubble, Hubble, Toil and Trouble: A Replacement is Suggested
Finally, somebody is proposing a sensible solution to the Hubble problem. As I've been suggesting for a while now it's time to scrap Hubble and build a replacement. Johns Hopkins University has come up with a plan to do just that. Their proposal would continue the science mission of Hubble but with a newer, more advanced, lighter and cheaper telescope. The instruments slated to be installed on Hubble would be put in this scope instead. This plan would eliminate the need for the manned servicing mission and the nearly impossible robotic servicing mission that have been bandied about for Hubble. Let's hope this plan finds a receptive ear.
-tdr
-tdr
Monday, June 26, 2006
End It Don't Mend It: Let's Build A New Hubble.
The Hubble's main camera stopped working the other day but NASA is confident the problem can be fixed. (Here.) Let's hope so. Whether the camera works again calls to service the space telescope with a Shuttle mission will no doubt start up again. The Hubble was only supposed to last until 2005 and the cost of the repeated Shuttle repair missions has exceeded the original cost to build and launch the thing. (See our prior post here.) So let's just build and launch a new one.
-tdr
Technorati: Hubble, NASA, Astronomy.
-tdr
Technorati: Hubble, NASA, Astronomy.
Monday, April 11, 2005
You Call That A Telescope? Now, That's A Telescope.
Turns out the future of astronomy might be right here on the ground with the development of Extremely Large Telescopes, so big they could fill a sports stadium. According to the story linked above, once built, an ELT would provide resolutions up to 40 times that of Hubble.
Space advocacy groups continue to invest time, money and PR in a crusade to save the Hubble ostensibly for the astronomy the space-based scope produces. Their position is based on a premise that Hubble will remain the best telescope astronomers could have. If an Earth-based ELT will be able to provide better images than Hubble the rationale for supporting a mission to save the space telescope disappears.
-tdr
Space advocacy groups continue to invest time, money and PR in a crusade to save the Hubble ostensibly for the astronomy the space-based scope produces. Their position is based on a premise that Hubble will remain the best telescope astronomers could have. If an Earth-based ELT will be able to provide better images than Hubble the rationale for supporting a mission to save the space telescope disappears.
-tdr
Sunday, May 27, 2007
NASA As An Arts Program.
In our perennial search for a space exploration sales pitch one justification never gets discussed. The space program produces some beautiful art. Check out this NASA webpage of Mars photos (here) for a sampling of the beauty out there that the space program brings home to us. And then look at this Hubble website (here), and Cassini's photo gallery of Saturn (here) for more. We live in a beautiful universe.
-tdr
Technorati:NASA, astronomy, 
space, 
art.
-tdr
Technorati:
NASA, astronomy, space, art.Labels: Aesthetics, Astronomy, Hubble, Mars, NASA, Saturn
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Two Cents On Top Space Stories of 2006.
Space.com is polling readers for the top space story of 2006. The top 10 so far can be seen here. They are about what you'd expect with the hardy and totally lovable little Mars Rovers coming in first, followed by the decision to save Hubble, and NASA's return to flight.
In my view the top space story of 2006 is Bigelow Aerospace's successful launch and continued operation of its inflatable prototype for a private space station. This story signals the promise of private human space operations in orbit. (Here.)
Second would be NASA's awarding of the COTS contracts, which demonstrates the government's move towards reliance on private space companies for operations in lower Earth orbit. (Here.) Tied for second would be the Democratic Party's takeover of the House and Senate, which has immediately imperiled NASA's plans for human space operations. (Here.)
Third is publication of the United States new space policy document which makes official the view that space is a place within America's security and economic spheres of influence. This is a baby step in the direction of undermining the current unrealistic legal regime that governs human activities in space. (Here and here.)
The most ridiculous space story of 2006 is number 8 on the Space.com list. That story is the decision by astronomers to adopt the neighborhood bully definition of planets and fix the Solar System's planetary population at 8. The story gets my vote for most ridiculous story because it reveals how out of touch scientists are from the general public. (Here.)
What's your opinion?
-tdr
Republished once to fix links.
Technorati: NASA, space, astronomy.
In my view the top space story of 2006 is Bigelow Aerospace's successful launch and continued operation of its inflatable prototype for a private space station. This story signals the promise of private human space operations in orbit. (Here.)
Second would be NASA's awarding of the COTS contracts, which demonstrates the government's move towards reliance on private space companies for operations in lower Earth orbit. (Here.) Tied for second would be the Democratic Party's takeover of the House and Senate, which has immediately imperiled NASA's plans for human space operations. (Here.)
Third is publication of the United States new space policy document which makes official the view that space is a place within America's security and economic spheres of influence. This is a baby step in the direction of undermining the current unrealistic legal regime that governs human activities in space. (Here and here.)
The most ridiculous space story of 2006 is number 8 on the Space.com list. That story is the decision by astronomers to adopt the neighborhood bully definition of planets and fix the Solar System's planetary population at 8. The story gets my vote for most ridiculous story because it reveals how out of touch scientists are from the general public. (Here.)
What's your opinion?
-tdr
Republished once to fix links.
Technorati: NASA, space, astronomy.
Labels: Leviathan, NASA, News, Scienceism, Space Captains Of Industry
Thursday, June 23, 2005
What Did Tolkien Know And When Did He Know It?
This is an image of the star Fomalhaut and its ring of dust particles taken by Hubble. (NASA, ESA, Kalas/Graham/UCB, Clampin/NASA/GSFC.) It is the first visible light image of Fomalhaut's ring of dust particles. It's strikingly beautiful. Fans of Lord of the Rings will recognize its similarity to the Eye of Sauron. Face on Mars types are bound to have a field day with this coincidence. Read more about the discovery at http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=dn7564.
Labels: Aesthetics
