O'Keefe Under Fire for Hubble, ISS Decisions

chuckpeters writes "The battle over saving Hubble is just starting to heat up! The House Science Committee Democrats released their views and estimates report. Recommendation number two was that until Congress gets better information on the long term costs of Bush's Moon/Mars initiative, NASA's 2005 funding requests should go to existing programs. The House Science Committee has also decided that they want to hear from outside experts on Bush's space initiative. Just as Hubble isn't going quietly into the night, Bush's Moon/Mars plan isn't going quickly into space!"

Comments

Honestly, I think this is what O'Keefe wanted

[pavon]

After the last incident he was given safty guidelines, and he is going to stick to them to the letter. If congress wants to bend them, then fine, but they will be making the call and it will be their asses on the line if something goes wrong not O'Keefes'.

Skip the Moon, Keep Hubble, Go to Mars

[PateraSilk]

The Moon is interesting enough as a scientific object of study, but why go from one gravity well to another to get to a third? Just go to Mars already! (Sorry, been reading Zubrin.)

Hubble's still doing good science. The Voyagers are obselete but we're still listening to them for that very reason.

Space (NASA) cuts across party lines

[ianscot]

There's a tendency to read partisan maneuvering into stories like this -- that letter from the Nobel scientists recently about the Bush administration short-circuiting the process by which science gets applied to policy is another tempting example. Here we have a Democratic critic of the way Bush's NASA policy is being forwarded, right?

But NASA has always cut across party lines in ways that belie the stereotypes we have about our parties.

For example, Walter Mondale bitterly opposed the space shuttle program in the Senate -- back when Richard Nixon was engaged in OSP-style deceptions about the cost estimates per shuttle flight in order to "sell" the shuttle. Here's an article with some text from a letter he wrote outlining the reasons for his opposition. Key bits:

• "...another example of perverse priorities and colossal waste in government spending. There is expert evidence that we can achieve the same scientific and utilitarian goals in space at only a fraction of the billions to be spent on the shuttle."
• "...there are certainly more sensible ways to create new jobs than by an enormous federal boondoggle."

The author of that linked article, Joseph Rodota, wrote it as an indictment of "a long line of liberals opposed to space exploration."

Hmm. Does anything seem backward about this situation to you? Rodota's talking about "the importance of big ideas" over fiscal responsibilities? Mondale's decrying the senseless cost?

Basically the critic here is saying "Before we put the ax to programs like Hubble, we want to be sure we've made the right choice, and the public will want to see that decision-making process. Sean O'Keefe shouldn't make this one himself without us having access to the process."

This is about killing the shuttle...

[barfy]

This isn't about going to mars... This isn't about killing the Hubble per se...

It is about killing the Shuttle,ISS, and to a large extent the last bastion on big federal science...

The argument is that you can't get to the space station if something happens to the shuttle while servicing Hubble.

The way that you kill the space program, (the shuttle and ISS are the major targets. Hubble is just an unfortunate casualty). Is to change the priorities from existing ones that take real money, to non-existing ones that are so expensive that they can be cancelled later.

Hubble may be what saves the space program, is spite of the best laid plans of those that would like to see it killed.

Hubble being replaced by better telescope

[shakparl]

I have a friend that works at NASA Stennis Space Center in MS (who incidentally admins a beowulf cluster for rocket testing), and he says the Hubble is simply being taken down to be replaced by several other, better telescopes, including ones that detect infrared and gamma radiation. Apparently the cost of maintaining it and keeping it in orbit is more than the benefits of putting new ones up, given his brief explanation. Anyone have any more info on this?

Which planet do we really need?

[fm6]

I like the idea of actual honest (i.e. manned) space exploration too. But if we're really serious, we need to talk about building up a permanent presence in space. That means not just sending somebody to another planet to plant a flag. That means building a permanent infrastructure that will support continued expansion. That means investing in a reliable high-capacity, high-orbit vehicle. (The Shuttle is none of these things.) This is the first step in building real space platforms, maybe even orbital industries and that are economically self-sustaining. That is the basis for real exploration of the planets, not another expensive TV show.

Serious space program

[Gr8Apes]

1. Replace the shuttle, yesterday, with true space capable systems:
   1. Develop lightweight manned launch system
   2. Develop heavy lift unmanned, or lightly manned launch system
2. Build a true space station, not a low earth orbit guaranteed to be just about useless station.
3. Once the previous are done, development of a moon/mars shuttle type spacecraft (not the shuttle) and landing system should be developed
4. Go to moon, build base, most likely for mostly scientific studies, low manned capability, hopefully autonomous for most things (i.e., low cost - sending enough bio-material for lengthy manned stays is quite expensive, even with appropriate support systems)
5. Go to mars, build base (see moon base). If mars proves sustainable after initial base, then commit to a true base.
6. 1. Build space station around Mars
   2. Expand Mars base
7. continue exploration