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

We need Mars

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we need a manned Mars mission badly, and I Am worried the Democrats will kill it just because Bush signed off on the idea. It would be great to keep Hubble but how long can we put off manned space exploration? We have been dragging our collective heels now since the end of the Apollo missions.

Plus, I'd actually like to see it happen in my lifetime.

Re:We need Mars

[jatencio]

I would like to people go to Mars in my lifetime as well. However, I do not think we should go so far as to remove research that is good science for fantasies and risks that just do not need to made at this time. The Hubble telescope and various projects should not be scraped in order to go to Mars. I think Hubble's recent deep space images is enough to show that it is still useful and valuable.

Re:We need Mars

[Lord Apathy]

Nice way to start an intelligent conversation there, buckweetie but I'll bite. Your a fool if you think robots are adaquate for anything other than scoping out the place. For instance the current 2 robots are telling us that water flowed on Mars. How reliable is that? Not very, untill a geologists gets to mars and looks at the rocks first hand we'll never know for sure.

Robots don't have intutition ether. Some of the greatest discoveries in sience have been done because a scientist right at the moment decited to do something else. Your robot might be looking at the rock in front of him and miss the fossel beside it.

Re:We need Mars

[thrillseeker]

Except he won't kill it. He just won't fund it.

Bush doesn't fund - Congress does that - and you can answer whether it will get funded or not by surmising whether social programs or science will get funded, asking which one will buy more votes, and which party believes in one over the other.

Re:We need Mars

[jatencio]

Well, I think the current Mars mission is proof that we can do some real science and still get the public involved. I think was NASA has been doing recently with Mars has been fascinating and I would like us to continue our space exploration.

Survival comes first - pretty pictures come next.

I whole heartily agree. And a lot of research can be done about survival right here on Earth. Not only that, by the time we will be ready for Mars, we should know enough about survival to sustain a small population on Mars. Currently, we cannot do so. If Earth was wiped out tomorrow and we had people on Mars. They would be pretty much screwed because they still need to be supported here on Earth.

Re:We need Mars

[SB9876]

We lived in the ignorance of the danger of large extraplanetary impactors until very recently and it hasn't done us in yet. A base on Mars won't be a viable escape plan for at least a century until the Mars base becomes truly self-sufficient. Until then, we're much better off doing cataloging of asteroids and getting a better understanding of the solar system around us - which is information derived from the very sort of science you want to cut with the Mars mission.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a manned Mars mission but not at the cost of gutting a very successful robotic space program which already uses far less money than our rather poor manned space program. If you want to find a place to cut budgets, kill the ISS - it isn'ta valid starting point for going to Mars because of the orbital inclination and is basically useless from a scientific perspective.

Something like %35 of the NASA scientific papers in the last decade have come from Hubble and the repair mission would cost 2% of the estimated cost to finish the ISS. It's just perverse to kill Hubble and then continue to work on the ISS which is a much bigger money hog. If we want to send people to Mars, we need to be decisive and just do it. The only way NASA can be decisive about it is to free up the majority of its budget. The only way it can do that is to remove the Shuttle and ISS funding and direct it towards the focussed devlopment of technology directly related to getting to Mars and the Moon.

Furthermore, if you want to inspire the public, look at the unmanned space missions. A far larger proportion of the public is familiar with the Hubble and the Mars rovers than with the ISS. The former have returned enourmous amounts of valuable scientific information and been the most popular attractions at the NASA website. It sys something that the heavist traffic in the history of NASA came from a pair of robotic rovers.

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'.

HERES THE ANSWER

[stratjakt]

Kick ass telescope on the far side of the moon.

The end.

People are taking W's proposal seriously?!?

[burgburgburg]

Oh, come on. W's Moon/Mars proposal is less funded than "No Child Left Behind". He wasn't being serious. He was trying to distract everyone from the fact that the deficit was so severe (and set to get much worse if he gets the tax cuts changed to permanent) that he doesn't have room to do anything real. Hence:

W: Where are we going?
US: Mars!
W: When are we going?
US: Real soon!

O'keefe

[USAPatriot]

Listening to O'keefe on a press conference about a month ago, when he addressed the Hubble issue in detail, it all became clear to me: It's pure politics.

After the CAIB, he was blasted, questioned and doubted to no end, so what does a skilled polititian do? cut your losses and move on. Well, he did just that. So now he's gonna follow the CAIB like it's the road to salvation. To the letter.

The CAIB puts forward a number of requirements for shuttle flights, including the ability to service the Shuttle via ISS if something goes wrong...among a host of other "inconvenient" requirements.

O'keefe decided to follow the CAIB to the letter so that means that going to the hubble will "break the laws" of the CAIB (Hubble is in an entirely different, incompatible orbit...still you'd think that being the thing called SHUTTLE it shouldn't be an issue, but it is)

So servicing the Hubble will violate his mandate to play it safest and thus it won't happen because it's "too risky" according to the CAIB mantra.

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.

Re:DO NOT KILL THE MARS PROGRAM

[HarveyBirdman]

If you've got real reasons to oppose manned Martian exploration, fine, then say so.

OK. It would be a resource draining, PR boondoggle that would follow the same pattern as Apollo. We work hard so a few people can bounce around on the surface of another world, and then the public loses interest, resulting in another 40 year setback, and no serious move into space in my lifetime.

We need to start doing the solid, logical, incremental steps into space that we should have started in the 1950's. Orbital industry, solar power farms, something at L4/L5, then a permanent colony on the Moon and THEN Mars. NASA should bend over backward to encourage the private sector. Get serious radical new launch tech, like space elevators and lasers and mass drivers.

Re:DO NOT KILL THE MARS PROGRAM

[0123456]

"Do NOT try to kill manned Mars exploration just because you hate Bush. That's pretty fuckin' petty."

I don't want to kill it because I hate Bush, I want to kill it because it's a pointless and expensive boondoggle that serves no rational purpose. We've already blown tens of billions of dollars sending government bureaucrats to one barren rock, why spend hundreds of billions sending them to another barren rock?

But then I don't have to worry about that, because as far as I can see, the plan is that once ISS and the shuttle have been killed, the Moon/Mars budget will be cut and NASA's manned space program will die: maybe they'll be allowed to keep the OSP/CRV/CEV capsule or whatever it's called these days and send up an astronaut or two a year, if they're lucky.

There will be a day when it makes sense for people to go to Mars. But those people will be called 'tourists' and they'll be paying their own way on transports far cheaper and more sophisticated than anything NASA is going to come up with in the next few decades.

Election year again...

[homerjs42]

I hate election year politics. In an election year the whole political process becomes a zero-sum -- the Democrats want to prevent the Republicans from accomplishing anything that looks good, and the Republicans want to prevent the Democrats from doing anything that could be construed as positive. So who actually is losing in this case? NASA, the taxpayers, and (probably) whoever loses in the election. But all in all it sucks. Lets just divert the government funding for candidates to NASA and maybe we could get some interesting news.

Go ahead, mod me offtopic (It really isn't, though)

What do you want?

[panxerox]

"Just as Hubble isn't going quietly into the night, Bush's Moon/Mars plan isn't going quickly into space!" And thats what we all want .. right? To dump money into a project that is at the end of it's lifespan, granted the project was wildly successfull. And belittle the project that we all wanted to see succed as kids just because you don't like Bush? The space program is more important than any one president or one project or one election. When I see the democrats talk about the president "wasting money" on the space program I want to scream. Don't get me wrong I have some strong misgivings about Bush's policys and the direction that he's taking the country, but this just goes to show where the Democratic party is these days i.e. anywhere the president isent even if where he is is right. The Democratic party used to be all for the space program, where are they now, they have traded the future of the human race in for a few votes. I know I'm gonna get slammed with negs for this but I don't care this pisses me off.

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.

Re:It make sense, since it all about politics

[fm6]

The full effects of the NASA vision change won't be felt until probably the _next_ election cycle.

You think the local politicians and business leaders in Ohio and Florida are ignorant of how this program would affect them? They now have a huge incentive to get Bush re-elected. A little extra enthusiasm in this area translates to a lot of extra votes.

Of course, it's always possible that Bush is idealistically pushing this program with no thought of benefiting from it politically. And if you believe that, I've got this bank account you can help me get out of Nigeria...

Re:The Usefulness of HST

[mph]

Apparently, the scientific community think that the Hubble has become limited in usefulness. The new observatory observes infrared and some visible (though not optical blue.) Everything is red-shifted, they say, so visible light telescopes like Hubble serve no purpose.

Everything in the world (or orbiting it) is limited in usefulness. Things are built by imperfect humans, with finite resources and finite knowledge. Saying that the scientific community says Hubble "serves no purpose" is a gross, terrible misrepresentation of the astronomers' stance.

I am an astronomer. I do not want to see Hubble decommissioned, nor do I consider it useless. Nor does any astronomer I've talked to. Nor does the American Astronomical Society, the largest professional society of astrnomers. Your statement is simply absurd. HST time continues to be heavily oversubscribed, and numerous papers using HST data are produced daily.

Your argument seems to arise from HST having a planned succesor, JWST, which will be better in many, but not all, respects than HST. That does not make HST useless. Take a look at ground-based telescopes; despite the 10-meter Keck telescopes, the 5-meter Palomar telescope remains a very useful astronomical tool, and so does the 60-inch Palomar telescope, which was recently renovated and automated. HST would not become "useless" even if JWST existed today, and is sure as hell not "useless" with JWST years away.

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?

If you really care about the HST

[mveloso]

If you care about the HST write your senator, don't vent on slashdot. Words here mean nothing, but a cogent, well-reasoned letter to your senator may make a difference.

The last requirement may be a stretch for some readers, but one can always hope.

Find your senator at: http://www.senate.gov/

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

Fuckin' a

[Burgundy Advocate]

Bush's Moon/Mars plan isn't going quickly into space!

Wonderful. So the only US program towards a manned spacecraft is facing difficulties while we're trying to save the ISS and Hubble.

Did it ever occur to these politicians that we might need some way to actually deliver people to the ISS and service the Hubble? Furthermore, with Soyuz, there's no guarantees -- the Russians aren't exactly in the best shape in the world. I hate to rely on them... especially considering the lack of capacity/capability.

Honestly I wish they had stuck with the Orbital Space Plane plan of attack, and started a new program towards Mars. It seems like this happens with every new concept at NASA. A program is started, it gets a decent way, and somebody decides it'd be better to do something different. We desperately need to stay the course with at least one program in five or so. How much money have we waisted already with this sort of abortion?

Furthermore, the "it costs too much" really pisses me off. NASA's FY04 budget was $15.5 billion. The increase in the Military budget -- not including the costs of our various wars around the world -- was $16.9 billion from FY03 to FY04. The overall military budget for FY04 was $399.1 billion. With wars included, it's even higher.

Should we turn a blind eye to this rampant military waste while putting NASA under a microscope?

In the long run, what's more important?

Fuckin' a. Sometimes I hate being human.

Re:Fuckin' a

[demachina]

"Did it ever occur to these politicians that we might need some way to actually deliver people to the ISS and service the Hubble? Furthermore, with Soyuz, there's no guarantees -- the Russians aren't exactly in the best shape in the world. I hate to rely on them... especially considering the lack of capacity/capability."

You've GOT TO BE KIDDING (TROLLING). Soyuz and the Russians are infinitely more reliable than NASA technicly and they've always found the funds to keep launching Soyuz. If the U.S. hadn't forced them to deorbit Mir they would probably still be using it.

About the only thing the U.S. has to worry about is the Russian's will tell the American's to take a hike and only fly non American astronauts as retaliation for the fact the U.S. has become an obnoxious dick under the Bush administration.

The Russians have started development of a six man Soyuz replacement which now appears to be the only avenue to fully man the ISS so their is some manpower to do something beside maintain it.

If I were to lay bets I would put all my money on the Russian effort versus NASA developing ANY new manned launch vehicle. NASA and its pork fed contractors have simply lost the ability to bend metal.

Too much "Safety"

[Virtucon]

Who ever said getting onto a pile of explosives was inherently safe? Who ever said leaving the atmosphere and hurtling around at 18K MPH was safe? The problem here isn't one of technology or volunteers waiting to go into space; hell I would.

The problem is political will and political correctness. Nobody seems to shed a tear for the soldiers getting KIAed in IRAQ or Afghanistan, it's past news. The families and friends care, but we as citizens don't. However when a $1B shuttle breaks up over Texas, OMG, stop everything, we have to be "safe." This bullcrap about being PC and "safe" is counter to every exploration ever undertaken.

It took Risk to put Hubble into Orbit. It took people like Storey Musgrave to fix it in orbit, in a space suit hurtling at 18K MPH. Those were risks. Now, we have to have "contingencies" "backups" hell, I long for the days when politicians weren't running NASA, when they had a vision and took risks.

If Lindberg hadn't taken a risk, if the guys in St. Louis hadn't taken a risk, if Ryan aircraft hadn't taken a risk, there'd be no Transatlantic crossing.

Routan and the X Prize folks are taking risks and hopefully, with our prayers and support, will wrench the exploration of space out of the hands of the beaurocrats and politicians who want space exploration, without risk, which is never, ever going to happen.

Accidents will happen in the future. Hell, people still fly in 747s after TWA 800 don't they? People fly in Airbus 3XXs don't they, despite it's safety record.

Life is full of risk, as George Carlin says "take a F***ing chance!"

Fix Hubble, fix the foam, put the shuttles back online and get the next manned vehicle system back online. If you bozos at NASA can't figure it out, I'm sure all of that old CapCom equipment stored in the VAB can be turned back on and we can launch Apollos on Saturn 1Bs or Vs again. Hell, the Russians still launch Soyuz capsules that were developed in the 60s, so why can't we reuse what we've already learned?

Ahh, too much risk, I see. Maybe we should all stay in bed with the covers pulled over our heads.

Re:O'Keefe

[comedian23]

> Conservatives love killing off all parts of government not associated with the military or law enforcement.

Well there is certainly military value in space, so that point is moot. Also the NASA budget DECREASED under Clinton a number of times and was actually lower when he left office than when he started( and this doesn't include inflation either) and this was during the prime years of the dot-com boom too where the government was rolling in money. Bush is INCREASING the total budget. Data is below:

1993 $14.309 billion, existing NASA budget when Clinton took office;

1994 $14.568 billion, $259 million increase, first Clinton budget;

1995 $13.853 billion, $715 million decrease;

1996 $13.885 billion, $32 million increase;

1997 $13.709 billion, $176 million decrease;

1998 $13.648 billion, $61 million decrease;

1999 $13.654 billion, $6 million increase;

2000 $13.601 billion, $53 million decrease;

2001 $14.253 billion, $652 million increase;

2002 $14.892 billion, $639 million increase, first Bush budget;

2003 $15.000 billion, $108 million increase (estimated);

2004 $15.469 billion, $469 million increase (proposed);

>and this new program simply isn't viable

Why? Not that I agree or disagree but this is a pretty sweeping statement to claim without backup. Which parts of the Moon and Mars plans are not viable? What do you like about the Hubble, and ISS which you would like spared? Give us details, not generalized Bush bashing.

-Comedian

Where have I heard this before?

[kippy]

This has been the thinking at NASA for the past 30 years "we need to find out more about X before we go to Mars".

This got us the shuttle program and ISS. The benefits of both I could count on one hand and the wastefulness of which is depressing to think about. While futzing around in low earth orbit for 30 years, we haven't learned anything that we couldn't have if Apollo had continued.

To steal a page from Robert Zubrin, the shuttle paradigm is like if Queen Isabella had sent Columbus out 100 miles to sea and sit there for a few months to study the effects of being on a boat for a long time.

We understand what it's like to survive in space and how to do it. More research is always needed but what's needed more is bold initiative.