The Speculist

Save the Hubble

I hope this movement gains momentum:

Astronomers were stunned when Nasa's chief, Sean O'Keefe, decided on 16 January to cancel the fifth, and final, visit of the space shuttle to service the Hubble Space Telescope (HST).

A service call is essential to ensure Hubble's smooth operation until the end of the decade.

The telescope has only three working gyroscopes, down from its compliment of six, and cannot afford to lose any more.

O'Keefe decided that in the wake of the Columbia disaster it was unwise to send astronauts on a shuttle mission that could not reach the safety of the International Space Station in the event of a problem.

I find it unacceptable that a beautiful and elegant piece of technology like the Hubble should have its fate tied to that of the albatross space shuttle. The shuttle needs to go, the Hubble needs to stay, and the friends of the Hubble need to get past this kind of zero-sum-game thinking:

"Let the voters say: 'We don't want to go to the moon! We want to go to infinity and beyond!'," said [save the Hubble organizer] Mr Ribeiro.

I see no reason why we can't pursue both. Saving the Hubble would be a great project for the nascent private space industry. It might be a good way to move the robotics industry along, as well. How much would it cost to send a private, fully automated, unmanned service unit up to work on the Hubble? My guess is that it would cost a lot less than a shuttle launch. NASA (or realistically, someone else, since NASA isn't likely to do anything like this) should put up a reasonable amount of money and let the free market save the Hubble.

UPDATE: Speaking of the Shuttle (and reasons it has to go) Rand Simberg makes note of the interesting convergence of the anniversaries of the Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia tragedies.