I received an email from an astronomer pointing out an article in today's Gray Lady that says a Hubble mission might be as safe, or safer, than an ISS mission. I've omitted the emailer's name in case there's any political sensitivity.

While I don't subscribe to Josh Marshall's hoax theory about NASA's new focus, I do believe that the NASA hierarchy has been less than truthful concerning changes to its mission goals. When Sen. Barbara Mikulski called Sean O'Keefe concerning the cancellation of shuttle missions to Hubble, he told her that the decision was a combination of money and safety concerns. Once he heard from her that money might not be a problem, his message changed to that of safety alone. Indeed, Jon Grunsfeld's first comments about the mission cancellation also mentioned money, but safety has now become the overriding arguement, as it is harder to dispute from the outside.

As an astronomer, I'm concerned about the future of basic astronomical research under the new NASA. NASA has quietly put off for at least a year, perhaps more, funding for its MIDEX and SPEX smaller space astronomical instrument missions and cut back funding for approved programs, and O'Keefe's press conference about the budget was not friendly to basic science (unless you are studying the science of weightlessness on the human body) or space astronomy. Now, this is NASA's perogative --- as my husband says, none of the "A"s in NASA stand for "astronomy" --- but I can't help but think that the broader public might not be concerned about the decline of the one science everyone seems to find compelling and approachable. And it was Bush's father who made a similar announcement about big goals for the US space program, which then petered out into nothing. It doesn't take political animus to fear that current path could lead to little progress.

Anyway, I emailed you because I haven't seen much sign that, outside of those of us who are directly affected, people have appreciated how much the new NASA focus is pulling money away from space science instrumentation and research. I'd like to see some discussion on this issue.

Well, I'm on record as believing that we ought to go ahead with the flight, and safety shouldn't even be an issue, but that's not politically correct these days. But I do believe that's the primary driver for the decision, and don't think that O'Keefe is being in any way disingenuous--at least I have no reason right now to think so. Risk assessments are always judgement calls, and while one engineer's analysis may be perfectly valid, it's always possible to find others who disagree, and NASA is erring on the side of caution right now, in response to the Gehman Commission and a reaction (and probably overreaction) to what happened a year ago.

However, I think that it's a little too early to tell whether or not the new initiative will be good, or bad, for space science and astronomy in general. People are inferring from the fact that the Hubble decision was announced after the president's speech that it was somehow a result of it. It wasn't. They were both a result of the same root cause--last year's loss of Columbia.

Actually, history indicates that we have the most vibrant space science program when we have a vibrant manned program as well (though it's not clear whether that will be the case for deep-space astronomy). For example, as far as I know, Webb remains on track.

But what fans of space telescopes should really be doing is cheering on people working to reduce costs (i.e., not NASA), because that's going to make it affordable for universities to put up their own suites of multi-mirror space telescopes. And if we really do set up a lunar base, farside will make a great place for a radiotelescope, blocked from the noisy earth.

I'm working on the return to flight effort at NASA, so I've seen a lot of the internal working documents and pitches. I'd sure like to see this engineer's analysis that shows we could repair a shuttle away from station. All of the presentations I've seen, including one for anNASA internal safety panel, show that it will be difficult to do any repairs at the station and nobody has a good way of doing the repairs without use of the station robot arm. There are still quite a few unknowns about ISS-based repair that are being analyzed right now, and margins fo all kind are quite thin.

Oh, and it pains me that that O'Keefe had to take a Hubble mission off the manifest, as I have an astronomy degree.......

According to the article, he didn't say that we could repair a Shuttle away from the station. I think the point was that we don't currently have a way to do it in either place.

Just wondering how safe doing astronomy at Mauna Kea is? The drive to summit is bit of a white knuckle trip and the vistor center had some impressive crash pictures and warned of the invisible cows to scare the unprepared for making the drive to the top.
It would be real easy to lose 7 people in a plunge, of course a SUV costs less than a shuttle.

Yes, I made exactly the same point to someone at sci.space.policy who said that we "shouldn't risk human lives" to service a space telescope.

I would prefer to see the shuttle fly a mission to service the Hubble than go anywhere near the space station. As long as we have the shuttle, it might as well be serve a useful function, and going to the space station is not very useful.

The risk isn't just to people - the orbiters right now are invaluable. If we lose another one, the last two will probably never fly again. That puts the risk of every mission extremely high - a loss of an orbiter could mean the eventual loss of ISS, and that's a 100 billion dollar investment.

If there's a 1 in 100 chance of losing an orbiter on each flight, then you can add a 'risk' cost of 1 billion dollars to each flight. That has to be factored into any cost/benefit analysis of a Hubble repair flight.

As for the risk of flying ISS missions - the risk of losing an orbiter is slightly lower because of the possibility of an in-flight repair, but the risk to astronauts is much lower, because if the Shuttle is damaged they can stay on ISS while a rescue flight is launched from either Russia or another shuttle.

I agree that we should be willing to take more risks with people than we do - Burt Rutan said it well when he said that one of the problems with the space program is that we aren't killing enough astronauts. The old X plane programs were highly successful - and highly dangerous. But this ignores the political reality of the highly visible space program. Kill another shuttle full of astronauts, and no more shuttle will leave the pad.

I would love to see Hubble stay in service - the 'Origins' program is one of the most important things NASA does, in my opinion. But I can also understand the rationale behind the cancellation of HSM-4.

"loss of ISS, and that's a 100 billion dollar investment"
Investment or obligation ? President used the latter in his speech.

What "major space initiative" could the President have proposed instead of manned planetary exploration?
---
Right now the only alternative I can think of is "Shuttle II" -- at least if the goal is presenting a relatively conventional big government space initiative before the November elections. Libertarian CATS afficionados keep saying government bureaucrats can't develop reusable launch vehicles, but I think it's more a question of required effort vs. perceived national need. The National Aerospace Plane ($2 billion), X-33 ($1 billion), Advanced Launch System ($500 million), National Launch System/"Spacelifter" ($100 million), SDIO SSTO/Delta Clipper-X ($100 million) and X-34 ($200 million) may have been comparatively costly prototype projects, but they all fizzled out after spending only a fraction of the total expected life cycle cost. Why? Technical problems, certainly, but the fundamental problem 5-15 years ago was nobody really needed the capability badly enough. We're talking about a comparatively advanced, costly and risky launch vehicle development program here. On the other hand, the X-15 and XB-70 supersonic bomber projects also encountered significant technical problems and cost overruns but they were not cancelled because the government felt it needed to have the capability.
---
Could O'Keefe & co. have taken the RLV path instead of proposing a human return to the Moon? I think it is unlikely considering the marginal benefits and soaring costs of the Space Launch Initiative, which at the time of the Columbia accident was morphing into a very marginal "mini-shuttle" concept (Orbital Space Plane). However, it is also increasingly obvious the Shuttle must be retired as soon as possible, so the United States arguably needs a new manned vehicle more than ever. Maybe a more expensive RLV development effort could be justified *if* the primary user were the Department of Defense! I don't believe there is a sufficiently large and firmly proven non-military market for a commercial reusable orbital launch vehicle right now, but the DoD has been talking about small rapid access to space vehicles for almost 30 years. It is not an essential military capability by any stretch of the imagination, but who knows what the geopolitical situation will be like ten years from now? Maybe the Chinese will be a major threat to U.S. interests in space, for example. A military RLV might also be a part of the ballistic missile defense program, so it generally fits in with this Administration's military priorities.
---
If we assume the Shuttle is retired in 2010, it should be possible to transfer $3-4 billion/year from NASA's budget to the military space program. Assuming a first flight in 2014-15, the contractors would have a total development budget of $12-15 billion or so at their disposal -- plus several billions for preliminary research & technology development in FY 2005-09 (=SLI/OSP program). This *should* be enough for an air-launched X-15 type orbital spaceplane, don't you think? NASA would be a partner in the project and one version would be capable of transporting astronauts, but it would primarily be a military project managed by USAF. It would not replace the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles, but it would support some missions that are not feasible using existing ELVs. In contrast, the Shuttle program was managed by NASA with the USAF as a (reluctant) minor partners and the Space Transportation System was supposed to replace all existing ELVs except for the Scout. That plan obviously did not work out very well, so a slightly different approach would be preferable.

What do you think? Rand lamented the fact that the President opted to revive Apollo rather than X-15. I think he has a point! Since the late 1930s, the most important technology driver in aviation has been military applications. For example, the modern civil air transport industry pretty much owes its existence to WW II/Cold War investments. In contrast, "free enterprise bicycle shops" have not been on the forefront of technology since the days of the Schneider Trophy. So, it seems more logical to expect military organisations to push for frequent access to space, since they are the only ones who might be able to afford the cost and risk of developing a CATS transportation system...

MARCU$

Dan, we could continue with two orbiters--it's not as vital to protect the fleet now that we plan to phase Shuttle out anyway.

And Marcus, when you say "If we assume the Shuttle is retired in 2010, it should be possible to transfer $3-4 billion/year from NASA's budget to the military space program," this betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the budget process.

There's no relationship between NASA's budget and the DoD's. They are funded by completely different appropriations committees. As we've seen in this administration in particular, it's not a zero-sum game. If the DoD needs more money for something, it gets it, regardless of what the NASA (or any other) budget is.

I do agree that the military is more likely to decide they need routine low-cost access than NASA, but neither government agency needs (or wants) it as much as the tourism industry.

Hi guys,

I'm the astronomer who sent the above email to Rand (thanks for publishing it). I liked the NYT article mainly because it pointed out that shuttle missions to ISS can be as dangerous as missions to Hubble (the ISS is only a safe haven if you reach it, for example) and that as a result, many of the safety measures required for a Hubble mission (a second shuttle on the pad) may have to be implemented for all shuttle missions, anyway.

However much it is a professional disappointment to me, the cancellation of SM4 strikes me as justifiable --- the danger hasn't changed, but after Columbia, our perception of the danger has. Hubble is a great instrument, but it's expensive and it won't live forever. It was the delay, for "at least" a year, of the proposal cycle for MIDEX and SPEX instruments that shocked me. I really like these missions: for about $180 million for the former and $50 million for the latter, you get highly specialized, relatively low-risk scientific instruments. They would have filled the gap between Hubble and JWST quite nicely and perhaps allowed us to recycle COS and WFC3, the two instruments that were supposed to be installed on Hubble in SM4.

As it is, it looks like we are about to enter a fallow period in space astronomy. There is now nothing on the horizon for ultraviolet astronomy (which cannot be done on the ground): FUSE and HST are nearing the ends of their lives and COS, which was supposed to go on HST in SM4, is looking to be mothballed at the moment. JWST will be a great infrared telescope, but it isn't scheduled until 2011 and requires some ground-breaking engineering (like a mirror that unfolds after launch) that is likely to lead to delays. Constellation-X, the long-term successor to Chandra, had its funding cut because of SM4, but of course the money didn't come back when SM4 was cancelled.

All of this may be boring to those of you outside the field and my doom and gloom is definitely influenced by the fact that my baby (COS) and my job have both been put on the chopping block. Astronomy funding ebbs and flows, and who knows where it will be in 5 or 10 years? I like the idea of NASA's new initiative --- we should be thinking of moving out into space --- but I would hate to see sharp cuts now in space science funding and then have the long-term goal peter out, as it has before.

Y'all just keep the light shining on NASA and keep them on their toes, okay?

Rand: Sure, the fleet could continue with two orbiters. But would it? I think the political reality is that if we lost another shuttle so soon, the other two would not fly again. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the timid nature of NASA indicates to me that that's what would happen.

Yes, I think it would. The policy is to complete the station--it's very difficult to do that without the Shuttle. We're retiring the fleet anyway, so one might as well use them until the system cannot be used any more.

I come to flog "shuttle derived" once again.

If ISS components were launched via shuttle B/C an orbiter could be launched and basically left on orbit for the remainder of its useful life. Isn't most of CAIB focused on making the orbiter safe for re-entry? So, skip the re-entry.

Use a small crew of 2 or 3. The orbiter doesn't need to come back if the crew can rotate via Soyuz/CEV at ISS. Dock the orbiter with ISS and launch ISS pieces via shuttle B/C as fast as Pad 39 can accomplish. The orbiter goes out to collect the pieces and installs them on ISS.

The really cool part (IMHO) is if Michoud could build a mini-main tank that could be launched on shuttle B/C. The permanently on-orbit orbiter has no need for its tiles so strip them off before launch and add the ability to rendevouz with a freshly filled mini-main tank.

Then use the SSMEs to accomplish significant plane changes and return to ISS. OMS refuleing is an issue and maybe a re-design to allow modular "plug and play" manuevering thrusters would be needed to allow servicing and replacement in LEO. If the orbiter could be re-fueled on orbit then we would have a genuinely useful space utility tug.

Given the greater payload and lower handling costs of shuttle C versus the orbiter we might come close to doing this all within the $35 billion earmarked for STS between now and program termination. And have a really useful asset come 2010.

Or we can mothball 3 multi-billion dollar orbiters in the Smithsonian.

Dan has it right, I think. Sure, it is political. The shuttles are needed to complete the station (there are no plans for building the heavy lifter). If one was lost building the station it would be terrible, but politically acceptable, there might even be further launches. But if one were lost "just" to add a few years operation to a telescope, it would be political suicide for everyone involved. Yes, I'd go on the mission myself if I had a chance, and I absolutely think it is justified, but there are too many people that don't "get" the pretty pictures from Hubble, let alone the real science that it provides.