From owner-fyi*rwo**VIRGINIA*-EDU@LISTSERV.AIP.ORG  Wed Feb 23 10:47:52 2005
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 10:46:43 -0500
From: fyi@aip.org
Subject: FYI #24: Hubble Hearing
To: rwo@VIRGINIA.EDU

FYI
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News
Number 24: February 23, 2005

Witnesses Question Priority of a Hubble Servicing Mission

The cancellation of a planned shuttle servicing mission to the
Hubble Space Telescope, in the wake of the Columbia shuttle tragedy,
generated much outcry from scientists, the public, and some
lawmakers, and caused NASA to revisit the issue.  Yet at a February
2 House Science Committee hearing, committee members and witnesses
struggled with questions of whether saving the Hubble would be worth
the costs, and what exactly those costs would be.  By the
committee's estimates, the costs for a shuttle servicing mission, a
robotic servicing mission, or a new spacecraft to "re-host" some new
or upgraded Hubble instruments, each would be in the range of $1-2
billion.  The hearing took place the week before President Bush
released his FY 2006 budget request, which does not include any
funding for a Hubble life-extension mission (see
http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/019.html.)

The hearing, Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) explained, was
intended to address three fundamental questions: "Is it worth saving
the Hubble even if that means taking money away from other NASA
programs such as exploration?  Second, and more narrowly, we need to
ask: Is it worth saving the Hubble even if that means taking money
away from other NASA science programs?  And finally, if the answer
to either of those questions is yes, then we need to ask: What's the
best way to save the Hubble - or at least its science - in terms of
cost and risk."  Boehlert declared himself "an agnostic" on the
issue.

As chair of the National Research Council panel that evaluated
options for Hubble, Louis Lanzerotti, of the New Jersey Institute of
Technology, expressed his panel's view that NASA should commit to a
shuttle servicing mission  (see
http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/158.html).  He added, however, that if
such a mission was not possible, the astronomy community should
review the trade-offs involved in other options, such as
"re-hosting" Hubble instruments on a new spacecraft.  Nobel Laureate
Joseph Taylor of Princeton University, co-chair of the most recent
National Academy of Sciences "decadal survey" recommending ten-year
priorities for astronomy and astrophysics, testified that the survey
committee had assumed a shuttle servicing mission to Hubble would
take place.  It would be difficult, he said, to estimate how the
premature loss of the Hubble might alter the committee's priority
list.

Paul Cooper of MD Robotics, the company contracted to build the arm
for robotic servicing of the Hubble, argued that a robotic servicing
mission was "the right thing to do."  Colin Norman of the Johns
Hopkins University, lead scientist on a proposal to re-host Hubble
instruments on a "Hubble Origins Probe" (HOP), called for continuing
"the Hubble adventure" with the HOP.  Space Telescope Science
Institute Director Steve Beckwith stated that it was "essential to
complete the Hubble mission," noting that the proposed James Webb
telescope (planned for a 2011 launch) was intended for several years
of observing overlap with Hubble.  "It would be best to have both,"
Taylor agreed.

However, the witnesses were less sanguine when Boehlert challenged
them by asking their opinions if a Hubble servicing mission deprived
other NASA science programs of $1 billion or more.  Taylor pointed
out that many of the important scientific questions waiting to be
addressed were outside the Hubble's capabilities, and stated that
neither a servicing mission nor rehosting Hubble instruments on a
new platform should be given higher priority than new science
missions.  Lanzerotti said he would "have serious questions" if the
$1 billion was taken from other science programs such as Earth
science or solar-terrestrial programs.

Beckwith questioned the $1 billion figure, remarking that in the
past, NASA charged only several hundred million dollars to the
science budget to fly shuttle servicing missions to Hubble.  If NASA
was now charging $1 billion to science, he said, "I'm not sure how
I'd come down.  That's never been the case in the past."  Taylor and
Beckwith agreed that if the costs were in the $300-400 million
range, a Hubble servicing would be "well worth the cost," but if it
would cost $1-2 billion, the astronomy community should review the
issue.  Lanzerotti asked why NASA would charge $1 billion for a
shuttle mission to the Hubble but not for shuttle missions to the
International Space Station.  "There's a serious accounting issue
here that doesn't compute properly," he commented.  The committee's
Ranking Minority Member, Bart Gordon (D-TN), noted that the
Government Accountability Office examined NASA's cost estimate for a
shuttle servicing mission and found the space agency could not
provide complete documentation for that figure.  Gordon also stated
that, at a February 27, 2002 hearing, the NASA Administrator, Sean
O'Keefe, stated that the cost of a Hubble shuttle servicing mission
had been "grandfathered in" to the five-year budget plan for the
Office of Space Flight.  "Where did the money go?" he asked.  But
Boehlert pointed out that the statement from O'Keefe came at a time
when NASA was beginning a process of changing its accounting
structure to "full cost" accounting.

Regarding the option of re-flying some upgraded Hubble instruments
on an HOP, Taylor, Lanzerotti, and Norman all concurred that the
possibility should be reviewed and prioritized by the astronomy
community.  Lanzerotti expressed concern about the "very large,
significant" science gap between the time Hubble failed and the HOP
was operational.  Norman argued that with its greater capabilities,
HOP could complete the science that Hubble would have performed
during that gap period in a few months.  But Taylor noted that while
it would do some things faster and better, the HOP "doesn't do a lot
of things  as well as the current Hubble."  The great value of
Hubble, Beckwith added, was as a general-purpose observatory, with
the capability to "respond to discoveries we can't foresee."  Taylor
also raised the concern that if the science gap extended to five
years, it could mean "the loss of people in the community."  Asked
about the lifetime of HOP, Norman replied that it was not intended
to be robotically serviceable but would have a minimum lifetime of
five years.

Cooper contended that there would be value to a robotic Hubble
servicing mission beyond simply saving the telescope, as a learning
experience for future spacecraft servicing needs.  "I buy that
argument," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA); "I believe in pushing
the envelope."  But Lanzerotti worried about "using Hubble as a
target vehicle" to practice servicing maneuvers, and argued that
future spacecraft would probably be designed differently, making
experience with the Hubble "probably not directly applicable."

While the President's FY 2006 budget request contains no money for a
servicing mission, the appropriations process now moves to Congress,
where the Hubble has many supporters.  In fact, on the day the
budget request was released, key Senate appropriator Barbara
Mikulski (D-MD) issued a statement that said, in part, "...I am so
disappointed that President Bush has failed to include funding in
this year's budget for a servicing mission that would extend the
life of the Hubble. I led the charge last year to add $300 million
to NASA's budget for a Hubble servicing mission, and I plan to do it
again. I will fight in the United States Senate this year to fund a
servicing mission to Hubble by 2008."

###############
Audrey T. Leath
Media and Government Relations Division
The American Institute of Physics
fyi@aip.org  www.aip.org/gov
(301) 209-3094
##END##########