posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
purplecthulhu at 03:26pm on 16/01/2004
purplecthulhu at 03:26pm on 16/01/2004BBC news is reporting that the new Bush space plan will lead to the abandonment of future servicing missions to Hubble. This means no WFPC3 and no COS (that's Wide Field & Planetary Camera 3, and the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph). These were both due to be launched on the next shuttle servicing flight. The BBC reports that the new plan will lead to HST becoming useless in 5 years which is probably coded for 'we'll shut it down in 5 years to save money'.
Quite where this will leave US astronomy, which gets a load of funding via HST, or where it leaves other NASA missions is unclear.
What is clear is that this new Bush plan is already affecting science. When congress fails to give it extra funding, as they failed to give Daddy's Mars plan funding, where will NASA be left then?
I have a feeling this is going to be the beginning of the end of NASA.
Where that leaves joint NASA/ESA projects, such as the Planck and Herschel satellites that I'm working on, is unclear, but it is rather worrying. People involved in earth observation missions should probably be even more worried, and should probably think about moving to Europe.
The BBC news article is available here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3405249.stm
Quite where this will leave US astronomy, which gets a load of funding via HST, or where it leaves other NASA missions is unclear.
What is clear is that this new Bush plan is already affecting science. When congress fails to give it extra funding, as they failed to give Daddy's Mars plan funding, where will NASA be left then?
I have a feeling this is going to be the beginning of the end of NASA.
Where that leaves joint NASA/ESA projects, such as the Planck and Herschel satellites that I'm working on, is unclear, but it is rather worrying. People involved in earth observation missions should probably be even more worried, and should probably think about moving to Europe.
The BBC news article is available here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3405249.stm
We're damned either way ...
I guess that neither the Greens nor the Libertarians look like a safe pair of hands for the space program to me. The Greens have loads of other projects to spend the money on, and the Libertarians don't believe in government spending at all. Only the corrupt special interests of the two big parties can save us now ...
To quote from an email I send some other guy:
The Republicans like the idea of the Mars mission because it means big aerospace contracts for Big Business. The Democrats like the idea of Mars science because this means lots of university research money. Plus there are non-partisan issues of pork for important swing states.
Maybe the best hope is the Chinese space program. The thought of being out-competed by the Chinese might persuade the American taxpayers to subsidise expensive vanity/prestige projects like Space Science.
(no subject)
(no subject)
However, JWST is not a replacement for HST. Its an infrared optimised telescope with little optical capability and no UV capability. The UV stuff on HST has been incredibly powerful, and its not something that can be duplicated from the ground since the atmosphere is opaque at these wavelengths. There will thus be a significant loss of capability when HST dies with no prospect for something to replace this capability. Indeed an advanced UV spectrograph COS (cosmic origins spectrograph) was due to be flow to HST on the next servicing mission. I guess it will now be junked.
The p[reviously planned date for HST's retirement has been a subject of controversy. One suggestion is that it should be closed down around the time of JWST's launch, while others see considerable benefits in having the two instruments running at the same time. NASA administrators seem to favour the former, astronomers the latter - unsurprisingly.
(no subject)
Others claim the Bush administration's plan is part of a broader effort to militarise space, something envisioned by a series of US administration proposals. Donald Rumsfeld, currently the Defence Secretary, chaired a blue-ribbon space commission that recommended in the spring of 2001 merging air force and space operations into a single body, and the establishment of a "space corps" within the US Air Force by the end of the decade.
Alice Slater, the director of the Global Resource Action Centre for the Environment, said yesterday: "They are not going to fly you to the moon, they are only going to fly military equipment.
"The plan to establish a beach-head, taking the high ground from which to dominate and control the military use of space, is clearly articulated in the documents of the US Space Command. It will create a new arms race to the heavens."
Michelle Ciarrocca of the World Policy Institute, and the author of a report on the Bush administration's missile defence plans, said: "The push to establish a permanent US presence on the moon could be the first step in carrying out the goals outlined by Rumsfeld's space commission.
"No fewer that eight Pentagon contractors were represented on the commission, marking a serious and direct conflict of interest."
It must be very worrying and disheartening for everyone currently working in the entire sector.
(no subject)
I do get your point about having to produce something that works due to military requirements. Would other commercial forces were the risk deemed acceptable have a similar effect, I wonder. It just worries me a little that too much military influence, let alone overall control, will squeeze out other interests. (That and a reflexive hostility to the military--but we're all a little at the mercy of our prejudices, aren't we.)
A different view ...
Summary: the only scheduled shuttle missions that can't abort/redirect to the ISS if tiles fall off are the hubble missions. Bill argues that the main threat to NASA is another shuttle disaster, so by cutting the Hubble mission it gives a much greater chance of keeping the shuttle flying safely until an alternative is available. He doesn't like abandoning Hubble, but he makes a good point.
I would usually trust him in such matters, but I'd be delighted if anyone with more knowledge could confirm his hypothesis.
Re: A different view ...