Premature Death for the Hubble
Published: February 29, 2004

[B]y all accounts the Hubble Space Telescope is one of the most
productive scientific instruments in history. Orbiting high above
the distorting effects of Earth's atmosphere, it has peered far
out into space and back toward the beginnings of time, producing
images of startling clarity. It has detected extremely faint
objects that can't be seen from the Earth, calibrated the age and
expansion rate of the universe, detected supermassive black holes
in the cores of galaxies and generally helped revolutionize our
understanding of the universe. A distinguished panel of
astronomers judged that Hubble "has arguably had a greater impact
on astronomy than any instrument since the original astronomical
telescope of Galileo." 

Yet now, just as Hubble was scheduled for a major rejuvenation,
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has consigned
it to slow death. The agency has canceled a planned servicing
mission that would have upgraded Hubble's instruments and
extended its life past the end of the decade, making it likely
that the telescope will run out of battery power and functioning
gyroscopes by about 2007. Congress needs to prevent the premature
loss of this valuable instrument.

Cancellation of the servicing mission is being justified on
safety grounds, but that is not the whole story. Indeed, it looks
as if Hubble is being sacrificed primarily to make way for
President Bush's grand new plans to send astronauts to the Moon
and Mars in future years. Once the shuttles are deemed safe
enough to resume flying, probably early next year, a shuttle
flight to Hubble will be no more risky   and possibly even less
risky   than flights to the space station. The real safety issue
comes up if something goes wrong. A shuttle near the station
might find safe haven and help in repairs. A shuttle near Hubble
could not. 

Our guess is that with NASA on high alert after the Columbia
tragedy, the next shuttle flights will be the safest ever.
Astronauts are paid to take risks, and there would be no shortage
of volunteers for a Hubble mission that seems no more risky than
other flights and a lot more important scientifically.

The Bush administration argues that Hubble has passed its prime,
that its uniqueness is diminishing, that advances in ground-based
telescopes enable them to do some of Hubble's work and that
future breakthroughs will require telescopes able to search in
other wavelengths than those used by Hubble. There is a germ of
truth in all those contentions, but a parade of experts have
argued that Hubble, if serviced and updated, has years of great
work ahead. There seems little doubt that the science still to be
done on Hubble is far more important than anything likely to be
accomplished on the space station. 

The chief reason for Hubble's demise is almost certainly NASA's
need to use its shuttles to finish building the space station by
2010 so that the shuttles can be retired and the money used for
the president's Moon-Mars exploration initiative. The agency will
be lucky to complete the station on time even with all three
remaining shuttles devoted to the task. Servicing the Hubble
would be a diversion.

The administration essentially argues that the scientific returns
from extending Hubble's life are not worth the risk and effort of
a servicing flight. Our feeling is just the opposite. The gains
from extending Hubble's life are real and achievable and should
not be sacrificed for a distant exploration program that for now
is mostly wishful thinking and can surely be delayed a bit.

Copyright 2004, The New York Times Company