Pork Defense Tactic

> Read the earlier post by either Andrew or Arthur (I can't remember
> which)
> for a good explanation as to why letting Hubble go is probably OK...
> Since I
> already deleted it out of my e-mail account would the author kindly
> sum up
> what they had to say about the obsolescence of the Hubble and it's
> replacement for Jay?

On additional study, I'm coming to the conclusion that the Hubble
should be saved. The Webb space telescope will be an infrared
telescope intended to explore the decoupling of photons from matter
shortly after the big bang. It will not supersede Hubble. If we lose
Hubble we lose the only optical space telescope.

The reasoning behind the abandonment of Hubble is that the risk to the
shuttle is too high. NASA, forced by the CAIB, has finally
acknowledged that shuttle is not even close to an operational system so
every mission has to go to ISS for inspection and to provide a refuge
in the event of an accident. Since Hubble is not in an orbit that can
be visited on the same launch as ISS, this kills the Hubble repair
missions. I believe Hubble is sufficiently important that it's worth
the risk. NASA should fly a mission with reduced crew (pilot, copilot,
one mission specialist to do the repair), and with a free flying camera
to do the external inspection. If there is trouble, additional
supplies (prepped in advance) should be launched to keep the crew safe
until a rescue can be launched (possibly on a soyuz).

If we want to go to space we have to be prepared to take risks. I
believe that it would be no problem at all finding astronaut volunteers
for a Hubble repair mission. Preparing a rescue package and rescue
options may take a long time, but Hubble has backup gyros for when the
mains fail. These are not sufficient for the pointing needed for
observation, but are good enough to maintain attitude for grabbing by
the shuttle.

......Andrew