Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
The scientific costs of the effort to get Bush re-elected (i.e., Bush's Moon & Mars boondoggle
|
I saw this, and thought that the initial spin sounded unrealistic.
First, only days after Bush gives a generalized vision of where NASA should be going, the announcement is made that Hubble is out. Sounds a bit quick for a measured budget-driven response.
Next, the article also says this:
"
More important, NASA officials say, after the Columbia catastrophe a year ago, the missions are also considered dangerous. The shuttles do not carry enough fuel to reach the space station in case of trouble.
In its report on the shuttle disaster last summer, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board recommended that there be a way to inspect and repair the shuttle's heat shields, which were damaged after the Columbia lifted off. That is easily conducted if the craft is at the space station, but not at the Hubble.
In his remarks to the astronomers on Friday, according to those present, Mr. O'Keefe referred to that recommendation and said it would be too difficult to develop that ability for a single trip to the telescope.
Given enough time, NASA might have developed the tools to do it, Dr. Grunsfeld said, but the decision to retire the shuttles in 2010 foreclosed that possibility.
"Cost was not an issue," he said."
I'm guessing this decision was made some time ago, and someone's bringing it out now for reasons they have decided to not make explicit.
But, then, I'm a suspicious asshole.
