Science is one method by which our species seeks to obtain knowledge. The process of science discovery has been illustrated continuously in Astro 150; for example, we discussed the development of our modern idea for the Sun-centered solar system, and the many lines of evidence for the age of the sun, stars, and the Universe, and will discuss the role of life in the Universe.
The Hubble Space Telescope is a "pure science" mission; its primary goals are to measure the value of the Hubble Constant (to determine the overall size and age of the Universe) and to explore evidence for black holes in galaxy cores.
The Hubble Space Telescope cost $3 billion to put into orbit and to commission; there have been 4 servicing missions (to upgrade the instruments and do essential repairs) which cost about $800 million each (including the cost of the Space Shuttle flights). So, in the 15 years that the HST has been in orbit, it has cost taxpayers about $6.2 billion.
This comes out to be $22 for every person in the U.S. over the lifetime of the telescope so far, or about $1.50 per year per person.
Hubble is, by far, the most expensive civilian space project for studying the Universe beyond the solar system. Other space observatories, such as the Chandra X-Ray observatory ($3.0 billion), the Spitzer IR Space Telescope ($1.2 billion), and the (now de-orbited) Compton Gamma Ray Observatory ($0.5 billion), add up to another $4.7 billion dollars spent over the past 15 years.
Most of what we now know about the structure and evolution of the Universe, the formation and evolution of galaxies, and many other basic questions has been changed in fundamental ways with the discoveries made using these instruments. Not one life was saved, though.
Does your subcommittee feel that as a nation we are getting a
fair return on our investment in studying the Universe from space?
Be ready to explain your position.
Many say that the US should use the money spent on space and pure science
to work toward solving problems on Earth. The US space budget through NASA
is between 1% and 2% of the total federal budget. For comparison, the
military budget is well over 10% of the budget, and social programs cost
even more.
Is the amount of money spent by NASA too much, not enough, or
about right compared to other items? Support your position.
The Space Shuttle is about to return to flight status. Before being retired, it is expected that up to 28 flights will be taken over the next several years, with nearly all of them going to the International Space Station.
Each shuttle flight costs a total of about 1.2 billion dollars (full-cost), with "only" $100-200 million for the specific mission involved (the rest is hardware, ground support, etc.).
The previous head of NASA decided, weeks after the Columbia disaster, that the next scheduled Shuttle mission to HST would not take place for safety reasons. Astronomers and the general public, on the other hand, strongly supporot the idea of upgrading the Hubble to allow it to continue to provide scientific results for another 5-10 years.
In the meantime, the President has committed NASA to a goal of returning humans to the Moon with an ultimate goal of human exploration of Mars in the next 25 years. The resulting budget shifts have strained the NASA science budget, but it is possible that the $100-200 million for a Hubble servicing mission could be found in the space science budget.
Should NASA commit to a shulttle mission to service the Hubble Space
Telescope? What is your committee's recommendation?
TOPIC 3: The Future
What is your committee's recommendation for any changes in budgeting for science and for space? What should happen to the space program in the next 10 years? What should be studied? Should we send people to Mars (at an estimated cost of $100-$400 per citizen)? Why or why not?
Section:______