[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 3]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 3379-3380]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE'S ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND 
       RECOMMENDING RECONSIDERATION OF FUTURE SERVICING MISSIONS

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, March 3, 2004

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a 
resolution recognizing the accomplishments of the Hubble Space 
Telescope and recommending reconsideration of future servicing mission 
to Hubble. I am very pleased that a number of my colleagues are joining 
me as original cosponsors of this bill--including Representatives 
Bartlett, Hoyer, McDermott, Akin, Gordon, Lampson, and Ruppersberger.
  I wish this resolution weren't necessary. I am introducing it in 
response to NASA's decision made in mid-January to cancel all future 
space shuttle missions to the Hubble Space Telescope, including SM-4, 
the next flight that would have installed the new Cosmic Origins 
Spectrograph and the Wide Field Camera 3 instruments--both largely 
completed at a cost of about $200 million. Installation of these 
instruments would have provided over a factor of ten improvement in 
Hubble's imaging and spectroscopy, and in addition to replacement gyros 
and batteries, would make Hubble's final years its most scientifically 
capable and productive. If SM-4 goes forward, Hubble will continue to 
operate until 2012. Without the mission, Hubble will likely die in 
orbit sometime in 2007.
  My goal in introducing this resolution is simple--I want to call 
attention to the Hubble Space Telescope's contributions to scientific 
research and education and ensure that any decision affecting its 
future is made carefully and seriously and for the right reasons. 
Precisely because of Hubble's extraordinary contributions in the past 
and promised contributions in the future, I also believe that the 
decision to cancel the planned servicing mission to Hubble should be 
considered by an independent panel of experts.
  Finally, I want to try to ensure that the planning for the servicing 
mission continues at least until the panel comes up with its 
recommendations and until NASA provides a timetable of compliance with 
recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board report, 
since NASA's compliance will allow both a Hubble servicing mission and 
a mission to the International Space Station to be carried out safely. 
Since NASA Administrator O'Keefe cited safety concerns as the main 
reason for the cancellation of the mission, it seems to me that NASA 
must state how and when it plans to comply with the CAIB 
recommendations. Once the shuttles are deemed safe enough to fly, a 
trip to Hubble will be as safe as a trip to the Station. Indeed, there 
are some who argue that the Hubble mission will be the safer of the 
two.
  Hubble's scientific contributions continue to amaze us all, year in 
and year out. A few weeks ago Hubble detected oxygen and carbon in the 
atmosphere of a distant planet, the first time the elements have been 
found at a world outside our solar system. Hubble also contributed to 
the finding of new evidence about recently discovered ``dark energy.'' 
Hubble measured properties of light from 16 exploding stars, or 
supernovas, to find that the dark energy that pervades the universe 
might be what Einstein originally called the ``cosmological constant.'' 
This discovery supports the theory that instead of ripping apart, the 
cosmos will continue expanding very slowly for at least the next 30 
billion years.
  These are just recent discoveries. Hubble remains one of the most 
productive scientific instruments in history, and certainly NASA's most 
productive scientific mission, accounting for 35 percent of all its 
discoveries in the last 20 years. The Hubble has provided proof of 
black holes, insights into the birth and death of stars, spectacular 
views of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9's collision with Jupiter, the age of 
the universe, and evidence that the expansion of the universe is 
accelerating.
  So to me--and to so many others who have voiced their opposition to 
NASA's decision--it seems as though canceling the mission is premature 
at best.
  I would rather not cynically believe, as some do, that the Hubble is 
being abandoned primarily to enable the president's Moon-Mars 
initiative to get underway. But there doesn't seem to be any other 
explanation that makes sense.
  I have long believed that NASA needs a new vision for the future--but 
before this Congress and future Congresses commit to the president's 
expensive plan, NASA must first generate broad public support and 
scientific backing for it. Today, as the general public and the 
scientific community alike call for Hubble to be saved, NASA risks 
undermining its efforts to sell its Moon-Mars initiative to the 
public--not an auspicious beginning for a vision that will require 
billions and decades to complete.
  I have attached a February 29 editorial from the New York Times 
calling for the administration to reconsider its decision. The final 
paragraph concludes, ``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.''
  The gains from extending Hubble's life are indeed real and 
achievable. In addition to its past and potentially future scientific 
discoveries, Hubble provides information used by approximately one 
million teachers per year across the U.S. The demand for research time 
on the telescope far exceeds the time available. The scientific imagery 
and data Hubble provides is integral to the work of researchers in 
universities across the country and around the world.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution will be welcomed by school children, 
scientists, and interested citizens around the world who understand 
that Hubble is a national treasure that we should not prematurely 
condemn to death. I look forward to working with Members of the House, 
including my colleagues on the Science Committee, to move forward with 
this important initiative.

                [From the New York Times, Feb. 29, 2004]

                     Premature Death for the Hubble

       By 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.

[[Page 3380]]

       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.

                          ____________________