The Fate of the Hubble Telescope

August 2, 2003

The New York Times

The Hubble Space Telescope, an astonishingly productive but aging space-based observatory, is facing challenges that will determine how long it can keep performing first-rate science. In our view, the life of the telescope should be extended until a more advanced replacement, now in the planning stages, is placed in orbit.

After some early technical modifications to repair flaws in its primary mirror, Hubble has been a resounding success. Floating well above the distorting effects of the atmosphere, the observatory has been able to detect extremely faint objects that cannot be found by earthbound telescopes. Hubble has provided the clearest and deepest views of the distant universe, calibrated the age and expansion rate of the universe, and detected supermassive black holes that seem to lie at the core of most galaxies, among myriad other achievements.

The Hubble telescope is supposed to be serviced by a shuttle mission in the next year or two, then brought down from orbit in a controlled descent in 2010. The funds saved by phasing it out will be pumped into a follow-on instrument: the James Webb Space Telescope, scheduled to be launched in 2011. That telescope will be placed in an extremely high orbit and will be designed to operate at infrared wavelengths, which are crucial to observing very early cosmic history and the formation of stars and planets. Hubble mostly detects visible light.

Unfortunately, the loss of the shuttle Columbia has cast doubt on whether the next scheduled servicing mission to Hubble can proceed without undue risk to the astronauts. Meanwhile, NASA is assessing whether an additional servicing mission should be mounted later in the decade to keep the telescope operating past 2010.

The problem, as always, is money. Congress has ordered that whatever is done with Hubble cannot siphon money away from the James Webb Space Telescope. That is a reasonable stance, but the Webb telescope may well fall behind schedule and could even suffer a disabling failure far beyond the reach of astronauts to repair. Thus it would make sense to keep Hubble going, at least until the Webb telescope is successfully in orbit.

If money needs to be diverted from somewhere, we suggest that it be taken from the partly completed space station circling aimlessly overhead. No experiments planned for the space station come remotely close in importance to Hubble's potential for discoveries. Curtailing the Hubble telescope before a successor has been launched seems foolish.