home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1995
/
TIME Almanac 1995.iso
/
time
/
070990
/
0709000.000
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-04-15
|
6KB
|
134 lines
<text id=90TT1759>
<link 93AC0369>
<link 90TT3315>
<link 90TT2058>
<link 90TT0956>
<title>
July 09, 1990: Cloudy Vistas For Big Science
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1990
July 09, 1990 Abortion's Most Wrenching Questions
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
SPACE, Page 43
Cloudy Vistas for Big Science
</hdr>
<body>
<p>NASA's shuttle hopes spring a leak, and Hubble has eye trouble
</p>
<p>By Dick Thompson--With reporting by Jerry Hannifin/Washington
</p>
<p> For all its first-class expertise and glorious achievement
in space technology, the U.S. has had more than a fair share
of bad luck, not to say tragedy. Now the quality of that
vaunted technology has become a serious question. Last week,
in a period of just a few days, NASA discovered that its $1.5
billion Hubble Space Telescope had been fitted with a faulty
mirror and that a second of its three shuttles had sprung
hydrogen leaks.
</p>
<p> Costly and frustrating as the shuttle problem is, NASA will
be able to correct it with relative ease. The agency prudently
grounded not only the two faulty spaceships but the third
shuttle as well, until engineers are satisfied that the
hydrogen fuel system is safe. This means a wholesale
rescheduling of NASA's launch program and corresponding delays
in realizing all of NASA's scientific and military objectives.
</p>
<p> The Hubble difficulty is quite something else. Unlike the
shuttle, the telescope is unique. Moreover, it has already been
launched and cannot be hauled back into the hangar for repairs.
</p>
<p> When Hubble was launched in April, NASA promised that it
would see the ancient universe in startling clarity, but the
discovery that one of the two mirrors that form the heart of
its optics had been incorrectly manufactured served mainly to
focus attention on the limits of high technology. The immediate
result is that for all Hubble's tremendous cost, two of its
most heralded advantages--the ability to distinguish very
close objects and the knack for detecting faint light from the
early universe--are lost. Said John Logsdon, director of the
Space Policy Institute at George Washington University: "It's
horrible."
</p>
<p> The visible starlight that Hubble is now able to collect and
magnify is no better than that seen by landlocked
observatories. It is impossible for Hubble to find a planet
circling a distant star or detect a black hole at the center
of a galaxy. At least 40% of the experiments planned for the
telescope will have to be postponed until engineers can make
lenses for the craft's instruments that will compensate for the
mirror's flaw. Astronauts will then have to ride the shuttle
into orbit and space walk to the telescope, where they will fit
the new lenses. And getting those spectacles to Hubble may take
three to six years.
</p>
<p> Hubble never had an easy time. After the launch, engineers
had to fiddle with stubborn antennas that refused to extend.
When the antennas were fixed, the messages that came back to
Earth indicated that the spacecraft was wobbling: when it swung
from darkness to sunlight, the sun's rays striking Hubble's
cold solar panels produced a minor vibration that caused the
spacecraft to oscillate slowly. This motion confused
instruments that were built to such precision that they could
read a license plate 48 km (30 miles) away. NASA software
designers are now writing programs to counteract the
oscillations so that the telescope tube can be held steady.
</p>
<p> Locating objects for the telescope has also been bothersome.
An exhaustive catalog of guide stars was built into Hubble's
computer memory, enabling it to identify both its position in
space and the object of its interest. A programmer, however,
failed to update the information properly, and for weeks Hubble
was looking left when it should have been looking right. That
too has been fixed with a software Band-Aid.
</p>
<p> Such shakedown glitches were perhaps to be expected, but the
difficulties with Hubble's optics were not anticipated and have
been devastating. The astonishing fact is that one of the two
mirrors built by Perkin-Elmer Corp.--engineers do not know
which one--was made to the wrong specifications. The mirror
is either too high or too low by 4 microns, about 4% of the
diameter of a human hair. Although tests could have detected
this error on the ground, they either were never performed or
failed. A government panel will investigate how the mistake was
made, and the Senate has cranked up its own hearings.
</p>
<p> Fortunately, Hubble can still do work from space that no
telescope can do from the ground. It can observe the universe's
ultraviolet glow, a part of the spectrum of starlight that does
not reach Earth, and it will be able to study the physics of
stars. In addition, large objects, such as the giant red spot
and polar caps of Jupiter, will be within Hubble's range.
Administrators at the Space Telescope Institute in Baltimore
are now scrambling to reassign observing time for those
instruments that do not rely on the mirrors. Since requests from
various scientific groups for Hubble's intelligence were ten
times as great as the time available for observing, the
telescope will still be used constantly.
</p>
<p> Even so, the latest hobbling of Hubble can only intensify
arguments over the wisdom of funneling large portions of the
nation's research budget into a few steeply expensive projects.
President Bush's proposal to launch a moon-Mars mission has
been stalled on Capitol Hill. Congress is uncomfortable with
the $30 billion price tag for a proposed space station as well
as with the planned $8 billion Superconducting Supercollider
that will be built in Texas. "We're spending a disproportionate
amount on big science," says California Congressman George
Brown. "Any failure casts some discredit on the desirability
of funding these big science projects." In the end, the saga
of the cloudy mirrors and the leaky shuttles may yet reflect
a clear resolution to a confounding question: How should the
nation apportion its finite wealth in pursuit of scientific
achievement?
</p>
</body>
</article>
</text>