One more lunchtime post.

First of all, go check out The Space Review. Jeff has some more good pieces up, and he’s written one on Saving Private Hubble. He’s got some alternatives to it (as does Jay Manifold). Clark Lindsey agrees that it isn’t worth a half a billion dollars to save it (see February 3rd entry).

But it’s worth pointing out a fallacy here, that’s a consequence of the weirdness of space budgets and costs. We won’t save half a billion dollars by not saving Hubble. That’s the average cost of a Shuttle flight, not the marginal cost, and most of that money will get spent regardless. If we’re going to fly Shuttles at all, we’re going to spend a few billion dollars a year, regardless of flight rate or where they fly to.

The real factor in deciding whether or not to fly the mission is a) whether or not we’re willing to risk the vehicle (I’m already on record as thinking that a reasonable bet, particularly considering the fact that we’re going to shut the program down in a few years anyway, and wouldn’t necessarily miss it that much) and b) the opportunity cost of flying to Hubble, versus flying somewhere else (in this case, ISS is the only alternative). If all conceivable ISS missions are each more valuable to the nation than continued Hubble operations, then Hubble should die. In my opinion, however, a Hubble servicing missions has more value than the delay of any single ISS mission. And risk to crew shouldn’t be a consideration at all. If it’s a valuable mission, it’s their job to risk their lives to carry it out.

Of course, the value of coming up with an innovative way to save Hubble without using a Shuttle launch would be highest of all.