Space.com and the Baltimore Sun are reporting that the director of the Space Telescope Science Institute, Steven Beckwith, has decided not to pursue renewal of his position beyond its current expiration slightly more than a year from now. What is interesting is that he specifically cites the increased visibility associated with his vocal advocacy of HST servicing as potentially compromising his contributions to the community. I tend to read that as feeling that his high profile on this topic has made him a potential liability vis-a-vis the NASA administration, so he may be hoping that this move will remove some informal obstacles to a servicing mission.

I find it disturbing that there is even the perception that NASA wants to micromanage the operation of its flagship science missions in this way. One of the major points in the original setup of STScI was its independence of NASA management, and its review of proposals and equipment in peer-review ways comfortable to the astronomical community (for very good reasons). It is ironic that this level of independence may present a problem now. It is also ironic that Beckwith, who has often during his tenure as director taken pains to remind Hubble users that we are privileged to work in a short time when this fantastic resource is available and that it won't last al that long, should apparently be in trouble for trying to extend this short period. This won't help the feeling, already widespread among some frequent HST users I've heard from, that the HST servicing decision marked the bureacratic equivalent of a very rude gesture to the deep-space astronomical community. Sort of "we know you folks did marvelous things in the past decades and helped the agency look really good, but now we have marching orders for the Moon again and maybe Mars, so we'd like you to quietly go away and quit talking to your congrespeople".
[I quote that without prejudice as to my own interpretation...]

NASA has micromanaged in the background on HST since the inception of the program. Just as one example, each press release that comes out goes through some vetting process at NASA, and I've heard stories about how NASA HQ wants to "dumb down" some of the releases because they assume that the public and the press are too stupid to understand them. Mind you I think they're at the right level, and I do admit that some journalists could fritz up a free lunch if you gave it to them no strings attached. But, micromanaging a press release on a fine level seems somewhat pedantic. I can only imagine what happens with other parts of the program.

__________________
Starry, starry night...

My site TheSpacewriter.com
and my blog: TheSpaceWriter's Ramblings

I can vouch for that level of Public-Affairs micromanagement, as a veteran of half a dozen or so HST releases. In one teleconference, I recall being told "What a wonderful image comparison - it really makes the point about these "protogalactic blobs" being very small and bright compared to today's galaxies. Of course, we could never actually use it because it doesn't matter for the outreach-level point." (That's what our local writers call the Joe Six-Pack test). I have a whole spiel about the various levels these releases have to pass through involving universities, STScI, NASA, and the press. But that gets abit far afield of the topic for now...

I was a little upset about the recent news on how it took so dam long to take that first step in a long process of developing the best options to save Hubble, what are they thinking the is a lot going wrong now, when I hear about NASA dumping functional space craft I think it is crazy. The Hubble had serious potential danger and how could this be allowed happen. I think it also could be true that the directors job has become a a potential liability the dumbing down on this and the idea of a micromanage to the operation really might be a big 'two-fingers' to the to the astronomical community as some on the net have said. I know NASA has been great in the past and done some fantastic things, I hope very much that they are able to overcome all the bad problems and get moving forward again. NASA has been great and made everyone proud let's hope they can fix this and move on.

I have always thought that NASA HQ (and some others) seriously underestimate what they think the public can handle. I find the "Joe Sixpack" attitude disgusting. It's why I started writing books, to explain what NASA wasn't explaining (or letting the scientists explain).

But, back to Steve leaving; I suspect that he may also want to get back to doing real science, and perhaps this also played into his announcement. Given that he was on a hot-seat and also very visible in the "Save HST" effort, perhaps this is the best move for him AND the telescope. Still, I hate to see him leave.

__________________
Starry, starry night...

My site TheSpacewriter.com
and my blog: TheSpaceWriter's Ramblings

I don't know about NASA politics, but I have certainly noticed NASA's joe-sixpack approach to press releases. Just go onto the official JPL website and try to find something more technical than an sixth-grader could understand. (Some of the raw data posted on MER is an exception, but a rare one).

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.