What's up with NASA? The administrator of the space agency, Sean O'Keefe, has made the case to a congressional committee that it is best if NASA abandons its already planned mission to repair the Hubble telescope. When I heard this news, I could not believe that such a hasty and injudicious decision was being pronounced by an official from NASA. It is not a scientific, logical or even feasible response by any respectable scientist. Rather, such an assessment is completely and utterly disregarding the future of the scientific community as a whole. In short, it is disgusting.

Allow me to make the case for, what I believe to be the entire astrophysics community and even amateurs (like myself) with an interest in the cosmos. The Hubble telescope is not just an ordinary piece of engineering launched in 1990 and now orbiting the earth at an altitude of 600 kilometers. It is not just an enormous camera giving us a pretty picture now and then of the heavens. What it is, is a tool that has unlocked some the deepest mysteries of the universe — the nature of space and time, the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere and our very origin as the human species. And, if NASA does not make its planned mission to repair the machine, it will burn up in our atmosphere and our best and most successful probe of the heaves will incinerated in a fiery skylight spectacle.

If I may be so bold, O'Keefe, does have a responsibility to see that this does not happen. He has a responsibility to see that the brilliant work of the engineers, physicists and technicians who labored to advance the understanding of the cosmos did not do so in vain. His retort is, however, that NASA should not partake in the planned mission due to the risk to the crew emboldened by the Columbia tragedy. He has put forth the argument that such a mission would put the crew of the space shuttle at a risk we should not take. Thankfully, two senators have ordered that NASA wait for an independent assessment from the National Academy of Sciences before making any final determination. Many at NASA, of course, feel that we are obligated to repair Hubble and continue to make sure that it remains a state-of-the-art piece of equipment in the coming years.

I personally feel that O'Keefe's argument is specious because it is so contrary to the scientific method. Yes, the Columbia tragedy was unfortunate and great loss. But it is not a justification for curtailing space exploration. No reputable scientist would insist that we limit our efforts because we made even a disastrous mistake. I will go even further to posit that the Columbia loss, while tragic and devastating, was not a total loss. Rather, a true scientist believes that all efforts to understand and explore the cosmos ultimately do advance our knowledge even if they fail on some macroscopic level. O'Keefe should be ashamed for taking such liberty as to speak for the astronauts who gave their lives to advance science. If O'Keefe were sincere, he would tell everyone that there are lists of astronauts who can't wait to take on new missions including that of the Hubble repair.

If we can spend billions of tax dollars to maintain stockpiles of weapons and raise millions for silly election campaigns, we can afford to adequately fund NASA and make its missions a real priority. NASA is a pinnacle symbol of all that is great and fruitful in scientific endeavors. And those efforts will forever be noted in my memory, if not in O'Keefe's.

Hinkle is a sophomore mechanical engineering major.