To Repair or Replace

NASA’s flagship astrophysics missions have always been at the forefront of human ingenuity, but they also bring ethical challenges about how to balance risk, cost, and sustainability. The Hubble Space Telescope, for instance, was designed to be repairable through the course of its life, allowing astronauts to fix early design flaws and extend its functionality through five servicing missions. These efforts saved Hubble and maximized the value of the initial investment, enabling decades of groundbreaking science. In contrast, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) was launched with no provisions for servicing—despite 344 single-point failures, any one of which could have doomed the mission. While JWST’s success has been extraordinary, it was a high-stakes gamble, with no backup if something went wrong.   NASA now faces this dilemma anew as it plans its next flagship mission, the Habitable Worlds Observatory (HWO). Unlike Hubble, HWO will be stationed far beyond the reach of astronauts. The question is whether to make HWO serviceable, potentially by designing it to accommodate future robotic repairs or upgrades, or to launch the mission with the knowledge 1that it cannot be repaired.   Critics of serviceability believe the focus should remain on launching HWO as soon as possible, maximizing its initial capabilities. Adding serviceability to HWO would increase the mission’s complexity and cost. Robotic servicing technology, while promising, is still in development, and its reliability for missions like HWO remains uncertain. Including this capability in HWO’s design could delay its launch, potentially postponing groundbreaking discoveries that the telescope might enable. They argue that the success of JWST proves it’s possible to build a high-performing telescope without the added complexity and expense of repairability. For them, the immediate opportunity for groundbreaking discoveries outweighs uncertain benefits decades down the line.   On the other hand, proponents of serviceability contend that failing to plan for repairs or upgrades is shortsighted. They argue that space exploration is inherently unpredictable and that designing HWO to be serviceable would ensure its scientific productivity for decades, even if unexpected issues arise and extend the telescope’s useful life. Serviceability could also allow future generations of researchers to benefit from advances in technology, aligning with a more sustainable and forward-thinking approach to space exploration. There is significant good in scientific discovery, but these missions are expensive and funding for NASA comes from a federal budget. Amid recent questions about how federal funds should be spent, decisions that affect both the cost and longevity of projects like HWO become more pressing.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1.Should NASA prioritize designing HWO with robotic servicing capabilities, even if it increases costs and delays? Why or why not?

2.Do government programs like NASA have an ethical obligation to design “serviceable” products, given their reliance on public funds? How might the obligations of privately funded organizations, like SpaceX, be different?

3.Is it ethically justifiable to replace technology instead of repairing it based solely on cost and convenience? Are our obligations different in our personal lives? 4.What value might come from newly building and replacing technology instead of repairing it?

https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/programs/habitable-worlds-observatory/105