He claims to be, perhaps, the first of hundreds of victims who will have to face unemployment. Having lost his job the day after the announcement of the cancellation of Hubble Service Mission (SM 4), Michael Milauskas was a process engineer for the manufacture of the Super Lightweight Interchangeable Carrier - SLIC.

Mr. Milauskas talked to SavetheHubble.com:

Michael, it's a pleasure to talk to someone who has been, directly involved with the Hubble Space Telescope! First of all, please tell us what exactly is the SLIC and what part did you take in its development/building.

First, I was not involved with the telescope, just the carrier for the last service mission. Very simply, SLIC was to be the carrier to hold the hardware in the shuttle bay for SM4. It was constructed from advanced composite materials. SLIC was originally designed for Columbia because it was much lighter than NASA’s existing carriers, and Columbia, as the oldest shuttle, was also the heaviest.

Past NASA carriers were constructed from aluminum. SLIC was the first carrier to be constructed from composite structure, specifically a carbon fiber/cyanate ester sandwich panel structure.

A lighter carrier translates, of course, to an increased payload. An increased payload is a priceless commodity in just about any special mission -- aircraft or spacecraft.

SLIC construction continued after the Columbia disaster as the carrier would work with any shuttle and had potential for ISS missions as well.

My role was one of many, to assure that composite components for SLIC were both manufactured and assembled to the highest standards possible to assure a safe mission. I have been involved in the shuttle program before, way back to development, having worked on the boron/aluminum mid-fuselage struts. I was happy and proud to be contributing to this effort.

How did you receive the news about the cancellation of SM4 and the subsequent "cancellation" of your own job?

I read a preliminary news blip on the Washington Post web page on, I believe January 15. I informed the program manager. He turned pale and, in turn, immediately called the SLIC Program Director at Goddard. Neither had heard anything. It was a complete shock to everyone. The news media had word of the cancellation before anyone working on the SM4 program.

The official announcement was made the following day at Goddard in the morning. Men cried. I was dismissed at 3:30 PM the same day. To be fair, I was a contract engineer and contact employees are always the first to go. It is the nature of my business.

Being an insider, what consequences do you foresee for the highly specialized workforce involved in the Hubble operation/maintenance? Before you answer this one please read what our former SavetheHubble.com InterViewed, an aerospace engineer who preferred to remain anonymous, wrote: "(...) folks currently working on the new Hubble hardware (...) are all bailing out, finding other work. If NASA doesn't decide to fly by August, you won't be able to do it because the test and engineering teams will be gone."

I can’t say for certain as I was forced to leave my home in Maryland. My house on the Potomac sits empty. It was a bleak situation in January and it certainly has not improved. Many of those working for the contractors lost their jobs. Others, I’m told, will be absorbed into other programs. However the losses in and around NASA may be just the tip of the iceberg. So much of what NASA does is contacted out. The true impact is years in the making, when the Hubble fails.

I perhaps was fortunate in being the first to lose my job. I have returned to commercial aerospace, yet that market is shaky at best. Since then, the Comanche Helicopter Program was canceled. I won’t argue the merits, plus or minus, of that program except to say it, again, thrusts hundreds of engineers from our jobs. I very concerned for the long term. I would have a tough time convincing a young person to pursue an engineering career.

Now, shifting to the realm of science, what, in your opinion, are going to be the losses in terms of research and data collecting? I've read that Hubble's life would be extended by "only" three or four years and it wouldn't make to big as difference.

There are many others in the scientific community better qualified to comment in that area. The question is: How many will we lose in that community while waiting for the Hubble replacement?

What is your opinion about the cost/benefit ratio of sending manned mission to moon and mars in relation to automated missions and research satellites?

Having worked on UAV’s for the US military, it is clearly their intent to remove the pilot whenever feasible, for both cost and safety. The US can not longer afford such “manned” aircraft programs and, thus, is investing billions of dollars in unmanned programs. Perhaps, NASA should follow their lead.

In my personal opinion, this manned Mars mission directive is a blatant political move by a US President who will do anything and everything to keep his job. His father tried the same and neither he nor NASA gained a thing. Let’s hope Mr. Bush is the only loser comes November.

As an engineer do you consider feasible the possibility of sending a robot to service Hubble?

I’m not qualified to comment on robotics nor am I knowledgeable of the details of the mission. Yet it seems a long shot in the near term. Given the clock is ticking, my gut feel is that it is a pie-in-the-sky possibility. Again, I am no expert in this area but doubt the NASA bureaucracy could or would be motivated to pull it off. It seems a smoke screen at best.

A last one: Would you, knowing the dangers involved, volunteer to fly in a Service Mission to the Hubble Space Telescope?

I personally would not. I was involved in building the shuttle and I feel it is way over due for replacement. Yet I’m sure every astronaut within NASA feels differently. It’s just one more mission of many before the fleet is retired. The “dangers” are at their peak during liftoff and reentry. NASA will take every precaution (and then some) for every flight. I can’t see how this one additional mission can be deemed so dangerous. NASA simply can not be allowed to fall back to “business as usual.”

My belief is that NASA failed miserably to deliver a safer replacement for the shuttle fleet in a timely manner when they had the opportunity to do so. They failed not because it was technically infeasible. I’ll reserve comment on my personal opinion as to why they did fail. Yet they did have a remarkable success with hypersonic flight today (March 27), so perhaps more time is needed for a viable shuttle replacement.

Thank you Michael, let's hope we make a difference!

You’re very welcome. The odds look bleak in my view, yet this global effort to extend the life of NASA’s greatest scientific achievement should not, and can not be decided by one man or, more importantly, by one US administration. This is a truly global asset. I wish the best of luck to you.

Regards,
Michael Milauskas