Re: How do we keep Hubble up there?
From: Fred J. McCall (fmccall_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 02/01/05
- Next message: Dennis Woos: "Re: Another Awful Scope Review"
- Previous message: Roger Hamlett: "Re: A scope is what it is"
- Maybe in reply to: Eric Chomko: "Re: How do we keep Hubble up there?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 14:52:24 GMT
"Carsten A. Arnholm" <arnholm@offline.no> wrote:
:
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:o5tov056ke98b2q5fl3l3r0akp8e4mdrmr@4ax.com...
:> "Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
:>
:> :When budgets have to be cut (to pay for the war in Iraq), something's got
:> to
:> :be cut. Might as well be Hubble since the administration can use the
:> "risk"
:> :of a manned repair flight and the "high cost" of a robotic mission as an
:> :excuse. Because of this, they feel it is politically easier to ditch
:> Hubble
:> :than to ditch ISS.
:>
:> And we'll just ignore the fact that Hubble is well past its designed
:> life span or intended operating period, shall we?
:>
:> It's simple. There's a finite amount of money/resources. At some
:> point you start getting rid of old stuff so you can afford new stuff.
:
:"Old stuff" = space shuttle & ISS
We have a plan for discontinuing the Shuttle. Hubble is older than
ISS.
:One always wondered what the space shuttle was for. The best argument seems
:to be when people refer to the space shuttle trip where they corrected for
:the flawed Hubble mirror shape.
Only if you're a firm believer in the proposition that LOOKING at
space is much more important than going there.
:A shuttle tragedy later and 2+ years of
:"return to flight" operations, they say they can't go to Hubble for
:maintenance. The *only* place the shuttle can go is to the ISS, which
:underscores the point that the shuttle's only purpose in life is to visit
:the ISS, and the only purpose of the ISS is to be a place where the space
:shuttle can go. Take down one, and the other must go also.
Half true.
:Look to Hubble, Mars Explorartion Rovers, Cassini/Huygens, Mars Express and
:other meaningful projects. Manned flight is also interesting, but it must
:have a purpose. Using a truck to carry people to low earth orbit makes
:little sense, more than 20 years of virtually purposeless shuttle missions
:(including 2 fatal tragedies) have proven that.
Only to those like you, who are already 'true believers' in planetary
science and consider any money spent on manned space a waste. After
all, you can't 'have a purpose' if you don't do the preliminary work.
If we're not going, I vote for shutting down the space part of NASA
and letting it go back to pure aerospace research. If planetary
scientists want probes, let them find their own funding.
No Buck Rogers, no bucks.
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
- Next message: Dennis Woos: "Re: Another Awful Scope Review"
- Previous message: Roger Hamlett: "Re: A scope is what it is"
- Maybe in reply to: Eric Chomko: "Re: How do we keep Hubble up there?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
