Re: MSNBC - How a 'safe haven' could help save Hubble

From: Henry Spencer (henry_at_spsystems.net)
Date: 12/09/04 

Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 00:52:13 GMT

In article <Xns95B98CA402843teeks99@151.164.30.42>,
Tom Kent <teeks99@community.nospam> wrote:
>I don't know of a lot of science missions that are cancelled.

That says more about your limited knowledge than about the state of NASA
science missions, I'm afraid. The canceled ones don't generally issue
salvos of press releases and get major media coverage.

>Hubble made it...

Only after quite a struggle, though -- Hubble was originally supposed to
be a mid-1970s project, and it ended up launching at the end of the 1980s.
Moreover, that was a "flagship" project -- NASA could and did sacrifice
other missions to protect Hubble's funding.

>...We have all sorts of satellites
>and telescopes orbiting the earth, most of which never had to seriously
>fight for funding...

You clearly have never participated in trying to get such a mission funded.
*All* of them have to seriously fight for funding.

As a case in point, Hubble originally had an X-ray counterpart, AXAF. It
was repeatedly delayed by funding shortages -- it was supposed to be a
1980s project. A design shakeup in 1992 split it into two spacecraft.
One of them became Chandra, finally launched in 1999... but the other is
dead and forgotten.

>...Why is NASA in the telescope
>building buisness? Or the monitoring of greenhouse gases buisness for
>that matter?
>It seems that its becoming more and more that just because the platform
>is based in space, it is NASA's juristiction.

This isn't something that's "becoming" -- it's always been this way.
Now mind you, it probably shouldn't be, but it is.

>Telescopes are a bit of a different monster. They're still about space
>exploration, just from a distance.

Uh, no, they're about astronomy, which only rarely has much to to with
space exploration, despite some superficial similarity.

>My view is NASA should step away from its emphasis on science. NASA
>should be developing technology to move out into our universe.

There's a lot to be said for that. Trouble is, when NASA proposes to
spend money developing such technology, the response tends to be "and just
which *science missions* require this technology?" 

-- 
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend."    |   Henry Spencer
                                -- George Herbert       | henry@spsystems.net

Relevant Pages

  • Re: I must have missed this class...
    ... but as a catalyst for further development in nearly every ... been forced to dramatically cut funding for science missions (including ... my own), I have a couple ideas about NASA's funding needs, too. ... funding available for new science and technology is staggering. ...
    (alt.smokers.pipes)
  • Re: Kerry criticizes Bushs space vision
    ... >Increasing NASA funding. ... spending a lot of money getting nowhere. ... and developing lots of new technology. ...
    (sci.space.policy)