Hubble saved

Thank god. Looks like common sense prevailed after all.

www.newscientist.com...

[edit on 18/5/05 by The Block]

Sigh...

Politics and public opinion once again prevail over science. Nasa has essentially dumped two extremely important missions in order to tack a couple of years onto an observatory that in the year 2005 now offers little advantage over its ground-based counterparts. I'm so angry right now that I could care less if they shut Nasa down tomorrow.

I'll wait and see.

The three remaining shuttles have more than enough to do just to complete the ISS (core complete - 28 flights).

Any mission to update the Hubble will just be a PR flight.

We all love this telescope, but it's time has passed...

Drop this puppy into the Pacific Ocean and get on with looking into the future. ( or the past, depending on your focal point )

Finish what you start, get the ISS up and running.......
If you have to invite China to join, or start paying Russia to launch more supply ships. Anything to get this done so that we can move forward.

I want to see footprints on the Moon, and the Hubble and ISS are just stones around the neck of a drowning man.

Let's leave LEO to the spy sats and Richard Branson and get NASA moving men (and women) out into the Solar System.

First Stop, The Moon.... Then Onto Mars........

Why do they need to eliminate two programs that each is probably more expensive than the repair mission for Hubble? Doesn't make sense.

If anything extend the schedule to these programs. I think they should keep Hubble going till something is up there to replace it. But it wouldn't bother me to let it fail.

[edit on 5/18/2005 by Hal9000]

Originally posted by vor78
Politics and public opinion once again prevail over science. Nasa has essentially dumped two extremely important missions in order to tack a couple of years onto an observatory that in the year 2005 now offers little advantage over its ground-based counterparts. I'm so angry right now that I could care less if they shut Nasa down tomorrow.

First, there is an ongoing argument about the merits of Hubble as an instrument. Even though there is progress in adaptive optics of all sorts, for terrestrial telescopes, Hubble should be able to maintain certain advantage, such as coverage, for some time.

Second, the notion that two expensive missions were delayed raises a red flag for me. I think Hubble will be used as an excuse to further delay or cancel the funding to these other missions should the fiscal pressure increase.

So don't blame Hubble. It's a great instrument and I'm sure a lot more wonderful science will be done with it.

I want to see footprints on the Moon, and the Hubble and ISS are just stones around the neck of a drowning man.

But we neeeeeeed the Hubble to detect the coming Reticulan invasion in time!!

And which would you prefer? Blast off straight from Earth on a massive rocket hauling up everything you need to get you to the Moon, or... use the handy dandy and awful convenient ISS as a relay, construction, and preparation station.
The need for a permanent installation in Earth orbit is massive and undeniable.

Nasa is a joke. Nothing goes right with them.

Thats just my opinion.

Originally posted by vor78
Sigh...

Politics and public opinion once again prevail over science. Nasa has essentially dumped two extremely important missions in order to tack a couple of years onto an observatory that in the year 2005 now offers little advantage over its ground-based counterparts. I'm so angry right now that I could care less if they shut Nasa down tomorrow.

Couldn't agree more

Aelita
Hubble should be able to maintain certain advantage, such as coverage, for some time.

The European (VLT) Very Large Telescope is 4 large telescopes all connected together...them combined can look deeper, and have more coverage then the Hubble.

The European (VLT) Very Large Telescope is 4 large telescopes all connected together...them combined can look deeper, and have more coverage then the Hubble.

It is still on the surface and is still subject to atmospheric interference, no matter how much cancellation you pull off with the multiple mirrors.

Space-based is far superior. Even if Hubble is an eyesore, it's still where our big 'n' bad telescopes need to be.

Originally posted by anxietydisorder
I want to see footprints on the Moon, and the Hubble and ISS are just stones around the neck of a drowning man.

Your emphasis is seeing the footprints. But footprints is not science.

The ISS with all its short comings is invaluable as a test bed for all space tech, and as a shelter (yes, that too) if anything goes wrong with a space vehicle in near orbit. It's a great lab to the boot. Just read up. It helps make progress in biology, material science, earth science and what not. But you want to call it a stone around the neck because of ca hildish wish to see a footprint in dust somewhere. Good luck, Mr. Gorsky.

I thought it worth mentioning that the fact that these issues are a direct result of the actions of the new director, Mike Griffin, appointed by pres. shrub, prompted me to consider whether or not Griffin was yet another Skull and Bones plant (this is a conspiracy site afterall, and I loooooove a good conspiracy).

So I did some digging and looks like he went to a Skull and Bones school.. John Hopkins University.
www.jhu.edu...

Mike Griffin, A&S '71, Engr '83 (MS)

Which anyone who is a fan of The Order knows was founded by and first president was a Skull and Bone, Daniel Coit Gilman.

I don't really want to pay to get access to the John Hopkins library, so I do not have facts yet stating what organizations exist at the school and what Griffin was a member of. However, it can be safely assumed that being a Bonesmen school, there is an Order presence.

Also, he is no stranger to the Defense Department
www.jhuapl.edu...

Griffin succeeds Dr. Stamatios M. (Tom) Krimigis, head of the Space Department since 1991. His experience includes a previous stop at APL in the 1980s, when he helped design the successful Delta 180 series of missile-defense technology satellites for the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization.

Or the CIA
www.jhu.edu...

Prior to joining Johns Hopkins, Griffin was president and chief operating officer of In-Q-Tel, a CIA-funded enterprise whose mission is to identify and invest in cutting-edge solutions that serve national security interests.

And we all know the CIA is basically... yup... you guessed it... Bones. *cough* Nixon *cough* Bush *cough* Crap is that a lung?

Looks like the standard Bonesmen strategy... get Bones working for Bones and manuever fellow Bonesmen into positions of power, authority, and/or influence. So far I have found nothing to contradict this speculation, but I can say that I believe Griffin has been put in place to maneuver NASA to follow in desires of The Order. If I were to guess, and at this point Im no stranger to guessing, Id say these two cancelled missions have some part in it... maybe the Bones know something we dont, and dont want the public to discover it yet. Maybe there is a much grander scheme afoot. The last election, Bones vs. Bones, was a joke and a poorly acted routine, so maybe this is just more wool over our eyes. Maybe Im wrong. But maybe... Im right! MUAHA

Originally posted by Aelita


Your emphasis is seeing the footprints. But footprints is not science.

The ISS with all its short comings is invaluable as a test bed.............

I don't think you read my entire post.... I want to see the ISS completed as soon as possible. Get the Shuttle back into space and get the job done.

And yes I do want to see footprints on the Moon. Because the people leaving those footprints will be doing science and building a base, and a future.

We can leave Mars to the robots for now, but the Moon is only 250,000 miles away. It has resources that we can use right on sight.

Once one nation starts building a Lunar base, others will follow, and before you know it........ the first child will be born off world.

Hubble has costed several billions of dollars. It was a failure upon deployment and an utter embarrassment to NASA. But they fixed it, and it provided many pictures and date that was impossible with other devices at the time. It proved itself and NASAs ability to redeem themselves.

Hubble should be saved, and maybe it can be converted to do something else, if this European thing is true.

anxietydisorder
and before you know it........ the first child will be born off world.

no, I doubt that there will be a birth in space or on another world for at least 50 years, but probably closer to 100 years.

There prohibited from having sex while in orbit (or on a alien planet), and they go threw a lot a phisicals before they go, so there is no chance of a woman who just got pregnant to have her baby in space...not to mention they never stay up there that long, they stay on the ISS for around 6 months...not 9.

and just in case your argument is..."well, what about when they go to Mars...that mission could take years". If a woman had sex with a guy on board the Mars bound spacecraft, and if she got pregnant, theres a good chance the baby would die, since there would be nothing on board the CEV that was designed for a baby.