nlinecomputers Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 Hubble not to be serviced by shuttle will be allowed to die.Is it just me or am I the only one thinking that Bush really wants to just kill NASA so he says we are going back to the moon and Mars knowing full well we will not get the funding for that. In the mean time he is kills Shuttle to "prepare" for a new vehicle system that we will never get? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cluttermagnet Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 Hubble not to be serviced by shuttle will be allowed to die.Is it just me or am I the only one thinking that Bush really wants to just kill NASA so he says we are going back to the moon and Mars knowing full well we will not get the funding for that. In the mean time he is kills Shuttle to "prepare" for a new vehicle system that we will never get?To me the Mars mission hoopla comes across as posturing. He is trying to ride John F. Kennedy's coattails r.e. the space program. This admin is particularly well known for distractive tactics "Hey, what's that over there?!" when the heat is on. Can you think of any truly original ideas from this bunch? I can't. It has the whiff of misdirection to me, it sounds insincere. Did you notice there are no real specifics? That is no accident, as I see it. Vision is not something this admin has been noted for. They posture as foreward-looking, but seem to really be playing a backward- looking class warfare game, bent on setting up a new middle ages feudal system or something to that effect. Look at the substance and the effects of actions taken in the past three years, and what you see is a near complete disconnect between the rhetoric and the reality. Things like "No child left behind" and then funding yanked to the detriment of the poorest in our country. Tax breaks that only really support the long term redistribution of wealth from the vast middle to the wealthy few. Yeah, right, go pitch men on the moon, men on Mars, anything to distract from the horrible mess here at home. One can posture as foreward- thinking, but actions speak louder than words. This is a regressive bunch with no real vision or answers. They just want to repay their campaign contributors and pave the way for some nice jobs for themselves and their friends after they leave the government. Take a long, hard look at their real track record in science and the public interest. Ignore the recent hyperbole. They are the moral equivalent of flat- earthers and crowds with torches and pitchforks. They want to put a stake right through the heart of science. If science can lick its wounds and survive another year- or five- we can begin to rebuild after they are gone. It will take quite a while to repair the damage, as we have driven away many of the worlds top scientists and governments, stopped important research dead in its tracks for petty political gain, and are sending the good jobs offshore at a record clip. Bah Humbug!Regarding Hubble, that seems more of a financial inevitability than anything else. Something has to give. Regretfully, I imagine that Hubble might well be getting the axe under a Democratic admin about now. It is getting a bit long in the tooth. I really wish it could linger on a while, with support, as it has given us such splendid new insights into the universe, but we are constantly forced to prioritize. Unmanned exploratory missions are riding high right now, and the astronomers are getting the short end of the stick, but remember how many bucks we spent to fit Hubble with 'spectacles' after the mirror screwup came to light? It's not as if the astronomy boys got nothing. Science will fondly remember Hubble for many a year to come, as will I. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibe98765 Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 1. Hubble was (still is?) due to replaced by about 2011 with a new telescope. If this is still on target (assuming Bush doesn't squander all the money on attacking someone else after Iraq), then letting the present Hubble die makes sense. See:http://www.ngst.nasa.gov/FastFacts.htm2. Regarding the new proposed initiative to build a base on the moon and reach out for Mars - I believe that the real reason for this is because there is a lot of government fear that the Chinese are planning to do the exact same thing. Therefore, just like the Russian space program years ago motivated us out of fear, the same fear of being put at a military disadvantage is behind this initiative. China sent their first man into orbit a few months back and I believe that they have stated that they want to do a moon mission. They want to be a player in space. Mark my words - this will eventually come out as the primary reason for these missions.Regardless, I personally believe that we should have already accomplished these goals. Whatever motivates to get off our rears and explore the universe, is OK by me. That way, maybe we'll have someplace for the survivors to go when we blow up this world, sigh... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlebone Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 Isn't it possible that the Chinese want to go to the moon out of pride? After all, our space race with Russia in the sixties may have had a military basis, but in the end we didn't put missile bases there and the moon missions were peaceful.Unless of course, they were just staged on a Hollywood backlot. ( ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Paracelsus Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 ibe98765 makes some excellent points here.I remember reading with excitement about a "Space Telescope" in Sky & Telescope magazine in the mid '60's. But by the time it was launched and subsequently repaired, it was already obsolete... Technology-wise.The military had space-based imaging technology (spy satellites) as good as Hubble for nearly 20 years prior to HST. But just as with GSP and the exquisitely detailed topological maps of the ocean floor, the technology was "Off Limits" for civilian purposes for decades. And I don't have a problem with that, myself. Historically... At least as far back as Heron and the Hellenistic Greeks... Military prowess and innovations have always been a driving force in Technological advances.Hubble will be replaced. Let us just hope, it is with something that is truly cutting edge.As far as missions to the Moon & Mars...I agree with CM 10³%!!! A Bush... is a Bush... is a Bush . Gee-Dubya's old man had some grandiose planes for space as well. (Conveniently forgotten... as they never blossomed). And I wouldn't be at all surprised if the scenario outlined by ibe98765 weren't the driving force. (Although, I hate to admit that I haven't read about this, myself )Something that wasn't mentioned about the "original" space program, is that...In addition to wanting to stay ahead of the USSR, the primary purpose of the program was to test launch vehicles for ICBM's. From Atlas on through Saturn, those increasingly huge rockets were meant for more than just providing the umph to send a few tons of men and machines to the Moon.And what a socio-politically acceptable ruse the "Space Program" provided! Personally... I am fervently against a manned space program!Robotics is the way to go. Being a science nut, myself, discoveries and achievements are thrilling in their own right. I don't need a human there to give me some vicarious sensation. Not only are robotic missions manifestly more cost effective... I also believe that the innovations and advances requisite to achieve truly scientific discovery and exploration, in those few tasks that (possibly) could be better accomplished by a human, would yield technologies that would have great benefits to society.(And from another Thread ibe98765 started, it looks like the Japanese have some robots that aren't too far away from being able to take on the role)Having said all this...I will concede that there is a potential inspirational quality to having "Astronauts". Having grown up with "The Space Race", I was taken in at a very early age. One of my clearest recollections from Kindergarten, was our teacher bringing in a TV so we could watch John Glenn's launch!! I was hooked!!! From that moment, I never thought about anything else but becoming a Scientist.IF... and it's a BIG IF in the modern world.... If, reviving a Manned Space Program were to inspire young people to pursue academics more seriously (and this also require a HUGE improvement in the quality of Secondary School Math & Science education), then perhaps it may not be money down the drain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibe98765 Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Reviving a Manned Space Program were to inspire young people to pursue academics more seriously (and this also require a HUGE improvement in the quality of Secondary School Math & Science education), then perhaps it may not be money down the drain.Spending money on space exploration has never been a "waste" of money. Many technological advances have come about that were developed solely because of a need driven by something to do with space exploration. Without a focus point, we tend to be lethargic and don't push the envelope. This is simply human nature. But when a goal is brought into place, we get a lot more motivated. Without something magical like exploring the universe, we will sit here and take baby steps, instead of giant steps.Besides, imagine watching Star Trek or Enterprise and a ship full of robots. That wouldn't be any fun at all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Paracelsus Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Spending money on space exploration has never been a "waste" of money.Granted!! I was, perhaps, a bit unthinking in my choice of words. I should have qualified that to mean (POV here) the extra cost of having things "amenable" to the human cargo. (OK!, OK!... I'll drop that issue for now)Besides, imagine watching Star Trek or Enterprise and a ship full of robots. That wouldn't be any fun at all! I'll take a crew of Datas over one occupied by Rikers, Beverly Crushers, and whiny son of hers , any day. Especially if I could get a few built with the "Specs" of some of "Mudd's Women"So, I'm getting a bit off topic...And Data is an Android, not a Robot. But that may be precisely my point about developing robotics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NRD Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 I'm with Paracelsus on manned space travel, at least at this point of our technological development.Having manned missions are great for PR, and thus funding, but I believe 99% of the tasks are better suited to machines. Space travel is inherently dangerous, but I don't think the general public viewed it as such. The shuttle program made many think that manned missions were nothing more than complicated air travel. The disasters drove home the point that this is anything but simple or safe.I was really worried that there would be no space program after the last Shuttle disaster. Untill manned travel is a bit safer, make mine DATA! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 I agree with ibe ... money is never wasted on the space program, if for no other reason than the peripheral advancements made that we all have enjoyed the benefits of.But there are so many facets to this. Many folks are trying to water this down to 'we need more heros' ... it goes well beyond needing heros! It is the stuff dreams that turn into reality are made of. As several have stated here, the space program has really opened many doors to the hearts of future scientists as well as astronauts, pilots, and many other scientific fields.The science program has been especially important since JFK and has helped to shape so much of the technology we enjoy today and should never be hampered, IMHO.They are not saying to send men to Mars without the proper steps. And it could well include robots initially at least on the Mars trips for all we know. They were talking about 20-30 years out anyway.So many just had to jump against it because of who was talking...especially since politics is on the campaign trail again and gets downright nasty during this time frame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 What Have We Done For You Lately? NASA Connections to Everyday Life Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibe98765 Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 "Periods of tranquility are seldom prolific of creative achievement.Mankind has to be stirred up"- Alfread North Whitehead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_P Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Space travel is inherently dangerousSo too is flying. Or driving on a freeway for that matter. Hopefully you avoid both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Paracelsus Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Well...Since I was instrumental in derailing this Thread, I'll put it back on track Here's some on NASA's scoop on the next ST:James Webb Space TelescopeI believe the issues and arguments concerning manned vs robotic space missions should be left to it's own Thread.Anyone care to "start something" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Thanks Paracelsus! ;)Also, off one of the links at your link found this:JWST Fast Facts.Wow ...it's gonna awesome! They aren't giving up on anything ... this is just preparatory to the next step.Makes sense.Media.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cluttermagnet Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 Also, off one of the links at your link found this:JWST Fast Facts.Wow ...it's gonna awesome! They aren't giving up on anything ... this is just preparatory to the next step.It was well worth the visit. Did you click on the sub-topic about the L2 point? Fascinating. That sub-page is worth a visit just for the graphics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cluttermagnet Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 Here's another interesting article about retiring Hubble:Safety killed the (Hubble) telescope star Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corrine Posted February 16, 2004 Share Posted February 16, 2004 Hubble fans will enjoy this. http://wires.news.com.au/special/mm/030811-hubble.htm It takes a bit of time to load on dialup, but definitely worth it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Paracelsus Posted February 16, 2004 Share Posted February 16, 2004 Thanks for the link, Corrine.Awesome photos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corrine Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Its good to know that Hubble isn't going to let lack of support effect performance: Scientists find most distant galaxy -- Hubble picks up image; discovery could give clues to how universe evolvedTapping the powerful Hubble Space Telescope and a rare quirk of cosmic physics, astronomers have discovered the most distant galaxy in the universe, a faint, record-setting smear of light that flared just 750 million years after the big bang.If confirmed, astronomers said, the discovery could provide new clues to fundamental questions such as when stars first began to shine and how a few simple chemical building blocks in the early universe evolved into the dazzling gallery of objects we see today. The Baltimore Sun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cluttermagnet Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Hubble is not necessarily dead yet. Not by a long shot. If you have followed the news, its demise is no longer quite so certain. There is quite a row going lately, with disagreement even within NASA as to whether it would be possible to continue servicing Hubble through 2010-2012. This is one time when you can write your congressman and perhaps make a difference. I also heartily recommend you all do a bit of a search on recent events regarding Hubble. What you learn may surprise you. I thought its goose was thoroughly cooked, but "it ain't necessarily so..." One good article is here.Those of you who missed the PBS News Hour coverage on TV Tuesday night, March 30, 2004, might be surprised at the current state of affairs. It may be possible to save Hubble, but mainly over the dead body of the current NASA administrator and some of his staff, who are putting such a premium on safety, safety at all costs, that they are not willing to take on the slight added risk to human life posed by another shuttle resupply mission. I can't say that I blame them, under the circumstances. You will remember that they got quite a black eye over the shuttle disaster, and they have vowed to never, ever shortcut safety again. Others disagree, and say that the additional risk is a small increment and that too much is at stake here to let Hubble weaken, fail, and burn up re-entering Earth's atmosphere. Really quite an interesting debate from all angles. Your comments to your congressman might just make a big difference. To me, the Hubble situation is one area where the NASA admin needs to be overruled. This isn't going to happen unless there is a lot of arm twisting at high levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Nasa needs to kill itself first... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzButt Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Hubble is not necessarily dead yet. Not by a long shot. If you have followed the news, its demise is no longer quite so certain. There is quite a row going lately, with disagreement even within NASA as to whether it would be possible to continue servicing Hubble through 2010-2012. This is one time when you can write your congressman and perhaps make a difference. I also heartily recommend you all do a bit of a search on recent events regarding Hubble. What you learn may surprise you. I thought its goose was thoroughly cooked, but "it ain't necessarily so..." One good article is here.Those of you who missed the PBS News Hour coverage on TV Tuesday night, March 30, 2004, might be surprised at the current state of affairs. It may be possible to save Hubble, but mainly over the dead body of the current NASA administrator and some of his staff, who are putting such a premium on safety, safety at all costs, that they are not willing to take on the slight added risk to human life posed by another shuttle resupply mission. I can't say that I blame them, under the circumstances. You will remember that they got quite a black eye over the shuttle disaster, and they have vowed to never, ever shortcut safety again. Others disagree, and say that the additional risk is a small increment and that too much is at stake here to let Hubble weaken, fail, and burn up re-entering Earth's atmosphere. Really quite an interesting debate from all angles. Your comments to your congressman might just make a big difference. To me, the Hubble situation is one area where the NASA admin needs to be overruled. This isn't going to happen unless there is a lot of arm twisting at high levels.I agree. Something this important going to waste is insane. I'll be writing letters to all my elected officials in DC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.