Whitehouse: Find re-entry solution for Hubble
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:25:20 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Forum Community
  Off-topic Board (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, The Mikado, YE)
  Whitehouse: Find re-entry solution for Hubble
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Whitehouse: Find re-entry solution for Hubble  (Read 1752 times)
Richard
Richius
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,369


Political Matrix
E: 8.40, S: 2.80

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 22, 2005, 09:13:01 AM »

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6853009

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thumbs up.
Logged
Jake
dubya2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,621
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2005, 10:45:45 AM »


This has gone to far.  The Hubble is needed in space.  I'd take a tax raise to keep it in orbit.
Logged
David S
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,250


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 22, 2005, 11:22:17 AM »

Don't get all teary eyed. There is already a replacement for Hubble in space and another on the way. Hubble has served its purpose.

"Here are some figures for cost comparison: NASA says Hubble's original cost was $1.5 billion, and annual operation costs amount to $250 million. The infrared Spitzer Space Telescope, which was launched last year and is returning spectacular pictures, cost just $670 million, thanks to expense-trimming tricks. Hubble's successor, the James Webb Space Telescope, is budgeted at $825 million."
Source http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3217961/

I propose allowing citicens to launch ICBM's at it for a fee, kind of like the ultimate in skeet shooting. That will eliminate the risk of parts hitting populated areas when it comes down. Use the proceeds to finance future missions.  Smiley
Logged
Trilobyte
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 397


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 22, 2005, 11:25:00 AM »

... meanwhile, the Pentagon is wasting billions on a missile shield that is neither practical nor functional.
Logged
Richard
Richius
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,369


Political Matrix
E: 8.40, S: 2.80

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2005, 05:21:53 PM »


This has gone to far.  The Hubble is needed in space.  I'd take a tax raise to keep it in orbit.
It isn't really needed anymore, and is far too expensive to maintain for what it offers.  The new telecopes are the future.  This is equivalent of saying Microsoft should give support for Windows 1 because it is needed.  Or, Ford should keep building its Model T.
Logged
KEmperor
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,454
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -0.05

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 22, 2005, 06:28:50 PM »

Sell it off!
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 22, 2005, 07:44:43 PM »

WTF... While I am generally am opposed to NASA this just goes way to far.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 22, 2005, 07:56:07 PM »

Hubble=spiffy.
Logged
Jake
dubya2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,621
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 22, 2005, 08:10:27 PM »


Hubble=wOOt  (I did that correctly, right ILV)
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 22, 2005, 08:16:32 PM »

One great feature of science is it's ability to advance its frontier by tapping into the latest and best technology. Astronomical science is no different. We have much better technologies today to use in space than there were 20 years ago as the Hubble was being designed. Many other excellent space observatories that produced astounding data have already served their mission and been deorbited. Like those, the Hubble should make way for the Webb.

The public affection for the Hubble blurs our vision for the scientific mission. I would like to see NASA really hype results from its current missions like Huygens is doing on Titan and Spitizer can do with infrared imagery. I would b best if Hubble could be left alone to produce second class results. Then, as the Webb is set to launch (around 2010) move the publics image to a new observatory replacing the beloved Hubble. Unfortunately, I don't think the Hubble can be made to last until 2010 without drawing resources from the exciting new projects underway.

Many other areas of big science have to take breaks from data collection while the instrument is upgraded. After running my current experiment (> 100 M$ with 700 collaborators) from 1992 to 1996 we shut down for 5 years and replaced old electronics with faster and more powerful circuits. We can now get data in one year that would have taken 5 before. These results were well worth the interruption in the data.

Astronomy is after all a science, not just a medium for getting cool pictures to the public. Let the Hubble go off to its well-deserved place in history.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: January 22, 2005, 09:33:04 PM »


no, they would be 0's instead of O's Kiki
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: January 22, 2005, 09:48:57 PM »

One great feature of science is it's ability to advance its frontier by tapping into the latest and best technology. Astronomical science is no different. We have much better technologies today to use in space than there were 20 years ago as the Hubble was being designed. Many other excellent space observatories that produced astounding data have already served their mission and been deorbited. Like those, the Hubble should make way for the Webb.

The public affection for the Hubble blurs our vision for the scientific mission. I would like to see NASA really hype results from its current missions like Huygens is doing on Titan and Spitizer can do with infrared imagery. I would b best if Hubble could be left alone to produce second class results. Then, as the Webb is set to launch (around 2010) move the publics image to a new observatory replacing the beloved Hubble. Unfortunately, I don't think the Hubble can be made to last until 2010 without drawing resources from the exciting new projects underway.

Many other areas of big science have to take breaks from data collection while the instrument is upgraded. After running my current experiment (> 100 M$ with 700 collaborators) from 1992 to 1996 we shut down for 5 years and replaced old electronics with faster and more powerful circuits. We can now get data in one year that would have taken 5 before. These results were well worth the interruption in the data.

Astronomy is after all a science, not just a medium for getting cool pictures to the public. Let the Hubble go off to its well-deserved place in history.

Agreed. We can't obsess over Hubble just because it has been useful - it's an object, not a person, and I have absolutely no qualms with replacing it with a superior instrument. Hubble was about the progress of science - if you insist on clinging to the past you disgrace the very purpose for which Hubble was created.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.036 seconds with 11 queries.