Slashdot Mirror
NASA Engineers Dispute Hubble Safety Claim
Zeinfeld writes "According to the administration, the Hubble space telescope is going to be allowed to die in the next three years because the shuttle mission required to save it would be too risky. Meanwhile the public plans say shuttle missions to the space station will resume. Papers leaked to the New York Times say hogwash. The article (free subscription required) reports claims that money and politics, not safety are the reason. The public NASA story is clearly nonsense, and if the science from Hubble does not justify a shuttle mission, then it's time to pull the plug on the space station. I suspect that is exactly what will happen after the November election."
...differently? Lets face it, the tax cuts served two purposes for the Bush administration, buy off support of the richest in America and to run the finances of the nation into the ground so far that we would have to cut spending. This Mars crap is just that, a canard to distract the populace and make Bush look like a visionary. Given it was unfunded I would imagine he does not have any serious desire to see the US travel to Mars, although I would imagine he would like Terry McCauliffe get sent there...
Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
Hubble has produced some wonderful marvelous pictures. But that doesn't justify the fact that it's a multi-billion dollar project funded by stealing from the tax-payer. If private individuals and organizations want to fund projects to peer deep into space -- using money voluntarily acquired -- fine. Otherwise, it's just theft with the excuse of stargazing.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Bush and the Republican Congress increased NASA's budget.
Well, yeah, about a billion a year for the next five years. Not chump change, but we're supposed to replace the shuttle in a mere six years and start a Mars program on that. It's simply not credible.
If they were seriously interested in science, then keeping the Hubble running for a few more years would be a huge bargain. Where else will they get that kind of science for that kind of marginal outlay? No, if Hubble goes down it will be because the Bush administration is not interested in supporting science.
However I do think they are interested in the militarization of space, and they need a civilian space program to pursue this discreetly. To be fair, they should be paying attention to upcoming military threats in space, because we are so dependent upon space technology. Some time in the next few decades we will see our space "assets" become vulnerable. Pursuing space technolgoy through a civlian program makes good sense, since it is less likely to ignite a space arms race that would, relatively speaking, have higher risks for us.
But I wouldn't credit the Bush administration in serious interest in scientific research or space exploration.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
Calling Bush a liar or claiming he tells a lie requires believing that he knew for certain the statements he made were false, but still went on anyways.
As David Kay said, we were all wrong.
Being wrong doesn't mean being a liar. The loony lefties like yourself still can't get over that.
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.