A Way to Save Hubble?

An anonymous reader writes "The maintenance flight to give the Hubble Space Telescope a few more years has been cancelled, even though everyone agrees that HST does good work. But this article offers a way to save the space telescope, and to give those who think the space program should be privatized a way to prove they can do it."

Comments

Typical and misguided

[JackBuckley]

So, as always in America, we turn to privatization as solution for the failure or unwillingness for the government provision of goods and services. "If science is so valuable," the argument runs, "private industry can and should provide it."

Rather than hope that some small or large corporation agrees that a profit can be made off of Hubble research, the government should take a stand and finance basic science for its own sake, instead of ruminating about a massive aerospace industry welfare program under the cover of an exciting bunch of missions to the Moon and Mars.

Of course, I'm not so naive as to think that the government actually would change their priorities on this. After all, with all the tax cuts to the rich and a couple of expensive wars to fight, hard choices have to be made, right?

And we still need our Federal mohair subsidy program, so it's time for Hubble to go!

(I'm not bitter or anything)

Re:Typical and misguided

[Snerdley]

I realize that I'm going to be hammered as a right-wing nutjob for this one, but I really can't let this pass.

Professor Buckley, I have a big problem with a person such as yourself pontificating about how horrible privitization is, and how terribly the American government is treating scientists and researchers.

Don't get me wrong: I agree with your line about the mohair subsidies.. and I hope everone here votes out the pork-barrel weasels in their districts.

However, just once, I wish that a chronic academic such as yourself would realize that the government is not a source of money!

Before I wrote this, I took a look at your Vitae and confirmed what I suspected: You have always been payed by taxpayers! I found no private sector experience at all!

Thank you for your service in the Navy! And I don't doubt that your service to your country/state/school/students in your other positions has been admirable. However, from what I have seen on your vitae, you have never:

• Created Goods/Products
• Started a business
• Created a Job
• Laid off an employee
• Generated Revenue (other than for yourself)
• Had to Create/Follow a Budget

In fact, it seems your primary activity for the past few years has been to do research and write papers about other teachers! All of which has been paid for by either land-grant univerisities or our horribly stingy government.

The contention that saving the Hubble is "Basic Science" is ludicrous: it is an incredibly expensive project that is nearing the end of its expected duration anyway. I'm certain there is more we can learn from Hubble, but we are talking about billions of dollars to save it for a few years!

"Billion? With a B?"
"...Yes, with a B."

By the way, Professor, just why are you so bitter about this particular item? Have you ever actually used Hubble data during your search for better School Systems? Or are you just like the rest of us: mesmerized and inspired by the amazing and beautiful pictures.

Professor, the case for saving the Hubble may be strong. I'm not qualified to make that call. However, our elected officials have decided that the massive cost involved in saving it is not something that our tax dollars will be used for. A part of me is delighted! It's the first time in months I've seen them say no to anything! If you have evidence that they're wrong: let's see it.

Personally, I hope that the approach suggested in the article (you did read it, right?) is followed: let those who find this project crucial and needed say so with their pocketbooks. If they do, I (like most /.'ers) will delight in the images and wish them the best.

However, I hope that you remember that there are those of us in the audience (even here at /.) whose blood boils when they read a comment such as yours! We aren't protected in our ivory towers: our jobs will go overseas if we don't bust our asses. We aren't rich, but those tax cuts saved many of us our jobs! They let others save more and helped to put their kids through your classes.

So before you slam the government and therefore your fellow tax-payers, please remember that without them, your resume (oops, I mean Vitae would look pretty bare.

--Bill

At least..

[herrvinny]

At least we should boost Hubble to higher orbit, so when NASA gets additional funding, it can try again to bring it down. Putting it in a museum somewhere would really be a inspiration to many children to go into science.

on the moon? think again --

[sdedeo]

The first warning sign was that we were being told to listen to someone who uses the word "technopolitical" in his job description. The second was that he was writing for the National Review Online, a magazine that has decided to throw it's lot in with "lie through the teeth" conservatism.

In the article, the author writes, with all the assurance that this is not just his belief, but rather a fact to be "remembered":

But it is worth remembering that a permanent presence on the moon will provide a far better platform for a space telescope, and it is likely a telescope will be put there.

As the slashdot saying goes, "BZZZZZT!" In fact, astronomers and instrumentation people have considered "moon bases," and concluded that there is absolutely no good reason to go all the way up to the moon (a very expensive trip between gravity wells) instead of putting your telescopes in low Earth orbit. The most enthusiastic moon astronomers want to do radio stuff -- not replicate Hubble's optical work.

Does the Lunar Surface Still Offer Value As a Site for Astronomical Observatories?, by three members of JPL, Goddard and UT, and published in Space Policy (I guess NRO wasn't taking articles then) provides the full story.