Slashdot Mirror
O'Keefe Under Fire for Hubble, ISS Decisions
chuckpeters writes "The battle over saving Hubble is just starting to heat up! The House Science Committee Democrats released their views and
estimates report. Recommendation number two was that
until Congress gets better information on the long term costs of Bush's
Moon/Mars initiative, NASA's 2005 funding requests should go to existing
programs. The House Science Committee has also decided that
they want to hear from outside experts on Bush's space initiative.
Just as Hubble isn't going quietly into the night, Bush's Moon/Mars plan
isn't going quickly into space!"
... and not just campaign promises
It seemed like it only showed up in a media once a year or so. Now everytime the Hubble takes a piss (metaphorically speaking), it's front page news.
People always told me NASA has good P.R., but now I see that it's astrophysicists in general who are great at getting attention.
I think we need a manned Mars mission badly, and I Am worried the Democrats will kill it just because Bush signed off on the idea. It would be great to keep Hubble but how long can we put off manned space exploration? We have been dragging our collective heels now since the end of the Apollo missions.
Plus, I'd actually like to see it happen in my lifetime.
After the last incident he was given safty guidelines, and he is going to stick to them to the letter. If congress wants to bend them, then fine, but they will be making the call and it will be their asses on the line if something goes wrong not O'Keefes'.
Sean O'Keefe is a bean counter(accountant) Bush sent to NASA to trim its budget. Neither of them have any interest in space exploration or science. I saw O'Keefe's new conference on CNN after the Bush announcement and it was sickening watching someone who had no vision, knowledge of or interest in space, dodging questions and avoiding specifics on this supposedly bold new initiative. You would think they would have prepared for this announcement and presented a bold vision, rather than looking like a deer in the headlights not knowing exactly what all this means or being unwilling to admit it.
Having seen the funding timeline for this at the news conference its pretty clear what the plan is. Kill off the space shuttle and the ISS while you divert all the space enthusiasts attention with the promise of bold missions to Mars and the Moon. Of course none of those start ramping up for years and until you've already started killing off space exploration and when it comes time to bend metal on the new projects, Bush will be long gone, no one will want to pay the tab and the conservatives will have managed to kill off the civilian space program. Conservatives love killing off all parts of government not associated with the military or law enforcement.
This is a perplexing dilemna because killing off the space shuttle and ISS is exactly what the civilian space program needs to be come viable again. But when you do it you actually need to have a viable new program to replace it and this new program simply isn't viable.
You get a definitive clue something is wrong because they are going to continue wasting money to finish the completely useless ISS while they kill off the really valuable Hubble. Get a clue. The Hubble, like all the great observatories, is a priceless resource and they are one thing that should survive out of the current NASA along with JPL's efforts.
To me this smacks of the classic, clueless political manuevering and bureaucractic thinking that has been devestating space exploration for the last 30+ years.
...by the democrats, but if it saves Hubble, I'm 100% for it. Hubble is the only good thing to come out of the shuttle program. NASA wants to bury that fact is quickly as possible.
Kick ass telescope on the far side of the moon.
The end.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
I have a good friend who works at NASA HQ. According to her, the whole moon/mars idea is basically a boondoogle to shift NASA subcontractor jobs into Ohio and Florida, two very important states for the 2004 elections.
So it makes perfect sense that the dems are going to want to block it.
The Economics of Website Security
A Democratic President wouldn't be likely to do this.
I'm a liberal myself, but I will admit this: It is easier to bash a Republican for having ambitions for space programs than it is to bash a Democrat for not having these ambitions.
Apparently, the scientific community think that the Hubble has become limited in usefulness. The new observatory observes infrared and some visible (though not optical blue.) Everything is red-shifted, they say, so visible light telescopes like Hubble serve no purpose.
However, the new telescope cannot be fixed. It will lie in orbit between the sun and the Earth. What if it breaks? Eh? Bad lens? Bad gyroscopes? HST is in orbit and we can fix it. This can be a backup and it still serves a useful scientific role, as evidenced by its recent Ultra Deep Field exposure.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
We're better off sending bots unless there's a practical need to send peeps.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
The Hubble Space Telescope is one of the more successful of Nasa projects. One could argue that it didn't have a very auspicious start, but the very fact the engineers managed to rectify those inital errors bears testimony to NASA's true potential.
Meanwhile, the Shuttle programme is a MASSIVE disaster. It has cost the lives of 14 people. It has lead NASA to waste Billions. (This is not exaggeration, each flight costs US$500m)
So what programme does NASA scrap?
Hubble of course
Indefinitely Detained US Citizen
Look, save Hubble, fine, I agree. But I sense glee that this is a setback for the administration, and there almost seems to be smugness in here that the Mars program may be in danger now.
Do NOT try to kill manned Mars exploration just because you hate Bush. That's pretty fuckin' petty.
If you've got real reasons to oppose manned Martian exploration, fine, then say so. But to root for damage to manned planetary exploration to score points against a politician is lame.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
W: Where are we going?
US: Mars!
W: When are we going?
US: Real soon!
Do you want NASA to continue wasting untold billions of dollars on flying crap to low earth orbit? Hell, we have been doing since the 60s.
NASA needs a bold new vision, just like the one Kennedy provided. Humankind's future is in the space and Hubble's, no matter how wonderful they are, will not get us up there. The unmanned space exploration mafia has ruled long enough - now it's time for the real explorers.
I wonder if this story would have gotten the same vitriolic reaction it did if a Democratic President did this.
Sure, when the Superconducting Supercollider was killed during 1993, the President was roundly criticized...
Oh wait, when the SSC was killed, it was not Clinton, but Bush who was ridiculed in the media --- evidently because he had dared to support scientific research with tax dollars during his term in office.
Sorry, my bad!
Why do we need mars?
The Borg assimilated my race & all I got was this lousy T-shirt
You failed it!
I'll take that link now.
Has anyone looked into what outside contractors stand to benifit from a trip to Mars?
Does Halliburton have a space division? (Maybe they will charge 20x more than usual for each packet of Tang and freeze-dried iced cream!)
Why don't you embrace your slashbotness instead of living in a dreamworld?
Listening to O'keefe on a press conference about a month ago, when he addressed the Hubble issue in detail, it all became clear to me: It's pure politics.
After the CAIB, he was blasted, questioned and doubted to no end, so what does a skilled polititian do? cut your losses and move on. Well, he did just that. So now he's gonna follow the CAIB like it's the road to salvation. To the letter.
The CAIB puts forward a number of requirements for shuttle flights, including the ability to service the Shuttle via ISS if something goes wrong...among a host of other "inconvenient" requirements.
O'keefe decided to follow the CAIB to the letter so that means that going to the hubble will "break the laws" of the CAIB (Hubble is in an entirely different, incompatible orbit...still you'd think that being the thing called SHUTTLE it shouldn't be an issue, but it is)
So servicing the Hubble will violate his mandate to play it safest and thus it won't happen because it's "too risky" according to the CAIB mantra.
Slashdot Moderation: From positive to terrible in 2 "insightful" posts.
Hopefully the blatant cynicism of this ploy will be apparent to the voters.
Why does it always end up as "This or That" and never "both"? Hubble or Mars? Why can't they spare the extra 2 or 3% of the military budget and funnel it into NASA... after all, Hubble could potentially be used for military purposes, no? It's this sort of tightwadding of money that causes the managerial problems plaguing NASA today, as money gets yanked around to different places, with never enough left over to get jobs done the right way. As long as this sort of crap keeps up, we'll never get much farther than low earth orbit anytime soon. Just a few decades ago, we had a focus- to get to the moon. We got to the moon. What have we now? A leaky space station with pieces falling off, remnants of an aging and grounded shuttle fleet, and not much of a grand vision to get anywhere. While we do have 2 rovers poking and prodding Mars, America needs to find it's sense of adventure again, the spirit of pioneering that founded this country. Lewis and Clark headed west knowing the risks and found the Pacific Ocean. I've had enough of this safety and political correctness crap. Yes, it's risky, yes, it's dangerous. But how far can humanity progress without taking risks?
Bleh, that turned into a rant pretty quick, but I stand by it, so mod accordingly.
What is the real purpose of space research? To understand nature? Yes, that's the immediate goal but the ultimate goal is to understand nature so that we can colonize other planets.
Info from robots is woefully inadequate for that.
Hubble's still doing good science. The Voyagers are obselete but we're still listening to them for that very reason.
Danke tres mucho, tovarishch.
I know people will mod this as troll -99 but this is a serious question that I hope somebody can answer for me.
What tangible benefits has Hubble provided us? Other then advancing our knowledge of and expanding the "pure-sciences" involved how has humanity improved by this telescope?
It's my understanding that _ALL_ telescopes goal is to see as far back in time as possible. We want to prove or disprove the Big-Bang theory. What if we do prove it. Then what?
Please don't misunderstand me. I feel very strongly that all pure science must be pursued, I just don't understand what the big deal about Hubble is. Let's keep using it untill it disintegrates during re-entry, why invest more money into it?
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
That way of looking at it assumes that it's more than a boondoggle. By which is meant, that's it's a serious proposal that Bush actually believes in. Frankly, I'm sceptical.
Go ahead, mod me offtopic (It really isn't, though)
"Just as Hubble isn't going quietly into the night, Bush's Moon/Mars plan isn't going quickly into space!" And thats what we all want .. right? To dump money into a project that is at the end of it's lifespan, granted the project was wildly successfull. And belittle the project that we all wanted to see succed as kids just because you don't like Bush? The space program is more important than any one president or one project or one election. When I see the democrats talk about the president "wasting money" on the space program I want to scream. Don't get me wrong I have some strong misgivings about Bush's policys and the direction that he's taking the country, but this just goes to show where the Democratic party is these days i.e. anywhere the president isent even if where he is is right. The Democratic party used to be all for the space program, where are they now, they have traded the future of the human race in for a few votes. I know I'm gonna get slammed with negs for this but I don't care this pisses me off.
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
But NASA has always cut across party lines in ways that belie the stereotypes we have about our parties.
For example, Walter Mondale bitterly opposed the space shuttle program in the Senate -- back when Richard Nixon was engaged in OSP-style deceptions about the cost estimates per shuttle flight in order to "sell" the shuttle. Here's an article with some text from a letter he wrote outlining the reasons for his opposition. Key bits:
The author of that linked article, Joseph Rodota, wrote it as an indictment of "a long line of liberals opposed to space exploration."
Hmm. Does anything seem backward about this situation to you? Rodota's talking about "the importance of big ideas" over fiscal responsibilities? Mondale's decrying the senseless cost?
Basically the critic here is saying "Before we put the ax to programs like Hubble, we want to be sure we've made the right choice, and the public will want to see that decision-making process. Sean O'Keefe shouldn't make this one himself without us having access to the process."
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
This isn't about going to mars... This isn't about killing the Hubble per se...
It is about killing the Shuttle,ISS, and to a large extent the last bastion on big federal science...
The argument is that you can't get to the space station if something happens to the shuttle while servicing Hubble.
The way that you kill the space program, (the shuttle and ISS are the major targets. Hubble is just an unfortunate casualty). Is to change the priorities from existing ones that take real money, to non-existing ones that are so expensive that they can be cancelled later.
Hubble may be what saves the space program, is spite of the best laid plans of those that would like to see it killed.
You are correct. For several years now there has been a diminishing of Hubble science. No knock against Hubble. The instrument has been used to its full capability. There is not much more to be got out of it. The recent release of the Ultra Deep Field will yield no greater insights than the original. Worse, the release of UDF data was clearly staged to garner political support. What comes after, the 2,000,000 second exposure Super Ultra Deep Field? I'm am sure the folks at STSCI have more eye candy held in reserve. The real shame for the astronomical community is the delay and poor planning for the Hubble successor. That can hardly be blamed on O'Keefe or President Bush.
an ill wind that blows no good
I disagree. While it's hard to argue with the success of Spirit and Opportunity, they still don't compare to what human researchers could accomplish if they were there in person. Just look at the amount of time it took to debark the rovers from the landers and manuver them into position to take samples or do other research! One suitably equipped human could _easily_ do in hours what has taken these rovers weeks to accomplish....
Got mead?
We as self-proclaimed "intellectuals" were also curious during our childhoods. What's that in the sky there? How come I can only see it at night? Did we really send a man up there?
It's always been human nature to be curious, to colonize, to conquer. We've overtaken this planet and use every other species either as a food source or we send them to areas of the world we haven't bothered to deforest yet. The problems "at home" (in the US, I assume you mean) are someone else's problems, they don't apply to us because we're happy as long as we have our internet, our porn, our reality TV shows and our McDonalds.
It's sad, but what can you do? Giving a damn about someone else's problems is not conservative policy.
That's probably an accurate statement about Conservativism. They believe government exists to keep the peace and enforce the law, little more. But the space program is tied very closely to the military, and less directly, to law enforcement. So that part of things doesn't add-up.
I'm sure Bush would want nothing more than a 5 megawatt laser with a phase conjugate target tracking system that could destroy a human target from space. It's the perfect peacetime weapon.
Also, why does kill off the shuttle and ISS make a civilian space program viable? A better idea might be to have NASA assist other companies in developing space-faring gear, and with things such as the X-prize.
Historically, every dollar spent on the space program comes back into the economy 100 fold.
You want to boost the economy, well here you are.
As for problems to fix here first, fix the economy, and most of them will go away.
ror == "raughing out roud" ??
I just don't get it.
How can so many brilliant people be so blind to the fact that: THE HUMAN RACE MUST GET OFF THIS PLANET - NOT LATER BUT RIGHT ABOUT NOW!
We are already overdue for an extinction level asteroid impact and the odds won't improve with time.
With the notable exception of the space program back during JFK's administration, not a whole hell of a lot that is spectacular or innovative has happene in space exploration. For god's sake! We put a man on the moon in 1969. Have we been anywhere else? No. Now we are talking about getting a manned mission to Mars going. Nice. But when all is said and done, we know this isn't going to happen as quickly. Not because of the time it will take to get the project going though. Because of all the rampant corporate fascism and cronyism in the current administration. Huge sums of money will be taken from YOU (the taxpayers) and funnelled into this supposed project to go to Mars. That money will make it into the hands of contractors who will claim growing expenses and line their pockets. Then when the Bush admin is thrown out of office or we get a good Democrat back in office, we'll suddenly be hearing news stories saying... "whatever happened to those plans to go to Mars"? There will be scandals involving the contractors who went bust, but not before the CEO grabbed the money and ran off to the tropics. (Bastards)
This is the wrong approach. If we as humans from the planet Earth (not Americans, not Japanese, not French or German or Europeans or whatever you may be) are serious about exploring space, we need to take this into our own hands as one big world project. Like the egyptians who had the pyramids built as a civic project, this should be the same thing. Add to that a sprinkle of the GNU GPL as applied to propulsion development, software development and mission planning, and you have a recipe for a REAL mission to Mars that might actually mean something. Open is way better closed, especially when the project is about furthering the state of humanity.
I have a friend that works at NASA Stennis Space Center in MS (who incidentally admins a beowulf cluster for rocket testing), and he says the Hubble is simply being taken down to be replaced by several other, better telescopes, including ones that detect infrared and gamma radiation. Apparently the cost of maintaining it and keeping it in orbit is more than the benefits of putting new ones up, given his brief explanation. Anyone have any more info on this?
If you care about the HST write your senator, don't vent on slashdot. Words here mean nothing, but a cogent, well-reasoned letter to your senator may make a difference.
The last requirement may be a stretch for some readers, but one can always hope.
Find your senator at: http://www.senate.gov/
You Party hacks really are the dumbest morons in the world. A Democrat will rape you just as much as a Republican. If you think, in this day and age, that some Democrat gives a half a gnat's twat about you, you are mentally ill. I wish the lot of you Party loyalists would just drop dead already.
But for near Earth stuff, missions could be launched more regularly, and tech progress could be accelerated.
And there are many more obvious "real world" payoffs to better robot/AI tech than space-suit tech.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
sorry buddy, by definition alone, no stupid rednecks allowed.
This is a perplexing dilemna because killing off the space shuttle and ISS is exactly what the civilian space program needs to be come viable again. But when you do it you actually need to have a viable new program to replace it and this new program simply isn't viable.
We've had 30 years of space stations between the Russians and Americans. In that time there have been no revolutionary discoveries made aboard those stations. How much longer do we have to suffer through costly mold and tadpole experiments?
As for the "Space" Shuttle program, that should have been killed years ago. It has been a disaster both in human toll, cost and scientific knowledge gained.
If your going to do manned space flight, you might as well do it for real instead of the LEO bullshit we've been doing for the last 30 years.
O'Keefe is a former Secretary of the Navy and has taught at Oxford, Cambridge. He's also be a member of high level policy teams at the Naval Post-Grad school. You can find out more about him here.
Why does NASA have to do manned flight at all? They are at their best doing robotic science missions. I say that more private dollars (or rupes or whatever) should be used for manned flight programs.
The Tao that can be spoken is not the one eternal Tao
"...It would be great to keep Hubble but how long can we put off manned space exploration?
Agreed that Hubble is great to keep. However, how long can we put it off? How about until the technology is ready, reliable and we don't have the administration pounding the economy into the ground with war? Seriously, do you really think that the "working man" is going to say "bravo!" to a manned mission to Mars while the economy is going to hell and his job is being shipped overseas? Damn man, come back to Earth.
Also, correct me if i'm wrong here, but do you have *any* fucking clue how much could be learned from Hubble and others like it with the ****billions**** of dollars it will cost to send men to mars? No, of course you don't or you would not have made such poorly informed statements.
"....Plus, I'd actually like to see it happen in my lifetime...."
Well, that's it folks! We *have* to go to mars just so this guy can *see* it happen (on monitors and tv programs "pruned" for maximum taxpayer enjoyment!!) Horray!
Danke tres mucho, tovarishch.
I doubt that they ever planned or still plan to kill hubble. I think NASA saw Bush as bs'ing and they said, "fine. We'll say we're going to kill off the most successful mission we've run in the last 10 years to fund some mystic clowd of a mission." I think they fully expected someone to say, "hey, wait, maybe we should look at this from a technical standpoint instead of a political rallying standpoint."
I do security
I like the idea of actual honest (i.e. manned) space exploration too. But if we're really serious, we need to talk about building up a permanent presence in space. That means not just sending somebody to another planet to plant a flag. That means building a permanent infrastructure that will support continued expansion. That means investing in a reliable high-capacity, high-orbit vehicle. (The Shuttle is none of these things.) This is the first step in building real space platforms, maybe even orbital industries and that are economically self-sustaining. That is the basis for real exploration of the planets, not another expensive TV show.
The bold new vision is fine: FUND IT.
Meanwhile, we have to keep maintaining our boring old visions. Bold new visions need time to be fully developed and to prove themselves. It simply makes no sense to scrap the well tested for the not yet even designed.
Also remember that the current programs started out as "bold new visions". "bold new visions" aren't always what they're cracked up to be.
IOW, this is yet another unfunded federal mandate.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I do agree that decomissioning it before the gyros fail is insane and it should be left to take it's chances on reentry, however,
the Hubble is hugely expensive and has cost over a billion dollars. Ongoing servicing ad nauseum was not in the initial plan and frankly I'd rather spend the cash elsewhere.
You could build a better ground based telescope with adaptive optics today for a billion bucks.
Service missions to Hubble are crazy given the astronomical launch costs for Shuttle missions.
Can we pause the crazy gung-ho keep Hubble serviced calls long enough to consider the insane cost these missions to maintain one telescope.
Keep Hubble until the gyros fail. Don't spend a fortune on some nutty mission to guide it back on reentry and get working on Hubble 2 (with NO manned service missions) Then you'd have a plan that made sense.
The incremental science from keeping Hubble in Orbit is not very convincing given the costs and risks of the missions.
You really pay a state visit to our glorious new United States of America Mars base. It's really wonderful the progress that we have made over the last few years. Spring is a wonderful time of year here on Mars.
Sincerely,
Bogus P. MarsPerson, NSDF, Mars
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
They'll win over most people with the pretty pictures and then Hubble will have to be saved.
Jesus H, if this was said about Democrats you modders would be trolling/flambating this post.
It's offtopic too.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Bah. I really should reproofread after editing. Crud.
Maybe he's Scooby Doo: Raffing out roud (Engrish for "laughing out loud")
Bush's Moon/Mars plan isn't going quickly into space!
Wonderful. So the only US program towards a manned spacecraft is facing difficulties while we're trying to save the ISS and Hubble.
Did it ever occur to these politicians that we might need some way to actually deliver people to the ISS and service the Hubble? Furthermore, with Soyuz, there's no guarantees -- the Russians aren't exactly in the best shape in the world. I hate to rely on them... especially considering the lack of capacity/capability.
Honestly I wish they had stuck with the Orbital Space Plane plan of attack, and started a new program towards Mars. It seems like this happens with every new concept at NASA. A program is started, it gets a decent way, and somebody decides it'd be better to do something different. We desperately need to stay the course with at least one program in five or so. How much money have we waisted already with this sort of abortion?
Furthermore, the "it costs too much" really pisses me off. NASA's FY04 budget was $15.5 billion. The increase in the Military budget -- not including the costs of our various wars around the world -- was $16.9 billion from FY03 to FY04. The overall military budget for FY04 was $399.1 billion. With wars included, it's even higher.
Should we turn a blind eye to this rampant military waste while putting NASA under a microscope?
In the long run, what's more important?
Fuckin' a. Sometimes I hate being human.
Dragging people kicking and screaming into reality since 1996.
Personally I think all these allocations should be curtailed immediately, and all outstanding US government funds channeled instead into new 9/11 TV ads and putting two bit criminals like Martha behind bars so that HRH King George can be re-elected and really fuck up the world this time so there's no recovery possible.
That's right. We should spend a few more billion dollars on the Shuttle Program and replace the HST's gyroscopes because "a rat done bit [your] sister Nell".
Brilliantly argued.
It is a troll. It is not off topic. See, the topic concerns Hubble and the new Mars/Moon program. The grandparent post talks about the new Mars/Moon program. Thus it is not off topic.
This post, however, is off topic. It isn't AC either. So I will probably get modded down, but a voice of objectivity is needed between you Bush lovers and haters.
Going to Mars would undoubtedly bring Tech innovations 10 fold increase. I think the money/manpower and pride are worth more than Zealots who think the money could be better spent elsewhere. Going to Mars would only serve to further improve everything here.
Basically, it's the economy, stupid, all over again. You'd have thought W would have learned from H. W. You'd have been wrong.
Even if this were a correct assessment (which it's not), do you feel it's proper to respond with what amounts to a call for mass ethnic cleansing of the Black population?
You people are all freaking out because you think Bush wants man on Mars by the end of the decade. Go read his speech again (which can be found here), and tell me, where in it did he say such a thing?
The focus of the speech was on expanding our exploration of space, and eventually sending humans to Mars and the other planets. But no time frame was stated. And the immediate goal is to establish a permanent base on the moon.
For me, though, the most important part of the speech was the closing paragraph:
"Mankind is drawn to the heavens for the same reason we were once drawn into unknown lands and across the open sea. We choose to explore space because doing so improves our lives, and lifts our national spirit. So let us continue the journey."
I think he's right. I think we need to explore other planets because it's our nature to do so. And I think we should start as soon as possible, and not let petty politics get in the way of a noble endeavor.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
ISS was never about science, so much as keeping Russian rocket scientist from selling their skills to evil dictators. Not that those scientists would want to, but when you have no other way to earn money what are you going to do? The international part was all about making sure the Russians didn't feel they are doing it alone.
In other words politics were all it ever was about. If science happens to get done great, but it never was a goal.
What benifit does society (not politicians, mind you) get from funding endless social programs? At least with science, there's a possibility of a return.
As noted in this article, the Congressional Budget Office when discussing the causes of the deficits "that 36% of the deficit comes from the Bush tax cuts, 31% from spending on defense and security, and the remainder from the economic slowdown."
Who ever said getting onto a pile of explosives was inherently safe? Who ever said leaving the atmosphere and hurtling around at 18K MPH was safe? The problem here isn't one of technology or volunteers waiting to go into space; hell I would.
The problem is political will and political correctness. Nobody seems to shed a tear for the soldiers getting KIAed in IRAQ or Afghanistan, it's past news. The families and friends care, but we as citizens don't. However when a $1B shuttle breaks up over Texas, OMG, stop everything, we have to be "safe." This bullcrap about being PC and "safe" is counter to every exploration ever undertaken.
It took Risk to put Hubble into Orbit. It took people like Storey Musgrave to fix it in orbit, in a space suit hurtling at 18K MPH. Those were risks. Now, we have to have "contingencies" "backups" hell, I long for the days when politicians weren't running NASA, when they had a vision and took risks.
If Lindberg hadn't taken a risk, if the guys in St. Louis hadn't taken a risk, if Ryan aircraft hadn't taken a risk, there'd be no Transatlantic crossing.
Routan and the X Prize folks are taking risks and hopefully, with our prayers and support, will wrench the exploration of space out of the hands of the beaurocrats and politicians who want space exploration, without risk, which is never, ever going to happen.
Accidents will happen in the future. Hell, people still fly in 747s after TWA 800 don't they? People fly in Airbus 3XXs don't they, despite it's safety record.
Life is full of risk, as George Carlin says "take a F***ing chance!"
Fix Hubble, fix the foam, put the shuttles back online and get the next manned vehicle system back online. If you bozos at NASA can't figure it out, I'm sure all of that old CapCom equipment stored in the VAB can be turned back on and we can launch Apollos on Saturn 1Bs or Vs again. Hell, the Russians still launch Soyuz capsules that were developed in the 60s, so why can't we reuse what we've already learned?
Ahh, too much risk, I see. Maybe we should all stay in bed with the covers pulled over our heads.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Committing to going to Mars first is a BAD idea. When we go to Mars, it won't be for just a few days, it'll be for a few months. And, we haven't developed the technologies for those types of habitats (isolated, ground-based, long-term). The moon is the idea test bed for these technologies. It's cheaper to get there and if mistakes occur it will be possible to make fixes or send up repair parts.
We need to spend a good amount of time refining these technologies on the Moon so that we can have a very high degree of confidence that a Mars shot won't fail. Hell, we can't even land unmanned probes on Mars with good reliability.
Mars first is a huge gamble.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
There's the Chinese space program.
The Chinese intend (or intended at one time) to land astronauts and possibly build a base on the Moon after 2005. While I see no real threat from this other than to our national pride, the thought of the Chinese staking a claim to equal if not superior technological prowess in space may be one of the things entering Bush's integer-only calculations.
Knowing how little the Chinese ruling party values individual human life, I'm sure concerns about slightly radiation-toasted taikonauts with mild cases of lunar dust-induced silicosis and low-gravitiy bone loss and muscle atrophy will not slow their program or eat into their budget like they would ours. The Chinese could be tough competitors.
So, just in case they really go ahead with their program and make good progress, the US would have the Moon/Mars initiative in the pipeline.
I'm all for planning Lunar and Martian manned missions, but we just don't have the technology or the necessity yet. Preserving Hubble is far more important.
"A worthy cause has never been harmed by the truth" - Gandhi
I really want to buy a Subaru WRX STi; however, I'm broke. I'm not going to get a bank loan for a cool toy that I can't afford.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
truth hurts, doesn't it, mr. moderator. you're a good republican!
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
I think you've got it backwards. From your point of view, your interpretation ought to be that the poem is arguing that we shouldn't spend that money.
But even then you'd be missing the point. The present-day message of Gil Scott-Heron's famous poem (which has been used a lot in response to the Bush administration's off-the-cuff call for a new moon/mars program) is not that we shouldn't spend money on the space program, but that we shouldn't do so while continuing to ignore the billions need by our nation's schools, urban areas, infrastructure, etc., etc.
The whole announcement was in fact merely a cheap election-year ploy that the Bush team came up with in an election campaign brainstorming session. It had nothing whatsoever to do with a coherent, intelligently thought out space program (which I, in fact, would support). And this in the context of an administration which continues to completely ignore our country's domestic needs while driving our deficit through the roof with repeated tax cuts for the rich. That's the point of the poem.
God you're a fuckstick.
Who gave John Ashcroft mod points? Mod parent up, not a troll.
Bush Lies On the Record.
God what a joke. You moderators should be sent to Texas and executed. THE PARENT IS A TROLL.
as referred to in /. posts on the killing of Hubble, Hubble doesn't have a safe way down - it doesn't have rockets to get out of orbit in a controlled way. Thus, there has to be a mission to do so since Hubble is (I think) in LEO, and will fall on its own (but perhaps not safely) if it isn't deorbited. Since a Shuttle run already has to be done, why not just fix Hubble (with the eqipment they already have) and put the rockets on so that when Hubble dies, they can deorbit it safely (while also getting more out of it)?
The marginal cost to fix Hubble is thus even lower than the difference between running a Shuttle flight and not running it, since a shuttle mission already has to go there and prepare it to deorbit anyway - the marginal cost is then the cost of the extra time in space needed to add the extra equipment.
I'm not sold on Mars, but I won't shoot it down just because GWB is asking for it. The Hubble decision, however, makes no sense - maybe it's like school districts threatening to cut football if they don't get a new tax levy, or maybe NASA's management is just that stupid. I don't know.
always remember that no matter what is going on in the world: Bush is a liar.
Bush doesn't want to spend in money at all in space (except perhaps to put a weapon there.)
Step one: Shoot down Space Shuttle with Laser weapon. This eliminates spending immediately.
Step two: Literally CANCEL all current funding and projects.
Step three: The people of the world wake up and send Bush to the Moon without a space suit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_c
..from the /. point of view, but I have nothing against the Moon/Mars exploration initiatives, at all. Do I think that funds should be withdrawn from existing programs? Heck no! But do I think the Moonbase/man-on-Mars programs should be seriously considered? Heck YES!
Sigged!
has revoked your licence to post on SlashDot. It is clear that you actually know something about the subject matter on-hand and are able to convey that in a clear manner. For this reason you must cease and desist any further communications with any human, on any topic you know anything about.
Thank you,
Agent D, Majestic 12 Department of Ignorance
This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
...but backwards. The Bush administration's goal is to LOSE all its pieces, since pieces require taxes to maintain.
So Bush puts out this obvious new gambit which, if successful, will cause NASA to saceifice its REAL pieces for some highly SPECULATIVE ones (if you can just get your pawn to the other side of the board, we have a shiny new queen for you...)
NASA is playing the game as best it can (with the required level of public-facing loyalty), saying, in effect, 'Okay, then take my Knight,' knowing the public outcry that will follow.
And why is anyone surprised? The Republican M.O. has changed over the last 50 years from direct opposition to government programs to a deceitful and suicidal kind of support for them. "Sure, we'll run up the deficit to 25% of the GDP -- that way we won't have any choice but to cut government! (except for our buddies companies who live off gvt handouts)..."
ABB
How are we going to actually see the incoming asteroids if we dont have operational technology like Hubble?
Blithering idiots...
Robots would even be better at detonating a bomb on an asteroid than humans. Also you dont have to plan for a return in that mission.
I think this sums the whole thing up quite nicely.
How many prominent scientists do you know are also qualified as astronauts? Analysis will always best be done here with data or samples collected there. No one is proposing sending a sophisticated research lab (fully staffed) to Mars. Human or robot, they will sending raw data to Earth for analysis.
Wow. Now that's talking out of your butt.
Hubble doesn't only take pictures. Those are what most of the public are familiar with, but an impressive number of other instruments have been used on Hubble at one time or another. Take a look here for a full rundown.
Spectroscopy is a close second to imaging for Hubble. Instead of just showing us what something looks like, we get a chance to see what that something is made of, what kind of environment it's sitting in, how it's moving, and what the physical conditions are of that thing (density, temperature, pressure, etc.). Pretty pictures are a good first step for astronomy, but to know what (astro)physics is going on out there, most of the time we have to turn to spectroscopy. The canceled servicing mission was going to install the third major spectroscopy instrument on Hubble. It has never been without one.
Yes, we can do some spectroscopy from the ground. Molecular spectroscopy is mostly done with radio telescopes. But, most atomic spectroscopy is done in the very blue optical to UV. That's where atoms in energetic environments resonate. You can not do any UV spectroscopy from the ground. Period. JWST will not fill this gap.
Ending Hubble's life early will seriously restrict the amount of physics that we can learn from all the pretty pictures that have come out. Such an action nullifies the large investment we've already made. For each public release photo by STSCI, there's a myriad of hard-core followup scientific studies done, many times with Hubble's other instruments. Many of these never hit the NY Times, but they are sometimes more invaluable to the field than the original pictures themselves.
Really? The data started being taken last September. The planning started way before then. Are you suggesting that particular working team knew all along that Bush was going to announce his plan and that O'Keefe was going to can Hubble a week later? Wow.
Right.
When someone effectively cancels the last 20-25% of the lifetime of your current mission, you're supposed to be planning for that years in advance. All the planning and all the money was pre-designated with the last servicing mission and the instruments that were to be installed on HST during that trip in mind. Frankly, ending HST early wasn't even though about seriously until the shuttle accident. If memory serves, that was only a year ago.
And you should probably be aware that the "astronomical community" that's working on the JWST bits right now is for the most part (a) contained within a NASA division; (b) has funding from NASA; and/or (c) being done by a contractor. There are certainly a few astronomers involved and invested, but that cross-section certainly does not represent the "community" as a whole.
So, sorry, I certainly will blame NASA's top dog and the fellow that choose him to be head of NASA for not seeming to try very hard to maintain the planned life of the best, most versatile space telescope the world has built.
Mod parent up, you insensitive moderator clod.
Mars is a dead rock, it would be an immense waste of resources to go there. As a former prime contractor to that white elephant, I know first hand what they dow with public money, close their doors, have a garage sale and privatize space exploration. I have read the consititution of the United States and it says nothing about public funding of space exploration! Energy density of chemical rockets is too low, stay home, let's make this place livable.
1) The amount of useful data produced by Hubble is worthless compared to newer infrared space telescopes. Virtually nothing is being learned from these visible light images of the edge of the universe compared to infrared and X-ray images from newer telescopes. Before saving Hubble became a political agenda, even Earth based telescopes had already surpassed it with newer optics and image processing.
2) Too many people have to die to fix it. That may fly in the hyper-layoff, humans-are-liabilities mentality of Silicon Valley but not when those piles of bodies are shutting down the space program for years at a time.
Consumer confidence declined 9 points in February
Feb Retail sales disappoint, come only from car sales
Hey, I'm an American, but I have to say: Amen, friend.
This is blatent plagarism of an old comment. See:= 96970& cid=8292682
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid
Mod parent down, don't promote comment plagarism on slashdot.
This comment is plagarised from a previous comment:? sid=96970& cid=8292682
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl
Please mod parent down for plagarism.
I don't think it's fair to call exploration of our own solar system pie in the sky, and then in the comment say that the Hubbles images are really useful. What real use do the Hubbles images have? They tell us something fundamental about the universe, it's true. But the fact is that interpretation of those images is a guess at best, we can't go to the pace ant time the Hubble deep field comes from, so we can only do limited measurements with them.
On the other hand, maned space missions to other planets would go a long way to helping us build infra structure in space. Image if we could mine all or most of our raw materials on the moon and and transport them back to earth using lunar and terrestrial space elevators. Think of what that would mean for the earth's environment. Think about how much easier it would make the exploration the solar system become. Think about how easy it would become to make an enormous array of large space telescopes to do hundreds of times the work the Hubble can currently do.
What's more practical, a small space telescope that can only give us hints about the wider universe, or an entire space infrastructure which would actually allow scientists to travel to other planets and do research in person?
I saw the head of Nasa on TV yesterday, talking about Hubble's cancellation. The counter argument was that Hubble's best years are ahead of it -- the next planned service mission will increase Hubble's resolution dramatically. We can already look almost into the origin of the Universe. An improved Hubble may let us to do exactly that.
This probably scares the shit out of the Religious Right. The last thing they want is more evidence that Science has the answers. The Bush administration is well known for being shameless idealogues, pandering the the Religious Right, while giving other reasons for policy changes. So one wonders about anti-science forces working behind the scenes on this one. It's Galileo vs. The Church, all over again.
This is a rip off from a previous slashdot article "Hubble Snaps Farthest/Oldest Galaxy" Mod this user down.
Copied from this old comment
What they are saying is they don't want to kill Hubble or other programs until they have a better idea of the Moon/Mars cost.
What problem could you possibly have with that?
Debunking the "59 Deceits"
And I know quite a few NASA engineers who wouldn't mind the competition either.
It would be like the race to map the Human Genome. Despite some problems I think the competition was a good thing.
Others may disagree.
Debunking the "59 Deceits"
Although I am a very committed space/astronomy nut after long thought I have to say "the stars (planets really) are not for Man" at least not yet. Let's say we get to mars with a few missions of exploration and planting the flag. What then? What would it take to make Mars a self sustaining colony capable of reseeding the home world if disaster strikes? To create the industrial infrastructure necessary to get to that point would take ten's of thousands of people living there decades; the cost of getting them there would even with nuclear powered rockets would be literally astronomical. ($50billion for six astronauts, think about it). What about terraforming so that supporting life is much easier? That technology (gigantic mirrors in orbit, super-greenhouse gasses, cometary seeding of the atmosphere) is far beyond us and would take centuries to complete. Until some major breakthrough (space elevators, fusion, nanotech assemblers) it is simply too expensive.
No, the only reasons (now) for going to mars for temporary stays are scientific and political. For science to look for (past) life, but we aren't in any real hurry are we? Incremental robotic programs are fine. As for politics, after we spend $50B to plant the flag for a stunt, what will the public say? Remember the drop off in public opinion after Apollo!
We have an ocean of space to cross but unlike the pioneers who came to America, the new world is a deadly world with unbreathable air, radiation, toxic dust and cold. Let's develop the technology to make this problems insignificant. Until then, SAVE HUBBLE!
All of Earth's EM leakage is blocked.
As much as I support Hubble, there are legitimate reasons for bases on the Moon. But the race to Mars is premature.
Debunking the "59 Deceits"
This has been the thinking at NASA for the past 30 years "we need to find out more about X before we go to Mars".
This got us the shuttle program and ISS. The benefits of both I could count on one hand and the wastefulness of which is depressing to think about. While futzing around in low earth orbit for 30 years, we haven't learned anything that we couldn't have if Apollo had continued.
To steal a page from Robert Zubrin, the shuttle paradigm is like if Queen Isabella had sent Columbus out 100 miles to sea and sit there for a few months to study the effects of being on a boat for a long time.
We understand what it's like to survive in space and how to do it. More research is always needed but what's needed more is bold initiative.
Blaze a trail to the New World
Harrison H. Schmitt. Although he might be pushing the age limit a bit for a Mars mission ;) And of course, many of the astronauts that have worked on the ISS are scientists. Prominent? Maybe not, but definately qualified.
karma capped
Remember, one of the first signs that the USSR was collapsing - they couldn't afford their space program anymore. The incredible things we do in space are indicators that we are a superpower. Is it possible that this is one of the clues that the US is beginning it's decline? Here are some other clues:
- Middle class, thinking jobs are going to India/China in droves. Many people are talking about the US becoming a third world country if this continues. People have been talking about India & China becoming the next superpowers
- The US has HUGE debt, and a recession that wont seem to go away.
- We are having to overextend our selves in military actions all over the world. Didn't a similar thing happen to the Roman Empire before it mysteriously disappeared.
- Religous fundamentalism (rooted in the South) is getting stronger here - some would say in reaction to opposing religous fundamentalism. Science/logic, more and more, are taking a back seat.
It's possible that the whole grand Moon/Mars thing is smoke and mirrors to distract people from becoming demoralized at the prospect of us not being able to afford the space program anymore, and what that implies.
BTW I worked at NASA as a Unix sys admin for years about 7 years ago. I got laid off last year from a great job and have been unable to get a job for a year. I know plenty of smart people how are having to sell their houses to survive. Does this still sound like the land of opportunity?
We put a man on the moon in 1969. Have we been anywhere else? No.
Because we changed priorities to a LEO model. Was it the smart thing to do? Probably not, but it fit with the military and civilian needs at the time. Plus we had people screaming about what a waste the big rockets were. After all, you could only use them once and then throw them away! We couldn't have that, so we dumped a lot of money into a design compromised re-usable shuttle program that has gone WAY over estimates of cost. But at least we're not just throwing away those big rockets anymore, right?
Not because of the time it will take to get the project going though. Because of all the rampant corporate fascism and cronyism in the current administration. Huge sums of money will be taken from YOU (the taxpayers) and funnelled into this supposed project to go to Mars.
As opposed to all the huge sums of money wasted on the shuttle project? How about the money "wasted" on the Moon landings? Do you think the contractors worked for free on those projects? There was a TON of money to be made, and since it was a government project, they just kept throwing money at it until they got the results they wanted. At least when they take money from the taxpayers for these projects, the public eventually gets a product. Maybe not what we need or want, but a product. Which means that it employs engineers, craftsmen, laborers, and other people that get paychecks. As opposed to welfare, that generates almost nothing except higher taxes.
Then when the Bush admin is thrown out of office or we get a good Democrat back in office
When will that happen I wonder? Not the Bush admin thrown out, the political machine out there will get the Republicans out eventually, but when will we get a "good" Democrat back in? We haven't had one of those for a LONG time either.
we'll suddenly be hearing news stories saying... "whatever happened to those plans to go to Mars"?
Actually, no you won't. You'll hear how those "good" democrats "saved the taxpayers a fortune" as they shift the money into projects that help their particular district and/or another entitlement boondoggle.
There will be scandals involving the contractors who went bust, but not before the CEO grabbed the money and ran off to the tropics. (Bastards)
Not really, since the crooked ones will pay off anyone in power, so you won't hear anything about it at all. Amazing that no one realizes that Enron employed ex-Clinton employees who attempted to sway the governemt away from exposing and into bailing out Enron. Bush said no. Think Al Gore would have? When he's getting calls from the "good old boy" network? Doubtful. Enron's biggest mistake was highering ex-Clinton people instead of ex GHW Bush people.
If we as humans from the planet Earth (not Americans, not Japanese, not French or German or Europeans or whatever you may be) are serious about exploring space, we need to take this into our own hands as one big world project.
Yeah, the UN and all their pet projects have so helped the world. It's just more red tape and more pork for every other nation in the world. Just like we tried with the ISS. Where did almost all the money come from? Who footed the bill? Let me tell you, it wasn't the European Union, Russia, Japan, or Somalia. It was the good old USA, who paid good American cash to get substandard parts built in 3rd world countries so that we could call it an "International" space station.
Like the egyptians who had the pyramids built as a civic project, this should be the same thing.
You're RIGHT! We should enslave entire populations, especially the Jews, and make them work 16 hours days at hard physical labor for no recompense. Do you know ANYTHING about history? Or just the pap they sell in most of the government schools today?
Add to that a sprinkle of the GNU GPL as applied to propulsion development, software development and mission pla
- No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
No wonder O'Keefe was so vague about the bold Moon/Mars mission. As a bean-counter, he knew it was wildly underfunded. The money budgeted for Moon/Mars will buy a handful of shuttle launches - that's all. So all O'Keefe could do was waffle about the mission. Of course, this begs the question: why propose a mission so amazingly underfunded? AFAIK, that's a question for Bush, and nobody's asked it. But the "pork for Ohio & Florida buys electoral votes" theory at least makes logical sense. Nothing else about the mission does.
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
There was a terrorist bombing in Spain which killed hundreads of people :( I think the Adolf-Hitler-wannabe troll is referring to that :(
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
You can not do any UV spectroscopy from the ground. Period. JWST will not fill this gap.
If UV spectrascopy was a requirement for JWST the capability would be there. IR requirements apparently superceded it. Is the UV capability worth a $1G shuttle flight?
Ending Hubble's life early will seriously restrict the amount of physics that we can learn from all the pretty pictures that have come out. Such an action nullifies the large investment we've already made.
Hubble is used by a large community of scientists whose interests are entrenched. Whether the physics is worth the continuing investment is debatable.
When someone effectively cancels the last 20-25% of the lifetime of your current mission, you're supposed to be planning for that years in advance.
Hubble is currently in the 14th year of a 10 year mission.
an ill wind that blows no good
Maybe he could be sent on a one-way trip ;) The problem with manned mission has always been getting off the surface of Mars. This might solve it... j/k ;)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
If blue-sky scientific research is the only investment that pays dividences for eternity.
Then going to Mars is a GOOD THING.
The heel dragging was caused in part by Apollo itself. Apollo was not able to return any signficant economic value for the investment that was made. In effect, continuing Apollo was throwing good money after bad, and then the taste of a gargantuan space program was sour in the public's mouth. Hence the era of intense compromise in the Shuttle program.
And now, you want to throw another $100 billion in the same Apollonian spirit on a Mars program that will result in a similar set of highly questionable economic outcomes: rock and soil samples, endless dissertations, and tons of equipment rusting in the Florida sun.
Intelligent behavior probably includes the ability to recognize a mistake and to not repeat it.
Going to the Moon as it was done, was a mistake since there was no waypoint used in the trip. It was just a monstrous jump out of Earth's deep gravity well. Critical as I am about the ISS, we a waypoint now; hence, Lunar voyages are much more sensible.
And it's to Luna that we must go if reaching for Mars is to make any sense. Apollo's major failing was that it was unsustainable. Reaching for Mars from Earth's manufacturing base is even more unsustainable. Luna will provide that vital manufacturing presence, with all the oxygen, aluminum, iron and silicon it can provide as readily accessible pulverized ore in the Lunar regolith.
You will note that I have used the word "economics" many times in my posting here. This is my way of getting you to catch a clue. The days of blowing billions on space are over, and We The People now want a return on *our* investment. Like solar power satellites, beaming energy back to Earth; like a manufacturing moonbase, able to supply materials for structures in Earth orbit by way of a linear accelerators and mass catchers.
I'm tired of supplying geeks with expensive aerospace toys. Time to earn your keep; roll up your sleeves and do some real work for a change!
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
O'Keefe is doing what he is told to do. Save lives, save money, do stuff. Seems like congress is doing it's duty though, to keep things from happening.
O'Keefe is a peon. I for one support what he is being told to do. How about when he kept the shuttle fleet grounded for almost a year when they found the main engines could explode at any time due to unexpectes wear and tear on the flow liners?
How about canceling the CRV. Sure, a real value at only $20 million a pop. The thing took $2 billion to design and only required a $400 million shuttle launch to put into orbit.
Congress was put in place to keep the executive branch from doing too much. Looks like they are doing that right on time. But, Bush has surprised them before :)
Here's to losing my Karma Bonus again....
It is called spin off. Basic research (which is what NASA is all about) returns money by helping design new products.
Calculators and desktop computers are an outgrowth of items originally designed for the space program, just to name 1 item! Tell me, has enough money been made JUST FROM THIS ONE ITEM to justify the expense of the space program?
To cut through the usual silliness:
1) O'Keefe made the Hubble decision based on safety concerns outlined by the CAIB report. I.e., the CAIB said a Hubble servicing mission cannot be carried out safely using the Shuttle. If O'Keefe had opted to ignore the CAIB's finding, he'd be getting pilloried for risking lives and ignoring safety concerns. No amount of money will alter than so long as the Shuttle is the only way we can get people into orbit.
2) The purpose of space travel is to put people into space -- to go someplace -- and exploit the reources we find there. Science will, and needs to, be done to support that, but space travel is not a scientific endeavor anymore than exploration and exploitation of Earth has been a soley scientific endeavor. Space travel is worth the money and lives if we do it in order to put people there. It isn't worth the money and lives if we approach it as a research project.
3) Robots should be used where we don't want to send people, but people are always better than robots. Robots are slow, stupid, limited, and not cheap. Repeat after me: Robots can show no intiative. E.g. neither Spirit or Opportunity can stop what it's been told to do, interrupt itself, and say, "Hey, look! Did that little thing over there just crawl away? I'll take a look."
4) If robots were so bloody good, CalTech, MIT, CERN, etc., would be hiring thme to replace people.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Why not just give it to China?
Hubble's needed service mission gives them a good fun practical reason to send up a couple of taikonauts in 2006, and NASA not only saves the cost of a de-orbit vehicle but can sell them spare parts.
Yeah sure, that wasn't a troll at all. No, really, I honestly think you meant to convey facts in a reasonable, even-handed way. You certainly were not just spewing random anti-bush propaganda in the hopes that someone would reply to your pathetic troll. You would never do that;)
A lot of astronomers and personnel have a vested interest in keeping the Hubble going. They've built careers and reputations off of it. Let it go. Move on. Mars awaits! There aren't any more covered wagons going west. Let's grab the best and brightest, along with our bootstraps, and reach out for the next frontier. Mars has a lot more wealth than the moon and low-earth orbit combined. A push like Apollo will not only put footprints and a flag on Mars, it will start the next great exodus, with more and more habitats available after each mission. It's time to grow up, and move out of the cradle. Who wants to live with their parents forever?
I'd be a lot easier to try to develope a sustainable colony on the moon than on mars. This is simply because it's so much colser that rescue is possible if it is needed. It is also becacause we don't need to worry about cosmic radiation on the short trips to the moon. Just bury the moonbase far enough under ground and it won't be a problem. Once we get tha hang of colonizing other planets, the task will be a lot simpler. These direct to mars people need to realize that we need to take baby steps, start out slow.
Of course, that deosn't meant that the bush plan will even put a colony on the moon, but the idea is sound.
And you're suggesting that losing millions of jobs with health care benefits and high wages but gaining lots of massage therapists and manicurists (with no health care benefits and fairly low wages) is somehow a good thing?
"How much Keefe is in this inquiry, anyway?"
"Miles O'Keefe."
Mr. T pitied this fool on 27 July 1992.
That reads like a quote from South Park. How the fuck did that nutcase get into the white house?
We need a Mars mission badly? Really?
I'd like to hear your reasons why we need a Mars mission 'badly'. What bad things happen if we don't have a Mars mission?
Personally, I think we need a cure for cancer badly.
Why not launch a rocket that dock to Hubble rear and boost it to an orbit that let Hubble orbit around the sun? Seems like they argue what to do next rather than figuring out how to make it work.
While the parent was kinda... well, lame, at least the poster was cool about it. It's a seriously posed question and doesn't deserve to be modded as a troll.
To answer the question, here are the tangible Hubble benefits as I see them:
1: experience in large space based optics and space-based repair missions. While the repairs with the shuttle have ended up being more expensive than a new telescope, the knowledge we've gained fixing the Hubble will pay off in the future where at least some level of space based repair capability will be needed.
2: We now have a far better grasp of the overall structure and composition of the universe than before. Remember that big hullabaloo about the universe's expansion speeding up and dark matter and dark energy. Well, you can thank Hubble for being one of the major instruments responsible for those obervations. We are now much closer to understanding the formation and structure of the universe than ever before. For quite a while, it looked like there were fundamental questions we'd never be able to answer. Now, we've got high accuracy measurements of the curvature, matter/dark matter/dark energy composition of the universe. This is one of the most exciting periods in astrophysics in decades. The tangible beneftis of this evidence are as follows:
2a: These detailed comological observations can be used to test physics theories. Thing like superstring theory and quantum gravity and other theories that can't be tested in the lab can be tested using the history of the universe as a gigantic physics experiment. About a hundred years ago, some wierd observation about the photoelectric effect led to the development of quantum physics and then semiconductors, lasers, modern chemistry, molecular biology, modern materials science, etc. If we can use this new data to help replace the standard model of physics, we might suddenly find a host of new technologies. A true understanding of quantum gravity might lead to no practical applications or it might lead to the ability to manipulate gravity and space-time in a controllable manner. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to imagine what the latter would mean for engineering.
2b: we are closer to being able to understand the how and why of the formation of the universe. As an atheist, scientific understanding of the universe is something akin to being able to read the Bible for the first time. Even for the non-atheistic, I think that having an obervational understanding of where we come from and why we're here is very important and a worthwhile pursuit.
... I can clean out what little of you is left of the shelter you die building.
Hell, if you leave now... before me... I might catch the next gen "shuttle" and get there long before you.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
I know this is off-topic, forgive me. But it seems like a good time to bring this up.
If we are to spend hundreds of millions, maybe billions, of dollars in a multi-decade endeavor in name of science and profit, why not build a space elevator. The project isn't ready to begin yet, since we currently can't produce carbon nanotubes in sufficient quantity or quality, but with the research might of NASA and the heightened awareness of the goal we could create get a head start at the next space race. After which, the cost for all other space initiatives would be greatly reduced. The long term economic benefits of building the first space elevator could possibly outweigh the initial research and construction costs.
At the upcoming conference on the topic of space elevators, scientists will discuss the logistical, engineering, and political issues.
Go Gusties
No offense, but YOU have no idea what you're talking about. Telescopes can't measure red shift, unless you know what origional light wavelengths were in the first palace. This means that astronomers have to make a guess about the red-shift in order to guage the actual light wavelength distrubtion. This means that mesurements done on red or blue shifted spectra are inaccurate at best. Moreover, saying that "the UDF got us 90% of the way back to the dark era where light cuts off" further proves your ignorance on this subject. The THEORY to which you refer has not been proven, and we don't know that there even was a "dark era" as you say. Even if this theory was true, the estimate that this is 90% of the way back to the dark era is approximate at best. The results of the HUDF are intresting, but they are jsut that, there is no real vaue to annything but the meaningless ramblings of some academics. You missed the point of my comment entirely. The point is that we are not going to develop space based infra structure by sitting around and looking at pretty pictures. We would learn a lot more by doing actual measurements on real samples than we ever could by looking at the spectra from some far-distant stars.
As a member of the vaunted "Religious Right", let me be the first to say:
*snicker*
*hehehe*
*hehehaah*
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
That is all. Have a nice day!
Have my cake and eat it too? While I'm for saving the Hubble AND I'm for going to Mars as soon as possible AND I'm for an American Moon base, I do want them to think things through and plan thier priorities based on Expert opinion. So...I'm thinking that if this slow down in President Bush's initiative allows for better planning of it...I think its a good thing.
OMFG, I though I and my group of friends were the only ones who made that particular joke.
Don't worry about Hubble, it'll just jump out, wearing fuzzy boots along with The Chandra observatory wearing a dinnerplate for a breastplate, yelling, "NOOOOOO" before droppping handmade bombs on NASA from a hangglider and rescuing the Geometric Budget Nucleus from its evil grasp.
"So, the mighty Hubble needs *two* swords to fight, eh?"
heh.
Traditionally wars have been great for economies. Nations must buy weapons, build missiles...pay soldiers, etc. And then soldiers who die are no longer in the work force...freeing up jobs for younger generations. Not a good system for anything except war profiteers, incumbent politicians, and economics but thats the system.
I'm not saying those types of employment are beneath me. I'm saying that low paying service jobs are rarely enough to feed families/pay rent/pay doctors bills (which people have to pay because they have no health care from low paying service jobs). I'm saying that it is not a proud achievement to take a nation of skilled workers with benefits and end up with a bunch of people doing low paying service jobs with no benefits.
I'm not talking about the dot-com boom. I'm talking about the past 72 years. Every president, Republican and Democrat, since Hoover has ended up with more jobs after his four years. W won't. He's down 2.5 million. That's the conservative estimate. That doesn't take into account the people who aren't counted because they've just stopped loooking.
I'm blaming W because he's been in charge for the past 4 years. It's one of his many grand failures, as he has failed his entire life. Hopefully, he'll fail at reelection as well.
Bush is interesting in that he generally says what he is going to do and then does it. Some people just happen to not like what he is going to do - sometimes I am one of those people. Bush operates like a businesman (PHB/Suit/etc...) - he makes decisions on the margin. Marginal decisions are usually tough ones. In a corporation, a marginal decision would be to discontinue a product and wind down the division because it will become in the future unprofitable. Layoffs to stem losses. Mergers when you are weak. Firing someone for cultural fit who is popular, etc...
The Hubble decision is a marginal decision. Bush can't raise taxes. He also can't increase NASA's budget. So he looks for projects with enough $$ in the budget that could be directed towards the Mars goal - one that has far greater potential for the good of humanity than a telescope (although possibly the most usefull one in history). The telescope works today.
I admire that Bush has guts. It's frusterating though to see marginal decision making because it isn't a binary decision - it's all done in shades of gray.
-- $G
It's a foregone conclusion that the big bang did happen. It's also a foregone conclusion that the sun revolves around the earth. I mean, look at it, it's so small, and it moves trhough the sky. Clearly this remote sensing ccapibility is all we need to confirm this. Clearly origional wavelengths ARE known, I mean, the rest of the universe couldn't be comprised of materials that are not well described by our observations here on earth. It is impossible that what we think is hydrogen is anything else but hydrogen. No direct measurements are necessary to confirm this. And clearly, since we have never observed the laws governing specrtal emmissions here on earth, or even in the limited parts of the rest of our solar system we have explored, changing, they must not change. Anyway, I do not disagree with you about the usefullness of the hubble, I just think you should understand that measurements it takes are more about curiousity than about practical applications. The main use of the hubble is just proving/disproving theories like the big bang. The only reason we've learned most of what we know through remote obserfvation is because it's so much easier to do. Direct observation and measurement is necessary to refine our understanding. As for the behavior of plasma in space, you'd really need controlled expierements to learn anything usefull. All the hubble can provide us with is hints about how it behaves. I don't think you can really expect people to colonize space without it. I mean, it'd be far too expensive and dangerous for a group of people to get together and try to colonize another planet with no infrastructure. On the other hand, I wonder if it'd be possible to start up a company on the premise of mining materials from the moon. If construction of space elevators proves practical, we could refine melats on the moon manufacture things there, and transport them back to earth. We could launch cargoe from above the L1 point on the lunar elevator so that they'd rondevu with the earth elevator, and use no energy (it'd actually produce energy). This would eb cool because it would have practically no environmentla impact here on earth.
It's a foregone conclusion that the big bang did happen. It's also a foregone conclusion that the sun revolves around the earth. I mean, look at it, it's so small, and it moves trhough the sky. Clearly this remote sensing ccapibility is all we need to confirm this.
Clearly origional wavelengths ARE known, I mean, the rest of the universe couldn't be comprised of materials that are not well described by our observations here on earth. It is impossible that what we think is hydrogen is anything else but hydrogen. No direct measurements are necessary to confirm this.
And clearly, since we have never observed the laws governing specrtal emmissions here on earth, or even in the limited parts of the rest of our solar system we have explored, changing, they must not change.
Anyway, I do not disagree with you about the usefullness of the hubble, I just think you should understand that measurements it takes are more about curiousity than about practical applications. The main use of the hubble is just proving/disproving theories like the big bang. The only reason we've learned most of what we know through remote obserfvation is because it's so much easier to do. Direct observation and measurement is necessary to refine our understanding.
As for the behavior of plasma in space, you'd really need controlled expierements to learn anything usefull. All the hubble can provide us with is hints about how it behaves.
I don't think you can really expect people to colonize space without some kind of infrastructure. I mean, it'd be far too expensive and dangerous for a group of people to get together and try to colonize another planet with no infrastructure. Think of it as moving west before the oregon trail, sure it can be done, but not many people can do it.
On the other hand, I wonder if it'd be possible to start up a company on the premise of mining materials from the moon. If construction of space elevators proves practical, we could refine melats on the moon manufacture things there, and transport them back to earth. We could launch cargoe from above the L1 point on the lunar elevator so that they'd rondevu with the earth elevator, and use no energy (it'd actually produce energy). This would eb cool because it would have practically no environmentla impact here on earth.
Just for the sake of fact clarification here, you guys might want to read my Mars FAQs. Note: this document was written for the Mars Society, with the blessing of Zubrin (though it has yet to be accepted as an official document yet). Even with that potential slant, though, everything contained within it is factual, and as we all know, Slashdot can be a little light on facts somtimes. ;-)
How To Get Humans To Mars
To reply more to your subject than your actual post, there were some interesting docs leaked by NASA that show that Hubble missions are actually more safe than ISS missions:
Document #1
Document #2
Definitely worth a read.
How To Get Humans To Mars
Hubble is Nasa's greatest achievement of all.
The moon landing was a "feel good" mission. It was mainly an engineering exercise. It didn't really generate a whole lot of new science in comparison to the Hubble. Its most valuable contribution to science was probably gathering moon rocks for chemical analysis.
It's immensely painful to see money wasted on that useless space station. Hubble can discover more science in one hour than the space station can in its entire lifetime.
It would be ok to let Hubble die if they had a replacement in place. But they don't, and they have no plans for one. Discontinuing support for astronomy is a huge step backwards for Nasa. What the hell else does Nasa really have going for it? The space shuttles? Name one truly significant scientific accomplishment of the space shuttles except for fixing Hubble.
- Someone clammoring to send men to Mars
- Someone else saying we should go back to the Moon first
- A long and tiresome sub-thread arguing about robotic vs.
manned space exploration
- One person saying the James Webb space telescope (JWST) will replace
Hubble, so we should let Hubble fall into the ocean or die
- Follow-up to the above pointing out that JWST sees only infrared
and Hubble can do ultraviolet (UV) astronomy
- Another follow-up about adaptive optics making ground-based
telescopes nearly as good as orbiting telescopes
- Yet another follow-up pointing out that UV astronomy must
be done from orbit
- Some 14-year-old with more imagination than engineering knowledge
talking about the wonders of a farside telescope and/or Helium-3
and/or beaming power from the Moon to the Earth
- Someone mentioning that kook Robert Zubrin and his plan to send
men to Mars for {suspiciously small amount of $}
- Criticisms of Bush and O'Keefe
- Flustered post from another 14-year-old along the lines of
"why don't we just build a space elevator already???"
- A rant about the US space program grinding to a halt for 2+ years
when someone dies or something blows up
There. Did I miss anything?People, this is a troll repost from anti-slash.org.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Of course not. Having something *on land* (whereever that be) is BAD, especially if it is on someplace where it is harder to get at (e.g. the Moon).
Why?
(a) Moonquakes
(b) It costs more to fly to the moon, *decelerate* to land on it, than just to fly to someplace like L2.
(c) Albedo (the moon reflects light)
(d) Pointing (the moon covers half the sky).
etc etc etc etc.
In short, it is much easier to maneuver and fly a telescope in the nice, mechanically quiet (read : vacuum is very nice to fly in), and thermally benign empty space than to put something on the Moon.
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
I'm kind of surprised that no one else has offered this speculation. I've been watching the news and hearing about China aiming for the moon.
Am I the only one who thinks that we might be headed for another space race? China might be the only nation with the economic potential to become a super power and nothing says super power better than putting people on the moon, or, say, Mars.
As was mentioned elsewhere, there are temporary job benefits, but the Bush administration has been known to think big before: Hydrogen economy... Global democracy...
I'm not claiming these efforts are "Right" or even fruitful, but they are big. Bush has made decisions to launch efforts that could only pay off long after he leaves office. And no, I'm not interested in debating Bush's intelligence.
Just food for thought.
O'Keefe is to NASA as Sculley was to Apple: a professional administrator attempting to run something by sheer professionalism and politics that they obviously know far too little about to create themselves. NASA is a scientific engineering project. It requires science and engineering people to run it. Scientists and engineers got us to the moon. Scientists and engineers will get us to Mars, administrators and politicians won't. Administrators and politicians should give the money, shut up, stand back, and let the people who know how to make things go make them go.
"We choose to go to the moon not because it is easy, but because it is hard." -- A politician who gave the order, got the money, and got out of the way.
"My god, Thiokol, what do you want me to do, wait until April?" -- A NASA professional administrator, January 28, 1986, more concerned about launch schedules than frozen O-rings.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Can NASA outsource Hubble servicing to India?
.. how many here would approve of the Moon/Mars plan if it was proposed by anyone but Bush.
Thanks to an editor who wrote NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe to apologize for some of the personal comments that have appeared here, Slashdot has gotten itself inside NASA. Specifically, the Administrator asked me to post the agency's white paper on the cancelled Hubble Servicing Mission. Can't post the paper itself, but you can find it on our Return to Flight Page: http://www.nasa.gov/news/highlights/returntoflight .html
Perhaps this will answer a few questions.
well, i got this in m2, and marked the troll as unfair ...
Bah, none of you know humor when you see it!
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
But we also have:
- Dr. Mike Barratt (MD)
- Captain Robert Behnken (PhD Mechanical Engineering)
- Col. Yvonne Cagle (MD)
- Dr. Traci Caldwell (PhD Chemical Engineering)
- Dr. Charles Camarda (PhD Aerospace Engineering)
- Dr. Greg Chamitoff (PhD Aeronautical Engineering)
- Dr. Leroy Chiao (PhD Chemical Engineering)
- Lt. Col. Catherine Coleman (PhD Polymer Chemistry)
- Dr. Andrew Feustel (PhD Siesmology)
- Dr. Anna Fisher (MD)
- Dr. Michael Foale (PhD Astrophysics)
- Lt. Col. Kevin Ford (PhD Aeronautical Engineering)
- Dr. Michael Gernhardt (PhD Bioengineering)
- Dr. John Grunsfeld (PhD Physics)
- Col. Scott Horowitz (PhD Aerospace Engineering)
- Dr. Janet Kavandi (PhD Analytical Chemistry)
- Dr. Stanley Love (PhD Astronomy)
- Dr. Edward Lu (PhD Applied Physics)
- Dr. Michael Massimino (PhD Mechanical Engineering)
- Dr. Megan McArthur (PhD Oceanography)
- Captain Lee Morin (MD, MPH)
- Dr. Karen Nyberg (PhD Mechanical Engineering)
- Dr. John Olivas (PhD Mechanical Engineering)
- Dr. Scott Parazynski (MD)
- Dr. Nicholas Patrick (PhD Mechanical Engineering)
- Dr. Donald Pettit (PhD Chemical Engineering)
- Dr. John Phillips (PhD Geophysics ans Space Physics)
- Dr. James Reilly (PhD Geosciences)
- Dr. Garrett Reisman (PhD Mechanical Engineering)
- Dr. Stephen Robinson (PhD Mechanical Engineering)
- Dr. Piers Sellers (PhD Biometeorology)
- Dr. Steven Swanson (PhD Computer Science)
- Dr. Donald Thomas (PhD Materials Science)
- Dr. Janice Voss (PhD Aeronautics and Astronautics)
- Dr. Peggy Whitson (PhD Biochemistry)
- Dr. David Wolf (MD)
That doesn't count a few non-Americans in our program:- Dr. Takao Doi (PhD Aerospace Engineering)
- Dr. Christer Fuglesang (PhD Particle Physics)
- Dr. Steve MacLean (PhD Physics)
- Dr. Robert Thirsk (MD, MBA - go figure)
- Dr. Dafydd Williams (MD)
And it doesn't count the ex-astronauts who have moved on to other NASA positions:And then there are these few:
And I personally know several engineers and physicists of various stripe who have talked seriously about joining the program, but would like to do more than "orbit aimlessly overhead."
So we should be able to find people.
tc>
Most Americans don't understand science, and they wouldn't like it if they did.
Two launches by Russians, one for supplies to fix HST, and another, to lift the guys to perform maintenence, will still be cheaper than a single shuttle launch. Let Russians do it!
The major portion of the deficit mess we're in is directly attributable to W and can't be blamed on others or on events beyond his control.
Every President for the past 72 years, Republican and Democrat, found a way to have positive job growth in their four year term. Until W.
Like in beer?
"...a generation of kids has grown up thinking Trance is the shittiest music since country and western." - Paul van Dyk