Slashdot Mirror
No Money For Hubble Service Mission
starexplorer writes "SPACE.com is reporting that the White House has eliminated funding for servicing the Hubble Space Telescope from its 2006 budget request. After many options 1, 2 were explored, is this the death knell for Hubble?"
So if there isn't money for Hubble than auction it off as surplus - let free market pick it up if they want to.
"directed NASA to focus solely on de-orbiting the popular spacecraft "
Well, if we count on the government to fund Hubble, yes.
Perhaps a private party will either donate, or advertise.
This cosmic picture was brought to you by Budwiser.
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
pitched it to Bush as a way to finally find those missing WMDs, the administration would have spent billions on it....
All this discussion of saving the Hubble seems to ignore an obvious solution. Just launch a completely new, improved orbiting observatory. Hubble is nearing the end of its lifespan even if it is serviced. A replacement might not cost a lot more than a servicing mission and would involve zero risk.
Would it be cheaper to just build something newer and better than to try to keep the Hubble up there?
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
Can't they just stop off on the way to mars?
Photos.
Bush: "We must further our ambitions in space"...or something like that anyways
Now I see this posted... Now admittedly 1 billion is a pretty big price to save Hubble (would probably be more practical just to send up a new one) but is there a newer one in the near Horizon even?
Politics and space mix badly...but then again what else is new...
...in bed
Crash it like they did the Mir...then I can put my blender up on EBay as set it for hundreds as "Hubble Debris".
will include some money for a mission to attach a propulsion module to Hubble needed to safely de-orbit the spacecraft with a controlled re-entry into the Pacific Ocean.
Anyone know why such a module wasn't installed as part of the original contruction? Wouldn't it have been a wise precautionary measure to put something like this on just in case?
Things like this will continue to happen so long as space use and exploration in general does not capture the public's fascination.
I'm an avid supporter of all things space-related (paying member of Planetary Society, etc) but I find most articles written about the Hubble telescope and space in general pretty boring. Until someone inspires the world with a lofty goal that will push technology or knowledge forward significantly, I think you can expect this type of stagnation or actual devolution.
I'm a big tall mofo.
*ring* *ring* "Hello, Energiya?" "It's the wealthy ingrates." "Huh? No, America not France." "We've got the 100 million, you want it in dollars or *heheh* euros?" "What!?! France bought all Soyuz missions for the next ten years?" "Go ask Chirac? Yeah, very funny."
The important thing is that we are going to spend Billions building up oil-rich Iraq, so that the people there have things that tax paying American citizens don't even have (and, of course, they will still hate us). Bush can hardly afford to spend a little money on a proven and viable space technology when just this week at his coronation he declared himself in charge of making every country fit his image of what is right and wrong.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Maybe it'll crash on me so I won't have to worry about Social Security.
The savings will cover the cost of about 5 days of war in Iraq.
With the many successes NASA has been enjoying lately, I think we should feel better about decisions as to where to focus resources.
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
If your country would like to foot the bill, have at it. Like it or not, when the war was launched nearly 70% of the US citizens supported the war. I guess the US can spend its money as it sees fit. And yes, it does seem at least one of them does already have wmd.
Last time Taco Bell promised a free vouchers for everyone if MIR hits a floating target.
NASA, PLEASE, don't miss the bulls eye now! I want my free burrito!
Simply taking pretty pictures of a galaxy far far away, or prolaiming the discovery of star 23525f-9 in galaxy LZ21R isn't enough to justify the expense in most people's minds.
It's too good a technology to waste.
And, no doubt, if we just leave it up there the Chinese and/or the EU will most certainly claim salvage rights and send up a repair crew.
The Chinese would claim it, if for no other reason than to make clear to the world what is becoming increasingly obvious: the USA lacks the desire (funds?) to maintain its status as a space faring nation and is being replaced by China as the space faring super power.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Of course there isn't any money. How else is NASA going to develop the James Webb Telescope? The Hubble's expected to last until 2009 and there would only be a two year gap between its failure, de-orbiting or return to earth on a shuttle. I'm sure Astronomy Picture of the Day will do fine in those intervening years.
The ESA would certainly be interested. The Chinese and Japanese might take an interest as well.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Relativity was useless outside of the realm of describing orbits. Then came the needs for an accurate description of where you are at, i.e., GPS. Don't ever under estimate the future value of knowledge, even one that seems complete foreign and useless.
Burn Hollywood Burn
I guess the US can spend its money as it sees fit.
Sure, like I can go out, buy a gun and ammunition, track you down and kill you. Then if anyone objects I can say "I guess I can spend my money as I see fit". How could anyone argue with that?
Do you really think that the saved money is going to go to tsunami relief or ending world hunger? If it goes anywhere, odds are it will go into the Iraq war. Or maybe the upcoming Iranian war, even.
It's not a zero-sum game between humanitarian aid and science. Any language that supposes that it is leads you into trouble.
University of Arizona is building the Large Binocular Telescope [http://medusa.as.arizona.edu/lbtwww/], with with a pair of mirrors each 8.4 meters (25 feet) in diameter. The light gathering power and sharpness are both supposed to put Hubble to shame [ see http://www.nd.edu/~science/core/binocular/lbt_othe rtelescopes.shtml]
using adaptive optics to remove the atmospheric blurring. It's a lot cheaper than Hubble, and while being ground-based has limitations, having it on the ground will make it much easier to repair and upgrade.
Even though Nasa got a budget boost this coming year, they have a new set of priorities and things will change as a result - that's what a change in direction means.
As others have said, $1 billion for the repair is an awful lot to spend when it does not further the advance of manned missions beyond earth. Personally I am sad to loose hubble, but generally like the new direction the space program is taking.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
They've launched the shuttles with rockets in the cargo bays lots of times. Galileo comes to mind.
To deorbit it, they would have latched on, executed a burn with the OMS (orbital manuvering system, those big outside pods on either side of the tail fin, not the three main engines), left go of the Hubble, and moved out of the way with the OMS.
There would have been no need for a fueled propulsion vehicle in the cargo bay. They did design a Centaur that could have been carried onboard Discovery. Not after the Challenger disaster, though.
This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
I'd like to note that I am part of the other 30% ;) Please don't attack me!
"No bucks, no Buck Rogers"
"This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"
a calculated ploy to get more money from Congress? If this popular item was included, other items would have been cut when Congress reduces again the NASA budget. This way this item will be added and perhaps fewer items will be cut. It increases the value of the items in the budget. In the end NASA could end up with more money than if it would have been included.
The White House zero-budgets the agencies it hates almost every year. This includes almost everything environmental: EPA, NOAA (and its Dept. Commerce parent), a good part of the USGS, any NASA environmental satellites, and more. Then Congress usually restores these items. Until the President gets a line item veto, it has to stake the whole appropiations bill. Bush has never vetoed a bill yet.
Don't get me wrong. I think space exploration is fascinating, but there are enough problems on this planet that money spent finding literal nothingness could be used to help solve. (e.g. tsunami relief, world hunger, etc)
Honestly, I'm glad the white house made this decision. Unfortunately, I'm worried where the money's going to go and be used for because it's hard not to wonder in an age with a government so ignorant such as the US's. Just my 2c.
OK, I know I'm responding to a troll. I know this is stupid but my .02c is this: "Fuck the poor". Fuck 'em. I'm tired of hearing about how we can't do space exploration until every fucking poor person on the planet is fed. Want to help poor people? Sterilize them so they can't breed more poor children and perpetuate their problems. "Can't feed 'em? Don't breed 'em!" should be our new motto. Admittedly this is not PC, but fuck that too. Oh, and for all of the people who are so fucking concerned about the poor, why don't you stop surfing /., turn off your PCs, get off of your fucking asses and actually go help the poor? Work in a soup kitchen or something, sell your kidneys and donate the money you receive to tsunami relief. Think of all the problems on this planet that you could solve if you weren't selfishly sitting on your fat ass and surfing /..
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
We just need to change Hubble's name from Hubble Space Telescope to Freedom Space Telescope.
You, idiot. Iraq was one of the few arabic countries where woman had equal rights and you would go to jail for *not* sending your daughter to school. It was a fascist dictatorship, but it was *not* a fundamentalist one. Tarek Aziz was a christian. Of course women rights will go down the drain, now that the US is about to lose the war. well done, morons.
Maybe when they find out that no one is doing anything useful on the space station and that you don't need a base on the moon to go to mars, then they will repair Hubble out of the billions saved. Then, they might also decide that invading another country is a better idea. Hey, I know! Why not present Hubble as "a tool to invade the privacy of terrorists who might hide in other solar systems". That might just work!!
No.
In the end, the bugetary decisions are up to Congress. They have the power to restore the Hubble funding to the budget.
Then he'd increase hubble's budget by 170 million.
Hubble has been crucial in imaging Supernova 1987A. We have an astonishing volume of data from the Hubble as we follow the sequence as this progresses in the Greater Magellenic Cloud. If Hubble is lost without any replacement, we will lose a rare opportunity to image a supernova this close.
This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
That way we can kill two birds with one stone, and save twice as much money for the next space telescope.
Cut the funding to the orbiting pile of crap the ISS and put it into Hubble, an orbital piece of technology that does something useful. If Hubble isn't repaired then we are going to lose one of the most useful cosmological tools available for many years to come.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
We can't hack Hubble now and yet it was one year ago last week that his plan to go to Mars was in the news? talk about flip-flopping... geez.
. stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3381531
No.
No, it couldn't.
You know why? Because the amount of warning Hubble could provide over a ground-based scope would be measured in *seconds*.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
Then this is the finale for a project that showed us a universe we never knew existed and smashed preconceived notions of the nature of our existence. Time and time again, the HST has delivered evidence of things that once bordered on fiction. Its photographs have confounded our greatest minds and inspired our youngest ones. Far be it from me to say what the telescope is worth in dollars and cents, but it has to be worth more than this because in all other respects it is absolutely priceless. Discoveries in physics and astronomy may be retarded by years or more. What's worse is that almost nobody seems to care.
~Someday, I hope to be an aspiring author.
> so it's being decommissioned before it finds buddha.
When I'm feeling particularly conspiratorial, I wonder whether Hubble is just doing too damn much to show how pathetically ridiculous the Creationist notions that are espoused by a number of Bush's really are.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The Bush administration is trying to kill science and turn the US into a theocracy. Religion keeps people opiated; science teaches them to ask questions, and is therefore incompatible with their autocratic goals.
Someone post a list of the corporate sponsors for the inauguration, then boycott their products/services until they agree to pay the same amount to fund a Hubble rescue operation.
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
The savings will cover the cost of about 5 days of war in Iraq.
An Excellent point. Let's go a little furhter: why waste a large orbiting mass? Perhaps NASA can arrange to de-orbit it into a terrorist training camp or something. That should save us the cost of a cruse missile or two.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Develop a space elevator, ride it on up, and fix the damn thing.
We will keep re-defining success until we are sucessful.
Bush wants the US to push towards mars (or at least that's what he claims to want).
But in the process, lets scrap perhaps the most successful space venture in human history.
Hubble has been the greatest achievement in NASA's history. Far from the high profile Moon Landing. but it's the better achievement:
1. Has made millions interested in space, and sciences through it's absolutely breathtaking images.
2. One of the greatest feats of engineering servicing that thing.
3. It's been reliable and usable for YEARS
IMHO it more than earned a repair, and an upgrade.
It's been NASA's true achievement. The mars rovers have been great, they did a lot. But nothing has outperformed like Hubble.
How about putting a PayPal donation button on their homepage?
(just kidding)
Your password has expired, please login to change it.
1. End the war on Iraq. That should give us enough budget.
Although I'd be a lot happier if they just said YES FUND IT.
and 0 to save the hubble. Maybe someone should tell W that the 10 commandments are ingraved on the side, he'd never know the difference.
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
W: We need a new astronomical observation technique that can replace the Hubble Space Telescope, and so I've asked Congress to requisition binoculars for NASA. That should be OK, right?
NASA: What about during the day, Mr. President?
W: I've also asked Congress for sunglasses.
But seriously, why does it matter - it's not like the truth of W's statements matters to the populace - as long as they keep electing him, he'll continue his economy with the truth.
Interesting idea, with some major flaws.
1. Hubble and ISS are nowhere near each other
2. Hubble and ISS are in different orbits
3. Hubble isn't designed to attach to the ISS
4. The ISS isn't designed to have large metal tubes attached to it
5. Some very, very careful sums will be thrown out of whack
6. You need to get a mission up there to move Hubble and ISS together, a major undertaking for which you may as well just repair Hubble.
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
The other reason is religious fanaticism directed against science because of the unpleasant truths it persists in revealing.
I think it's worse than that. From my perspective (I'm in catholic Italy) there was really no need for the church to go back to challenge scientific discoveries. In fact the Pope is fighting for what is seen as unethical research on human cloning and so on, but doesn't challenge Darwinism, for example. On the other hand, IIRC, one minister tried to remove Darwin from teaching programs, but the model for this behaviour stays in US, not in the Vatican (I don't want to try and excuse the Roman Catholics, which should speak out louder against this, as I do)
So, why politicians of us and italian right fight science more than the official Church? I have one dystopic explanation. Science as it existed before big money came in (that is: peer review, published results, quest for personal glory of the scientist...) is no longer desirable for the society we are transforming into. Scientific discovery must be directed by the market, in controlled environments and regulated by patents so that the big players exert their superiority.
Among other strategies, the enemies of science are using religion as a mere weapon of disinformation. They want people to blindly obey faith and negate scientific evidence and couldn't care less for the message itself. Else they would be evangelizing in a totally different way...
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Well, it doesn't help that they (Bush's conservative National Socialist religious idiot friends) don't even understand the Bible (which they claim to be "experts" in), much less scientific knowledge.
While it's not a science textbook, the Bible does not contradict proven science. It speaks of a round (Heb. chugh - "circle", "ball") Earth. It speaks of things coming into existence in the proper order (the "exapanse" -> Earth -> plants -> fish -> birds -> mammals -> people). It even can explain why the Big Bang happened (God is "abundant in dynamic energy" - what happens when he asserts some of that?).
Of course, people misunderstand it to say that the entire universe, everything in it, and all life were created in a mere 144 hours. Yeah, right. Even now we use the word "day" to mean periods of time of unspecified length. (For instance, "Every dog has its day.")
The only other issue is believing that there's an intelligence behind this creation, rather than a random force (and it's still "creation", it just has a different cause in some people's estimation). Some people just don't want to be accountable to a higher power. The truth is, you're accountable whether you believe or not, and whether it's "God" or not.
Bush's cronies are just using religion the same way they and other rulers throughout history have always used religion - as a means of manipulating people by twisting spirituality and morality. And most people are just too stupid to grasp that they're being lied to.
A few people have suggested launching something very similar to HST, with the new instrumentation that was supposed to go up in servicing mission 4. One such proposal is the "Hubble Origins Probe"; they had a poster at the last American Astronomical Society meeting, the abstract of which you can read here.
..." (COS and WF3 are the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph and new Wide-Field Camera, respectively.)
That abstract begins, "A no-new-technology HST-class observatory with COS and WFC3 as its core instruments
There's also a brief article about this at New Scientist.
I'm not crazy about this idea, for a bunch of reasons, but it is under active investigation.
Kind of sums up the administration.
There are lots of telescopes. The JWT will be great. It will not have the capabilities of the Hubble and it will not study the same things. Yes, you can get pretty pictures from any telescope but you can only study the early history of the universe with the Hubble. If there were a real replacement only two years out, that would be different, but naming another random telescope and saying "look, what's the big deal, we don't need _two_ telescopes" completely misses the point.
My goodness, what is wrong with all of you? This is a simple question of economics... for the $175 million that NASA wanted to spend on keeping the Hubble up we instead could:
* Pay for 4 F-117 Fighters to kill people with without them being able to kill us (40k each)
* Two tomahawk missiles (750k each) and a few six packs. To bomb people without needing to get up out our lazy boys.
* Four inaugaral balls at 40 mill each.
Its just a matter of priorities.
The wailing and gnashing has begun, but consider: Saving the Hubble will cost a lot of money and substantial risk to a shuttle crew. I think it is good for Bush to force Congress to justify the expenditure. After all, NASA determined the Hubble mission was "dead" a year ago, and only the public outcry resurrected the possibility. Since the STIS failed, and with only 4 of 6 gyros functioning (3 are required), isn't it possible that spending so much money on a failing craft is a waste? Might it not be better to spend the money on a replacement, with much better instruments?
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
Amen, Brother Sand Man. Praise God!
Really, it's only proper that the Hubble be decommissioned and de-orbited before that other 'scope (the JWST) gets put up there. Can you imagine if the tried to have sex? Homosexual sex? Space telescopes having homosexual sex in space in an abomination in God's eyes, not least because it's closer to him sitting up there in his big golden chair in heaven.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
No, it wouldn't help, because light travels at the speed light travels. A minor fraction of a second after that light hits Hubble, it hits Earth. That is physical LAW. Hubble CANNOT physically provide us with advance warning significantly faster than Earth-bound scopes, unless its resolving something Earth-bound scopes cannot resolve due to atmospheric effects.
You want advance warning of solar flares? Stick a satellite in a close heliocentric orbit and let it do particle cloud detection, then spit a signal back to us. Maybe, maybe, we could get 5 or 6 minutes, maybe even an hour depending on the speed of the particle cloud, worth of warning. Maybe.
But trying to re-task Hubble to something it was never designed for is simply stupid - its an observation scope. Let's use it to observe.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
Didn't you think that Bush was going to fix the Hubble, after the public show last year running up to the election? Too bad. 59 million Americans voted to dump the Hubble.
--
make install -not war
Space telescope techology has improved in the past decade.
More powerful telescopes could be built cheaper and lighter.
It makes no sense to salvage an obsolete telescope when a more powerful new one could be built for the same amount.
Also the 1 Billion price tag to rescue the HST is not one that I would want the country to pay.
Are you kidding? There's certainly secret tech on Hubble. Anyone approaching gets zorched by a Star Wars satellite. Oh, right, those things don't work, except to successfully score a budget. Go right ahead!
--
make install -not war
Maybe letting the Hubble burn up in a fiery inferno is Bush's way of bringing democracy to it.
If you ask why a space telescope would need democracy, you are acting very un-american.
> While it's not a science textbook, the Bible does not contradict proven science. It speaks of a
> round (Heb. chugh - "circle", "ball") Earth. It speaks of things coming into existence in the
> proper order (the "exapanse" -> Earth -> plants -> fish -> birds -> mammals -> people). It even
> can explain why the Big Bang happened (God is "abundant in dynamic energy" - what happens when
> he asserts some of that?).
The Genesis cosmological myth does not get things in the right order. Plants appear before the sun, which is patently absurd.
> Some people just don't want to be accountable to a higher power.
As an atheist, this ridiculous strawman of my lack of belief in your god ranges somewhere between humorously ignorant and stupidly annoying. I'm not an atheist just to be my own boss, that would rather indicate that I wasn't, in fact, an atheist at all. I'm an atheist because I simply don't accept the existence of gods. That doesn't make me any less good than you, it means that whatever ethics and morals that someone wishes to put on top of me have to have some rationale behind them other than "God says it's gotta be that way".
I recommend that you actually try to understand what atheists think, rather than mouthing a falsehood whose sole purpose appears to be to further this idiotic pissing contest that some religious folk like to try to drag non-believers into.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Why not just send a little space tug up there and tow the damn thing to a Lagrange point and leave it? Then we don't have to worry about it falling out of the sky onto a cute 18 year old blonde with a quirky, deadpan sense of humor and no direction in life.
The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
If you remove the bloodsucking leech contractors from the equation, war is pretty cheap. We could probably invade Iran for about $500.
I know this one country that went to war for a mere 75 cents. And it totally kicked the other country's ass, which is braggable. This friend of mine saw a country go to war with another country because it left the window open.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Click here to get to the homepages of both of your senators, and urge them to continue funding HST. Similarly, click here to contact your representative in the House. Make sure in your writeup to include your name and address. It is good to send them an email or use the contact webform box, but even better to send an actual letter via USPS.
I can't stress this enough. Congressmen usually listen to their constituents, but typically most of their feedback comes from well-funded lobby groups that can afford to contact them on every relevent piece of legislation. If enough of us can demonstrate to them how important Hubble is to the scientific research and legacy of the US, we can actually make a positive impact.
Here is a page with some extra information about writing your Congressmen. Please do this (right now even). The 10 minutes you spend contacting them can be repaid tenfold if your message influences their decision!
make world, not war
...the American people should file a HUGE lawsuit against our own government for negligent destruction of a national treasure.
I forgot to mention that the proposed NASA budget that cuts the Hubble Space Telescope was only the proposal by the White House. Congress has to vote on the actual budget, and thus has the power to include HST funding. But they will only do this if they can be shown that cutting HST is a bad idea, and that's why our feedback will be absolutely essential.
make world, not war
This must be the new world freedom we just heard about: the freedom for the world to go blind.
Were something to go wrong with the shuttle during launch and not discovered until the checkout at the ISS, the shuttle could dock and the crew use the shuttle systems to augment the ISS life-support capacity. This would enable the shuttle personnel to survive much longer in orbit, giving plenty of time to mount a rescue with a Russian spaceship.
There are even contingency plans where both the ISS and shuttle crew could return to Earth in the Russian spaceship already docked. There wouldn't be acceleration couches for everyone, there'd probably be some injuries, but none life-threatening.
None of those options are available during a Hubble servicing mission.
So no, it's not "almost the same risk." There is value in the ISS, much of which is simply learning to live and work in space. No, not as much immediate value as the Hubble, but in the really long term, it might be far more important.
This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
Maybe we should spread the rumor that there are WMD on board - then Bush will invade it. And we can get the repairs done.
the direction the space program is taking? it's headed for the toilet. well, actually, it's circling the bowl. Based on where we were in the 1960s we should be on mars and luna permanently by now, and maybe even self-sufficiently in both cases.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
From our work (we work with some people related with NASA) we've heard there is actually a group of people who have planned to turn the ISS into a space hotel. Maybe they will speed up their plans, buy the Hubble, and keep it for a tourist attraction!
See the Hubble Telescope, Discoverer of Lots Of Things! Buy your Tshirt "I looked through the Hubble"!
... that the US are not going to "fix" it is because there is no oil up there to liberate.
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
just because you want to or how it makes you feel is not just dandy.
believe should follow evidence, period.
I'm tired of pretending it's OK to believe everything.
O'Reilly was going on about Intelligent Design yesterday... it's a theory, just like evolution. Right, and just like the theory that the moon is made of cheese... to bad the facts are not on it's side.
we should not coddle the believe-whatever-we-like crowd. Reality is relative, that doesn't mean you can't compare things, it means you HAVE TO.
-pyrrho
One of the reasons there's not much interest on maintaining Hubble operational is because of the availability of land telescopes with similar precision nowadays.
The reason Hubble is in Space is because of lack of atmosphere distortion, so we have much more precise pictures.
But now we do have land telescopes which computer-controlled visual compensation which gives similar resolution at a fraction of the cost.
With advances in adaptive optics and computing, ground-based telescopes are now BETTER than the Hubble in many ways.
h ybuild/grbsspc .html
This site on the Large Binocular Telescope (recently threatened by wildfire!) is very interesting.
http://medusa.as.arizona.edu/lbto/w
Inauguration party: $40 million Hubble maintenance: $0 Look on frustrated geeks faces: Priceless!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Oh wait, the administration really couldn't care less about finding him any more, could they?
I guess poor Hubble is fucked either way, then...
You must think in Russian.
De-orbiting the Hubble is part of the religious right's attack on science. Learning where we came from is not in their interest. News about science and knowledge is not in the best interest of furthering their agenda.
Hubble is on its last legs even with a mission it will still be on its last legs. Do you really want to risk a shuttle flight just so you can get a few more months out of old hardware? Jeez even the new groundbased telescopes like Keck outperform Hubble. Choose fights that mean something.
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
Hubble Origins Probe, a rebuild of Hubble with modern technology on a expendible launch, will cost only $750M - $1000 according to the following report.
http://www.pha.jhu.edu/groups/ astro/Colin%20HOP_final_noBudget.pdf
Obligatory: In Arabic countries, George Bush fucks you!
I suspect the House, led by representatives with Hubble facilities in their districts, will retain money for a repair mission. I Bush will use his line item veto to kill that funding. But, I do expect him to lobby hard, out of the public eye, if the Hubble money comes at the expense of the human space exploration programs.
And, he'd be right. Better to build the capacity to put telescopes and astonomers on the Moon than try to fix an aging robot telescope of less capacity.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
"If memory serves, the previous administration spend more than that on their own"
Your memory does not serve. This was the most expensive inauguration ever.
"40 million bucks goes to things like limo drivers, cooks, clean up crew"
No. It buys access for the corporations who wish to bend the ear and favor of those who write the laws.
Convert NASA into an ideological penis-length enhancement tool for the US.
Cease funding of all activities which:
1. lead to science that lends credibility to the fact the the earth/universe is more than 5000 years old (ie. Hubble).
2. lead to science that proves anthropogenic global warming (NOAA and other weather-type science satellites and probes).
Nope. Can't have any of that. We're going to MARS, bitches. Before the Reds do it!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
You know, if they could just find a way to use the Hubble in porn production, there would be no shortage of funding for it!
Bush's plan is to have it fall out of the sky and land on Iraq. You know, two birds with one...space telescope... :O
Warning: Could be fatal if taken seriously
We can't hack Hubble now and yet it was one year ago last week that his plan to go to Mars was in the news? talk about flip-flopping... geez.
No, it's exactly consistent. Spending a billion dollars to fix an outdated telescope is considered a bad idea because that money could be better spent on the moon colony.
Now, you may object to the moon colony, but if there's limited funding for space (there is) we have to pick our prioritites.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
the direction the space program is taking? it's headed for the toilet. well, actually, it's circling the bowl. Based on where we were in the 1960s we should be on mars and luna permanently by now, and maybe even self-sufficiently in both cases.
Um, you do know that's exactly Bush's plan, right?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
So he says. I won't believe it until I'm standing on Mars, at which point I will merrily do my very best to bend over and kiss my own ass.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Who moderated this Insightful?
Hey Bill,Yeah You Bill Gates!Now is the time to throw a little of those craploads of bucks you been throwing around to help expand the knowledge of everyone on the planet AND make an excellent marketing push for xp and longhorn.Imagine the ad-- Microsoft-saving the hubble so we can all keep reaching for the stars-with the winXP label looking cool behind the hubble.And since the gyro won't need to be replaced right away,You could wait and plan the mission around the new longhorn release.Just replace longhorn(dorky) with a cool space name,have the new logo all over the mission gear,and time the "launch" of the new OS with the mission launch!! Come on Bill!,Who loves making yourself look good and plugging microsoft better than you?And it would help to show all us commie freeware loving pinkos that you're not completely evil AND make yourself an m$ look better to the government!!It's a total Win/Win for ya Bill!!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
This is only a ploy by the Pres to see if anyone really, really, really wants to keep the HST. By itself the rescue is not sexy enough to support on its own merits. It won't provide jobs or fight terrorism, or find oil, so it's automatically unimportant.
If people start raising a stink about it, the money will come back.
If there is no outcry, if people don't fight for it tooth and nail (and make no mistake, this is going to be a fight of legendary proportions becuase Bush doesn't want to pay for the rescue), then they can get away with not having to pay for a rescue. And then they would get to claim people just didn't want it badly enough. Q.E.D.
I think one trick to pull right now would be to put collection cans in every public school room. Let the kids speak with their pennies and dimes.
It will probably not raise much cash but the it will make a freaking point that Bush cannot ignore.
Sig for hire.
LBT is not on line yet, nor are the instruments needed to achieve the reality of the synthetic images on that page. HST has not become obsolete due to ground instrumentation yet--not even if you just consider image quality. But, when you fold in what wavelengths it can observe in, it will never be fully replaced by any ground-based technologies. In fact, it will not be fully replaced by the next scheduled space telescope, JWST.
Billions spent on the floating scrap heap that is the ISS. Prisoners in the Gulag have it better than ISS astronauts and probably perform more useful science.
Hubble is one of the few bright spots in US science history. Then again, Bush and his puppeteers are only interested in playing general and aren't interested in space unless we can start blowing things up. Maybe they plan on testing one of their military attack sats on the Hubble?
"The area of penetration will no doubt be sensitive." ~ Spock
Democracys generally end up with the politicians they deserve...enough said
First, this 80% figure is outlandish.
Second, there are many people that *would* prefer to live in security under a tyrant than in a warzone.
I might.
If you are a very conservative religious type like GWB, doesn't the Hubble presents a problem for you with every new discovery or press release?
The Bible says that the world is only 5,000 to 7,500 years old, yet every press release talks about events millions of years ago... and thus every press release about Hubble is a direct challenge and insult to your religion.
How much simpler to just let the telescope come down...
Or is it step 1 in an "ownership society". There are, after all, other funding sources besides income taxes. Why do people assume that just because Big Government doesn't fund something it's doomed? I would have thought the X-Prize would have cured some of that...
When was the last time you saw the President's budget make it through unscathed and actually get enacted? Er, never?
Recognize what's happening here -- the budget conains some things that the President is adamant on and a number of bargaining chips. It allows his allies in the Congress to make bargains like "Ok. We'll keep the Hubble, but only if you vote for Social Security Reform."
The President's budget marks the beginning of the budget-making process, not the end.
I know its sad, considering the excellent science done to date, but the Hubble is in essence 70's tech . There are many non-replaceable parts in Hubble that are getting past their operating date, which cannot be swapped by a robot or even a Human. Modern space scope can have lightweight segmented mirrors, betters CCDs, computers, etc. Also if servicing is not needed, it can be put at lagrange points for better results - the Earths closeness to Hubble creates problems.
Let it go. I would even go as far as to say dont deorbit - $200mil spent elsewhere would save more life than the risk..
"You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
However, I should point out that even if the money were spent (and spent efficiently) on a new telescope, there's a lead time of many years on putting new telescopes in space. Hubble was originally funded in 1977 and launched in 1990. The James Webb Space Telescope isn't scheduled for launch until August of 2011, but funding for it started in 1995. This excludes that there was in both case extensive design and planning work going back at least a few years before funding started.
Brazil is beating the pants off the USA in agriculture. And they did it with science, figuring out how to get high productivity out of tropical soils the ecodoomsters had said were unfarmable.
To many falicies in that arguement (sarcastic arguement at that) to count. You can be Atheist (or even a non-fundemental Christian) and have a Conservative funding agenda.
Disbelief of this fact is fed into our minds by the Ultra Left and Ultra Right. Don't fall victum to that thinking.
Funding for technology (like this), infastructure projects, big science, and war are just politics; regardless of what you hear from Bill O'Rielly or Conny Chung.
--"Sorry for the inconvience." Gods Last Words to his Creation
DNA, So Long and Thanks for all the Fish