Slashdot Mirror
Repair Costs for Hubble Are Vexing to Scientists
wallstreetprodigy23 writes "Some scientists questioned whether a repair mission for the aging Hubble Space Telescope was worth a projected cost of $1 billion to $2 billion at a hearing of the House Science Committee on Wednesday.
Both scientists and legislators praised the orbiting observatory for the many contributions it had made to science since it was launched in 1990. But the telescope needs servicing to continue working...
"
The John Hopkins folks proposed a 'Son of Hubble' for that same cost. It would give the same or better scientific data gathering and also be designed to be fixed in an easier fashion, made with more modern tech, etc.
Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
...of the ISS. Is that money pit doing anything for science but falling apart?
I suspect the Chinese could get it fixed for a lot less than $1 billion. It's called trickle down economics, I think.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
There's two things to respond to in your post:
1. $1-2 billion might not be a good investment for the Hubble. If that money is applied to the design of a replacement satellite, or possibly a replacement for the shuttles, then we might gain even more by NOT spending on the Hubble. It's a cost tradeoff issue, and is hardly a simple decision to make. It's a decision that can only be made when looking at the entire NASA budget (which Slashdot posts never do).
I'd personally like to see $1-2 billion go towards a replacement for the shuttles, since that would greatly reduce the maintenance costs for satellites down the line.
2. The anti-Bush rhetoric is getting old. There's many reason we should or shouldn't be in Iraq, but the fact remains that we ARE in Iraq. We should not leave anytime soon (most reasonable people can agree with that), since the entire thing would have been in vain. So, we're stuck with paying the $80 billion per year for the next few years.
At this point it does no good to complain about the extra money required for Iraq, since it's going there no matter what. It's far more important to determine how agencies will make better use of their reduced funding... like deciding if the Hubble should be repaired or if the money should be spent on something else.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
If we allow for a 0.5% probability of the loss of austronauts, the costs would drop dramatically. For example, they don't want to send the mission without another shuttle on "stand-by", because, if something is wrong, this mission will not be able to repair itself (unlike those, that are sent to ISS).
If lives can be and are lost for a good cause in Afghanistan, Iraq, in fighting domestic crime, and in firefighting, I say, we are overly protective of the space crews.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
"Please tell me, how was invading Iraq "protecting ourselves"?"
... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a lic! it missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
.. We also shoul
---
Hmm. Good Question. Lets ask some leading democrats:
---
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the Greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton N ational Security Adviser, Feb 18,1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engage! d in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chem! ical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years
I'll probably get modded down as well, but I fear not. If I am to be modded down as off-topic, there's 80 other people that they'll need to do the same to; this entire article's comments are half about this subject.
/06/last_minute_iraq_offer_cited/
> Ah, how soon we forget. The UN weapons inspectors found WMDs in Iraq
Then document it. I've read the Dueffler report. Even despite being a Bush-chosen war hawk, the best he could come up with was possible low-level "programs", and even that is doubted, given the evidence cited, by most experts.
> Hussein never accounted for them
Hussein did account for them; unfortunately, his account was "we unilaterally destroyed them". UNMOVIC/UNSCOM had detected evidence that various chemical weapons had been destroyed in the locations stated, but were unable to assess the quantity. When we invaded, they were working on a way to try and assess the quantity.
> Intelligence agencies all over the world felt Iraq had these WMDs
That's why the IAEA was near certifying Iraq as nuclear free, and why UNMOVIC was reporting significant process, right? Why the heads of both organizations were mad at us for invading? Why the US was pretty much laughed at for pushing many of the claims, such as the "uranium from Africa" and "aluminum tubes" claims. Any of this sound familiar to you?
> Hussein had failed to respond to numerous UN resolutions.
Funny thing - turns out that he was in compliance on most of the things that we asserted he was in violation of. Then, we go and invade, violating the very UN charter itself.
> The US tried to get UN action, but was blocked by France, Germany, and Russia,
> all of which had either economic or military ties to Iraq.
But economic ties a hundred times greater to the United States. This line of argument is pretty dumb, and I'm surprised that people still use it. The populace of France was 3/4 against the war; Germany, over 4/5ths. Russia, about 3/4ths. How dare a country do what it's citizens want!
> Oh, and don't forget that Hussein could have left Iraq before we invaded and
> the invasion would have been called off...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1079 76 9,00.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/116629.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3247461.st m
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/ 11
This can all be summed up here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_Iraqi_p eace_in itiatives
> There were plenty of terrorists in Iraq.
Surely you will cite them, then!
> It was also well known that Hussein paid the surviving relatives of suicide
> bombers after each bombing.
And the Saudis ran bloody telethons for them.
> He certainly wished to do harm to the US and US interests.
He joined about 80% of the world in that regard.
> Plus he had openly defied us and the no-fly zones for years.
You mean, the no-fly zones that the French called harmful and pointless, which the Russians and Germans called illegal, which the Chinese condemned, etc?
How would you feel if, without a resolution, French military aircraft flew over America, shooting down anything that flew without their permission (and attacking US bases), and then when the US tried to attack them, they condemned us for "defying the no-fly zones"?
> Taking his regime out sent a clear message that the US is serious and
> not to be trifled with.
That's why Iran and North Korea are openly building nukes, eh? About the only message that it sent is "If the US says disarm, don't - they'll invade anyways, so you need your weapons". That and "Freedom is defined by a dozen deaths a day", "Democracy involves a couple dozen dead, the almost complete sitting-out of a religious/ethnic group (Sunni arabs), the blocking of anot
Freeze Ray. Tell your friends.