Slashdot Mirror
Senator Calls on NASA to Service Hubble
Avantare writes "Senator Calls on NASA to Service Hubble
In a sternly worded letter to acting NASA Administrator Frederick D. Gregory, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) said she expects the U.S. space agency to heed the will of the Congress and keep preparations for a Hubble Space Telescope servicing mission on track.
Congress, in passing an omnibus spending bill late last year, directed NASA to set aside $291 million of its 2005 budget to spend planning and preparing for a servicing mission to Hubble by 2008. When NASA informed Congress just weeks later that it intended to spend only $175 million of that amount on the Hubble repair effort, some saw the move as an indication that the agency was preparing to abandon plans to service Hubble robotically and rely instead on a space shuttle crew to fix the telescope."
Good for Senator Mikulski! As far as I'm concerned, NASA has been putzing around on this issue for no reason WHAT-SO-EVER. The shuttles are no more dangerous now then they were for the earlier two decades they've been in service. If people were allowed to do their jobs, then NASA would have known about the shuttle damage *before* Columbia's reentry.
These mumblings about robotic repair sound like a whiny way of getting out of doing the job. If you'll pardon my French, "Just launch the damn space shuttle and fix the bloody thing!" It's not that hard, and I'm sure there's no shortage of qualified volunteers. Do I hear an Amen?!?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Senator's don't usually care this much about what is essentially a technology budgeting decision. Who's got her ear, and why?
So these two instuments alone can replace all of the existing functionality of Hubble I's instruments? If that is the case then bravo, go for it. But if it means losing the ability to do deep UV astronomy or anything else that Hubble I has proven to be very adept at, I don't think we should skimp out. Hubble has shown itself to have exceeded expectations time and time again, and I think it's well worth the investment. Not to say we should throw money at the problem, but if we can find untold billions for the sake of running to stand still in Iraq then surely there's gotta be a spare 1 billion somewhere we could use to fix something that's been more useful than we expected.
They will never stop until somebody makes the
Maybe its just me, but doesnt it seem odd that Congress is meddling in NASA's affairs? Granted, when it all comes down to budget it is in Congress's hands, but don't you think NASA knows whats best for itself?
i might get modded down for this but it needs to be said.
/. all the time!
it's not about whether robots or humans are used. it's about the hubble being a piece of crap that needs to be replaced in order for us to move forward. the hubble is obsolete because of the fact that there are cheaper and better telescope projects out there that should be initiated. some of those programs are mentioned here on
it's a wonder that we haven't listened to the independant experts and just thrownit out to lagrange point to work as long as it can.
i really feel like NASA needs to let this one die so we can move forward.
Keep the faith, share the code
Sen Mikulski is the senator from Maryland, where the Hubble is HQ'd. IIRC, it was HQ'd in her old district when she was in the House.
I support the Hubble and think that we should fix it, but remember to follow the money as well. She has a lot of her voters that depend on Hubble for their paycheck.
I'd rather NASA spend the money on maintaining
contact with the Pioneer spavce probes. It has taken
30 years for them to get there, and now, when
they are at the edge of the solar system is where
the scientifically interesting data can be found.
Don't drop the ball!
Good argument!! Unfortunately for your argument, most scientists involved are in favor of repairing the Hubble, and it was a political decision by a non-scientist political appointee to NOT repair it.
Dumbshit.
(No, I don't think you're a dumbshit. It just fit the fecal theme of this post.)
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Space travel has always been dangerous, PERIOD. Astronauts have always known that everytime they strap themselves in, there's a reasonable chance that they won't be coming back. Apollo 1 made that point real clear, and the Challenger incident further punctuated the point. The only comfort the astronauts have is that we will do everything in our power to get them home if something goes wrong. (e.g. Apollo 13)
As I said, there's no shortage of volunteers who fully understand the risks they are taking. So fly the damn space shuttle for something USEFUL, and keep our bird in the air.
You can't take the sky from me...
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
The thing is, I don't see the people who want to let Hubble die earmarking the funds for a new and improved replacement. The smoke and mirrors of a manned mission to Mars looks good politically because it's so ambitious, but it's causing other important areas to be underfunded or not funded at all.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
"This is a pork barrel and jobs issue for her."
Can you please explain to me why a Senator representing her constituants who, like most of us, want jobs, is a BAD thing? Isn't that why they're elected, to represent their constituants?
"Every Shuttle flight is risky"
Sure, just like every airplane landing is risky, just like crossing the street is risky. Most of them are former test pilots, so you'll have a hard time convincing me that the astronauts aren't willing to accept those risks. The fact that it's risky doesn't mean it istn't worth it.
Not to mention that the safety record of shuttle flights far exceeds what was expected. I remember NASA saying when Challenger blew up that we were very overdue for just such an incident, and it was a fluke that one hadn't happened sooner. Not to say that more shuttles should blow up, but the safety record of shuttle flights is exemplary.
"but the purpose of space travel is to put people there, not to do science."
Why must there be only one purpose for space travel? And what exactly do you think these "people" we "put there" are going to do, sit around and play pinochle? No, the people that went to the moon did science once they got there. So will the people we eventually send to Mars. Scientific research is a very valid purpose for space flight.
They will never stop until somebody makes the
Wasn't there a Slashdot story a while back saying that we could send up a NEW space telescope for less? What's the sense in fixing Hubble if we can get a better, brand new, space telescope for less money.
It's great that they were able to extend its life and get it to do things that it wasn't really designed to do originally.
But there is a replacement being designed/built. Let's go with that.
No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
Where the Japanese and Chinese and Europeans have their acts together while we stop spending on Science.
Sigh.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Where are the astronauts going to put the parts and tools that they need, not to mention the manipulator arm? Hide them in Cartman's butt?
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Wouldn't it be great if on your annual tax returns you could fill out a form to indicate what percentage of your taxes go to which area of government (defense, education, environment, health care) ?
No. See: tyranny of the majority.