Slashdot Mirror
Hubble Future Is Cloudier After Katrina
XorNand writes "The AP is reporting that Katrina has further jeopardized the already tenuous future of the Hubble space telescope. The hurricane damaged the Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans, where the shuttle's fuel tanks are built, and the Mississippi-based Stennis Space Center, where shuttle engines are tested, NASA officials said."
Who really needs to see in space when we have to fund a meaningless war
"To be honest, we really don't know what the impact will be," said Preston M. Burch, Hubble program manager at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, which oversees Hubble's day-to-day operations.
In other news:
Effects of Katrina on children with learning disabilities in Australia still unknown!
I dont think it is right to use the Katrina disaster to put a halt on Hubble. The business community should make an effort to help this project
I'm down on NASA a lot. I think they are an unfocused government agency that is spread too thin and doing things out of the realm of their league. In that criticism, I am very unsatisfied with the shuttle program. I think that sending people into space is a complete waste of time and money for NASA. They have ceased to learn anything except that they are more and more afraid of flying every time they go up. Space travel should be a private enterprise, possibly assisted by government funds, but essentially researched and implemented by private companies.
But NASA should be around doing research. They should be at the forefront of space science. Part of this is the establishment of space telescopes. And so Hubble falls right in line with this mission. The more information NASA can gather about the universe, the more all of us benefit. The more they spend on pure research, the faster everyone (including private enterprise) can benefit and that pushes space travel forward.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
It's sad that this may have to happen. Some of the most beautiful pictures ever taken were taken by Hubble. But, higher priorities have come up and Hubble must take a back seat to human life.
That the current administration is flat out against any technology that cannot be used for warfare or expansion of their personal corporate empires they will use any excuse to avoid repairing or upgrading the Hubble at all. Faith based government is directly inverse to scientific process unless some politically well connected buisiness needs the money.
NASA has long been considered a waste of money by the conservatives, HST is just another scientific boondoggle as far as these guys are concerned.
Count on them finding some fancy excuse to de-orbit HST within the next 6 months.
Stupid Humans.....
let's get private enterprise into the space race. Granted, Virgin Galactic are already there, but here's a revolutionary plan: scrap NASA and the federal space agnecy. Fulfill the obligations to the ISS and other programs, and then direct NASA's budget to federal subsidies for private enterprise. There must be thousands of businesses that want room on zero-gravity flights or orbital labs, and thousands of tourists who'd be willing to pay for an orbit round the earth. A subsidy to get things kick-started may be just what's needed.
$10/month: 120GB bw, SSH, CVS, Rails and 10 years' experience!
It's a shame that we put all of our eggs in one basket with the shuttle. Yes, it was a grand design in the 70's, but keeping something like this going, without designing something more economical as a replacement is a shame. Hubble, once fixed of it's poor eyesight, has unlocked a lot of the uknown universe to our eyes and imagination. It's just a shame that it will die without being upgraded. Maybe they can put it in "safe mode" before it dies out and perhaps a private company in the future can do the updates necessary to keep it alive until a hubble replacement is up and running. Personally, I'd like to see a 1,2 punch as far as space travel is done. Use a heavy lift vehicle like a "shuttle" system (SRB's and ET). Yes it is dangerous (going into space it very dangerous). Then, use a "spaceship one" type setup to get the people needed to do the work into space. We missed the boat I think by scrapping the Saturn V rocket. Big on power and reliable. Yes it was costly since "nothing came back", but at least it was realitively cheap to operate. Because of the complex nature of the shuttle, the cost per flight hours is just too expensive. NASA in my opinion is just like any government program. Good intensions, but too many "chiefs" which bog it down with paperwork and the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. Get NASA out of the government, and put it into private industry, where they have to worry about the money they spend and you'll see a marked change in the way they work. But, I doubt that will happen. Once a government program starts, it's very difficult to ever end it. I grew up in the NASA heyday era of the 50's & 60's and was a HUGE fan of NASA, but, today, I wish it would just go away, for the most part. NASA had a "purpose" in the moon race....beat the USSR. After that was done, they didn't really have a purpose, plus, they lost favor with the congress, who controls the purse strings. We cannot afford to blindly spend money on a space program, that the bulk of the population sees no outcome that would benefit the population at large. Yes, a lot of technological benefits were derived from the space program, but, in this "instant" soceity we live in, and in the 5 minute attention span of our world, we don't have, or won't wait for good things to come out of spending so much money.
Hubble is about discovering how the universe is created and changing the way we view science and astronomy. Its pretty cost effect for what it has delivered and its one of the things that has had people looking at Space and going "WOW".
Unfortunately this clearly doesn't sit well with the US leadership as it doesn't give them people to shake hands with. Its so much better to build a $231m bridge in Alaska named after a senator than fund something that is considered a success by the global scientific community.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
I'm a conservative (NOT republican..there is a diff) I was and still am a BIG hubble fan, and it's a shame they have wasted an opportunity with hubble by sidelining it for the WASTE that is called the ISS. If we don't figure out where we came from, how are we to know where we are going? Personally, I think the ISS is just an excuse to keep the shuttle flying. I personally hope they "safe" the hubble, and hopefully some private industry can take over the repairs. It's apparent that NASA doesn't want to save it.
Given most packagable work units get privatised out in any kind of givermental work thesedays, one would assume that more than one tendered and geographicaly resiliance isn't always just about computers and having a DR site.
:D.
Given they have only just announced this and given the `omg, its comming right for us" was well known a few days in advance and the perchant of forcasts to go OTT on major weather effects on forcasts they must have known that statisticaly it was at least something to start thinking about then and not going doh afterwards.
Still after all there only human, and we make mistakes. Just some mistakes are meassured in inch's and others in cm's
--
Shit happens, you just have to shovel it if you want to smell the roses.
--
I really wonder... NASA isn't the only space agency capable of getting people up there, and if it really is about the best interest in science whats so difficult in asking other agencies to help out here?
It saddens me that NASA is stooping so low that they're now even jeapordizing a great piece of equipment for reasons I can only explain / comprehend as greed.
After reading about how the federal government cut the Army Corps of Engineers' budget regarding the New Orleans levies, it explains much on why NASA is less and less effective. Granted, NASA's budget cuts and politicians' interest has been falling for years but it seems in recent years there is much less funding as it supports no neocon cause. Funding for NASA won't help the causes of ID, abstinance, curbing abortion rights or giving tax breaks for the rich. Since it serves no useful purpose to any necon issues, it is slowly gutted.
"Saying that Linux is inferior to Windows because more people use Windows is like saying that all restaurants are inferi
Wow. I wish we could mod posts "jingoistic".
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Hey, while we are proliferating freedom around the world could we bring some back to the US. In the wake of the patriot act and Bush's homeland security we are becoming more faciest every day.
Iraq called. They would like some too while you are giving it around. Seems they are under the US dictatorship for some time now.
It seems you're the only one whos brought him up so far.
Since this is basically already how NASA works, giving money to private companies to supply goods and services, then giving a larger proportion of that cash direct to private enterprise is going to result in still bigger abuse.
The reason there is not a private spaceflight industry is because it does not make business sense. If it did,it would already have happened. As it is, the gains are purely speculative, the insurance risks enormous, and the cashflow projections laughable.
On the other hand the costs of Hubble are negligible compared to many wasteful government programs, and this is one case where a referendum might be a good idea. Ask taxpayers the simple question - do you think that a dollar a year of your taxes (or whatever minute amount it is) should go to improving our understanding of the universe by maintaining the Hubble space telescope.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
Because they have money?
Unfortunately the 'business community' in general aren't going to want to help Hubble because it is largely irrelevant to their greater cause of maximising shareholder value.
Companies that would reap a benefit from helping are those already with interests in space systems (It could boost their value). However, most of these companies are simply interested in 'fire-and-forget' sattelite launches and do not have (or have the means to aquire) the complex systems needed to perform on-orbit servicing.
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
How could it's future be cloudy? I thought Hubble was a space telescope. You know? Above the clouds?
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I understand that there's some ballistic efficiency from launching nearer the Equator, like from Florida, which brings increased risk from storms. But I also know that the Johnson Space Center in Houston was built during the Texas president's administration, as he fed billions in pork barrel spending to his home state, rather than any special geographic advantage to actually operating Mission Control.
And that building Shuttle tanks and testing Shuttle engines along the Gulf Coast positions them for easy delivery to Florida for launching. But those facilities could be anywhere, really - even farther up the Mississippi, or the Hudson for that matter, if ship delivery is really the way to go. The risks of damage from the guaranteed arrival of F3-5 cyclones in the region really look like they highly outweigh the benefits of the locations. So I'm sure they're more Johnsonesque pork barrel spending decisions in Congress.
Even the Florida launchsite might not be so advantageous. Maybe it saves fuel with every launch. But how much extra does it cost over the years to scrub flights more often, due to storms and other tropical atmospheric inclemencies?
Our space program has increasingly shown it's fragile in the face of Earthbound conditions. NASA has done an unparalleled job in designing around those threats, achieving our highest engineering (and even patriotic) feats in the space program. Congress should show at least a glimmer of that cluefulness. They should redesign the space infrastructure to be more sensible. I know it's hard to argue with the Texas Congressional delegation, Florida's, Mississippi's Trent Lott, Alabama's Richard Shelby. But those sites seem to be a wash, in the cost:benefit*risk analysis. Turning their pork into a robust space industry isn't rocket science.
--
make install -not war
You need to pay more attention, i saw no less then 10 anti-bush posts before i made mine.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Simply put, it provides a means for the gov't to avoid a brain-drain of aerospace engineers into the private sector or foreign interests, in the event that the nation (military) should ever require them en masse. Much of the nation's military and scientific budget is spent on keeping key scientists and engineers employed in order to maintain a quickly accessible stable of high level technical expertise. So, you wind up with an obsolete, lingering shuttle program, with little to remind us of the glory days of the great space race. But then, can we afford to lose that potential scientific edge? I don't know. I like the sound of privatization in space, but maybe the big picture is not space per se, its national defense readiness and preparedness?
there is no moderation for
+ 5 truth
Is there any Hubble replacement planned? I would welcome the death of Hubble if it meant a shiny new telescope built on the moon...
See pictures of tits
The hubble issue really saddens me. I really enjoy going to the daily space picture page that nasa has, and a lot of the pictures there come from the hubble hertidge. Hubble has made so many great breakthoughs that if it cant be repaired, then replace it with something that is easier to maintain and is better.
Space picture of the day:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/archivepix.html
Yeah, war is usually a very bad thing.
Yeah, the military-industrial complex profits, in essence, from death.
Yeah, the US propaganda machine is working pretty well (but beginning to falter a bit).
But the line about having no enemies? That's just wrong. We do have enemies, very real and very capable ones that will exploit any chink in our armor.
We may have brought ourselves to this point through an imperialistic world attitude, but whatever the case, it is unrealistic to assume that we do not need a strong armed force at this juncture.
Iraq, I agree (as in IMHO), was a bad idea, but I really don't know all the inside reasons for it, do you? (although Michael Moore seems to think he does...)
And in the US' defense, we generally use our overwhelming military might pretty damned carefully and with a pretty good deal of reservation compared to the historical military powers that have existed. We seem, for the most part, to want to do the right global thing as a world power, but we are certainly not perfect and the world is a very, very complex place these days.
and probably better too. And if its not cheaper, it won't be
a lot more than fixing whats up there - and who knows when the
next thing goes wrong with the aging Rubble.
According to Discover Magazine, Europe and Canada are making the James Webb Space Telescope which will be launched in 2011. So if the Hubble is gone there's still hope. Whether or not the Hubble dies this new one will still be launched.
Fallout 3 will suck.
Welcome to Slashdot.
Feed for Fools. Stupidity that manipulates.
But I don't mind, for each lame-ass mentally challenged post that is posted about how everything is in some way the fault of Bush (or Gates, or Stallman - notice a pattern already?) the intelligence of those posters go down as they confirm their own myths to each other. It's an orgy of ego-masturbating mindfucking. As this continues it becomes less and less probable that they will ever have any real influence, relegating themselves to total obscurity in a little enclave where everybody wears tinfoil hats.
But not everyone on Slashdot is like this (just a surprising amount) there are plenty of pearls to be found hidden among all the shit, it just takes time to identify it.
But let's look at the facts. This article clearly shows that NASA's budget has decreased under Clinton, while under Bush, their budget has INCREASED.
So how much more would you think NASA's budget would have been without the wars? Bush has fully funded NASA for everything they ask for.
So I've completely destroyed your ill-informed and wrongheaded post out of the water with real facts. Too bad there isn't a mod option of WRONG! But I know this is slashdot where facts are irrelevant.
Stop the illegal war!
Which law, pray tell, was broken? The Senate approved the war overwhelmingly. UN stamps aren't necessary to go to war, I fail to see the legal question. If you've got some proof regarding the illegality of the war, post it.
The US PROPAGANDA MACHINE has done an excellent job at controlling public anger against the unjust Iraq war, in TOTAL contrast to the VIETNAM WAR.
Oh yeah, you're absolutely right. Look at the President's approval ratings. They're just sky high because the media is doing such a good job portraying the Iraq war in a positive light. In fact, they've done that since the beginning!
Oh, wait...
A HATE CAMPAIGN needs to start against those who are willing to fight in an UNJUST WAR. However, this needs to be done in a NON-VIOLENT way.
Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but "hate campaigns" are rarely non-violent affairs.
Other nations (such as CHINA and RUSSIA) should CONDEMN this illegal war, and help out with propaganda AGAINST the US.
Yes, especially since the Chinese and Russians were so eager to approve US aggression in the UN Security Council... oh, wait, they didn't. Also, to be quite frank, the Chinese and the Russian media outlets aren't exactly known for their credibility, especially since they are STATE OWNED and much more likely to be actual, real propaganda machines - unlike the independent US media (which, granted, often presents its view with bias to the right or left).
PROTEST against Millitary recruitment, and the armed forces.
Whatever floats your boat - it's a free country, so go out there and do it. But keep in mind, recruiters have free speech rights as well. Maybe you wouldn't recognize that in your "HATE CAMPAIGN", though.
DONT LISTEN to their propaganda about needing a STRONG ARMED FORCE. Force isn't needed when you HAVE NO ENIMIES
The US cannot afford to return to this very Pre-World War II mindset. The US has enemies. They are very real. You can argue all you want that the war in Iraq isn't fighting those enemies - and perhaps you'd be right - but to say that the US has none? That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard in my entire life. They exist, they've hit us, and they will continue to hit us until they are neutralized through one means or another. You may disagree with the Bush or other administration's method of fighting them - and you certainly wouldn't be alone in that - but they exist whether you like it or not. A wise man would not simply bury his head in the sand.
Now, why don't you wander on back to the conspiracy theorist boards and hang out with your friends there?
from Omicron Persei 8, your outerspace mirror INFURIATES AND ANGERS us...but know this Humaans!!
as you use this to spy on us, we too have used it to watch on you, Ahhah ahha..mehh..You ARE A PUNY PUNY RACE!!!
Sig Under Construction
Riiiiiiight. Look, there are some very unrealistic ideas about what private enterprise will and will not do. While private individuals are motivated by more than money (thrill of exploration, I did it first, I'm doing it better than my rival over there, etc.), the reality is most private individuals who HAVE the money to burn on something this expensive probably have focused on ACQUIRING money for a large portion of their lives. To expect a large subset of money-minded entrepreneurs to suddenly give up their business-like ways and focus on something with little or no fiscal return (like the Hubble) is unrealistic.
In addition, if there is so much potential to private space exploration, why hasn't it been done before? Rocket technology really hasn't changed much since the 60's, and sufficent cheap computing power to figure trajectories has been around since the 80's. The answer? It's hard and expensive, with a very high failure cost, and a small to nonexistent return potential. This is not the kind of thing that draws in money.
I dearly wish that we would focus on basic science (i.e. does not need to be driven by a possible marketable product in 5 years) in the U.S.A. again - the era of Big Science was inaugurated with the Manhattan Project (when those funny talking European immigrants with thier scribbles on a blackboard built the most powerful bomb in the world), has been strong for many years as the link between U.S. world supremacy and science leadership was not questioned, but perhaps is beginning to close. The tone set by the present leadership (sneering at "reality-based" media, desiring "equal-time" for creation research, bragging about how a "C" student can become the president, etc.) does not bode well for the long term future of scientifc research here.
I guess when you know how the Universe was created according to the Bible, you don't need a Hubble to figure it out.
Sigh.
Let's get real here. They had already been put in an indefinate hold over the foam issue before Katrina. And, a 6 month delay for that was just as fatal for any shuttle flight to Hubble. They won't even be able to finish ISS in the remaining timeframe. Now, NASA can point at something outside its control and say "This is why Hubble was scrapped".
The odds of a Hubble mission before Katrina: 0.01%
The odds of a Hubble mission after Katrina: 0.005%
Yeah.. you're right.. it is half as likely now..
What do you think -1 Redundant is for? Oh, and a little information for the child poster who thought the jingoistic posting deserved to be modded up because "it's the truth": the signature says "Booth was a patriot." That would be the pro-slavery terrorist-traitor John Wilkes Booth he's praising there. So I don't think he's really all that concerned about proliferating freedom.
Of course, what any of this has to do with Hubble is beyond me. HST: just ANOTHER victim of one of the worst disasters to hit the US.
Gerry Pournelle wants a billion dollars and three years to put this all back on track. Personally, I think he'd do better than the bureaucrats. http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view372.html#NA SA
In times of trouble, the smell of frying onions usually gives confidence and comfort.
> except sales tax
Uh, no. Quebec has levied its own income tax since 1954.
That gives it about as much money per capita as any other part of Canada, which is to say, enough to fund surprisingly decent schools.
Wouldn't it have made more sense, instead of getting rid of the Hubble, to instead focus the thing on Iraq to search for those WMD?! I mean, with the power to see distant galaxies like that, we probably ought to have been able to pick out the mole on Saddam Hussein's left testicle! Finding WMDs would have been no problem whatsoever!
The delay in manufacturing will be maybe a month or two from now. The delay to shuttle launches is already 6-8 months. Net change in delay: zero.
The answer NASA officials would like to give:
"We know the delays are just a fantasy, but if we wait long enough the Hubble will crash and burn. At which point, we cry a lot on TV, but there won't be a damn thing scientists can do. We get all our real money from Defense contracts anyway."
Effects of Katrina on Children with Learning Disabilities in Australia:
These will be measured, once the Australian parliament sobers up from the last round of Castlemaine XXXX and Foster's.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Why is it that we house so many mission-critical facilities in hurricane zones? Maybe these types of operations should be backed a couple hundred miles further into the main-land US so that this kind of stuff doesn't happen on a yearly basis.
Reality called. It said to take the tinfoil off and go research some facts.
Keeping the Hubble repair mission alive so many months past it original launch date has had another unfortunate side effect. The cost of the marching army for Hubble is killing off many smaller projects.
NASA's new Full Cost Accounting has the laudable goal of making it possible for NASA to account accurately for the cost of its missions, but it also means that when things go wrong, some program has to pay. Keeping a large program alive, kills many small ones.
I think the problem in a lack of sophistication in NASA's risk management process. Breaking the bank over one problem, like loss of foam on the tank, does not assure overall reduced risk. I think the answer lies in the application of Chaos Theory to systems eengineering. I would be happy to discuss this idea if anyone is interested.