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'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!
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
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.
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.
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.