I don't get why you say that. Human survival in space is an engineering goal, scientifically that problem is solved, it's possible to survive in space. There is science that will help human survive in space, closed habitat ecology if possible will be a huge deal for humans in space and on earth.
But "best science payload" is a pretty loaded question.
I can't really compare space habitate to Astronomy. They are both useful goals. I just think they should finish what they stanrted. It was not scheduled to end at eternity, but neither will it reach it's scheduled end, it has been cut short.
That's all. It has been cut short and I don't like it. It's not worse than human space faring, in fact, it requires a human to go work on it in 2006, and that's great practice for engineering in space. Building $200 Million worth of new cameras for the Hubble was good engineering research, in support of science too, it would be nice to use that. That was the plan.
The plan is cut short... if it was just about making the next plan that's different, when you cut the plan short of course people call you to account for the waste and missed opportunity.
I grant that safety is the best part of the concern, but it's not as cut and dried as you say, they could have cost out a few plans to at least try to preserve the science.
In the end the safety issue is a judgement call, and so is the benefit of the doubt on the meaning of these reorganize NASA "plans". I don't trust them.
I want to know why people trust them. I'm open to trusting them. I want a moonbase too. I want man on mars. Sacraficing real science though?
flamebait? The President doesn't need your censor defense. This is a democracy, we are supposed to say shit like this to each other (you are free to think I'm wrong, even though you are), and what kind of panty waist tenderear place is slashdot becoming.
FUck fuck fuckity fuck, this is slashdot you wimps!
How long ago was that suit? How much was the final reduced settlement. What were the real details of what the woman wanted or could expect and their history.
Jesus Christ, generalizing from a couple cases that are ludicrous enough to get national coverage does not a trend make.
California also has this reputation and yet people fall and die in Yosemite Park every year on dangerous trails and hardly anyone sues, and less sue and win.
wrong, you can have a second shuttle ready to go to Hubble in case of emergency, in all probability it would not be needed and would be launched to the ISS to finish building it.
end of excuses.
>BTW, science is not the motivation for space travel. Nor are pretty pictures.
6 billion people, 6 billion possible motivations for something. Science is of course a motivation for space travel, as are other reasons.
why in the hell do you trust that Bush is going to make a moon base... because he's CLAIMING he will give NASA another billion a year, while shutting down live science operations.
No, Hubble had two brand new cameras going up in 2005 (now 2006 because of the shuttle disaster), and that's that.
I'll take the bird in the hand please. Do you know how far away we are from being able to build a moon telescope?! In contrast Hubble does unique science, is there, and we already have a plan.
Presidents are elected every four years, they are not supposed to just piss on anything they want and fuck with every 10 and 20 year plan around!
In the end it's just my opinion, but I've said why I have it.
I'm self important? It's my tax money, not my instruments. I have an opinion.
Self important... what you want self-worthless. I seem to note you have a strong opinion on this too and you seem to like yours... I'm less suprised by that than you are by mine.
The moon is about the stupidest place in the world to launch missiles from and I think we can go to the moon and finish existing missions. If you read what I've been saying you'd know that I want a moon base my own damn self but I think that's not going to happen with anything Bush has done. He's not enabled that but it's an excuse to start rearranging all of NASA anyway.
"If it's a choice between our ability to defend ourselves and a twit with his experiment, I think I'll go with self-defense first, thankyouverymuch."
Hey, yeah, me to. But it's not.
But thanks for calling it my science! I support science for good reason. In fact, staying ahead in science is itself a national defense issue. Glad to hear you don't think you have an important self though, because it places your uninformed opinion quite well.
plus they were supposed to put two new cameras on fix the gyros and replace batteries, how geeky is that? that's as geeky as --- um, putting in new battereis. It's a new digital camera. A lot has happend in high tech digital cameras since 93.
So we are talking absolutely new results and ground based telescopes are barely catching just SOME of the things Hubble can.
$200 Million down the tube in science instruments, not to mention all the money that went into planning to use these (justifying the science, etc. etc.)
the cancelling of SM4 is purely about saving money.
This is wrong as your own post argues, he's not saving money, he's stealing it, he's moving it around to things that don't get done in labs at Universities and Research Centers. He's moving it closer to people that can take the money to stockholders and then invest it in "democracy".
there are instruments, new cameras that is, ready to go to Hubble that were supposed to be installed in 2006, Bush just screwed not only the people that want to see their instruments used, but all the scientists that made science justifications and have therefore been planning to use those cameras for years and years.
They are throwing out years of scientific planning. Bush is screwing scientists and science, and you can support that or not but he is.
there are instruments built that were supposed to be installed on the Hubble in 2006... so that was new science, it's not just the mirror, it's the cameras, and they have new ones.
The actual expert in the "is this good science" argument is the astrophysicists... what do you think they'll say.
"Hey, guys, would you like us to throw away your instruments and flush 10 years of planning?"
But anyway ther was still a plan, and the fact is the article are also talking about redirecting NASA funds toward manned mars missions, from what? Science. Here is step one.
It's not supposed to last to 2013 without a visit and if it would I wouldn't complain because it's mission is to 2010. What's so hard to understand about a mission? That's not done.
You are wrong abot the better telescopes... the land based telescopes are barely reaching Hubble resolution with Adaptive optics at some wavelengths, and some stuff you just have to be in space for. It's not the end of science. But they are in fact attacking science, I believe.
send a space shuttle to the moon. Even if you could, it wouldn't be coming back.
that's what we can do with them!
btw, I would love to see us make a moon base... but I don't think they are goiing to do that... it's all an excuse to muck about with the current budget, and generally put their mark on NASA.
Hubble has a planned life. You support it. They knew how much a shuttle cost when they planned it... yes, right, see? I'm for phasing it out, that's not doing that. No, I'm happy when craft outlive their planned use 2x, not when they fall under. I think it's ludicrous. Instead, do the 2006 run and grant one after too, but using a new craft. Not a space plane which will take long to build, but more in line with a modernized staged rocket, the shuttle is a joke as a reusable craft anyway.
I know lots of people that still burn their hands on the stove or feel an electric shock when they stick a fork in the socket every now and then, but none of them have ever gotten paid.
As far as I know what you are talking about it an urban myth to make people feel like greedy little beggers.
I'm a space fan. I like manned space programs too. But they are going to wreck what NASA does do well, scientific research, for a program they will also not complete.
abolition of slavery did not trigger the civil war... the emancipation proclamation was done to reinvigorate the North to fight the war.
And yes... there are real issues of oppression involved with software.
And RMS cannot have done as much harm as good if we have GPLed software in the end.
What harm? Because of what people think of him (he's a total eccentric)? Who cares... who cares how people think? or feel? not me.
I care about the real world, and what's physically in it.
If Stallman started GNU because he likes flying purple dinosoars and wants them to return to Earth, it doesn't matter... we get GNU software and all the software it inspired, and the rest is just hot air. We're ahead. The hot air, adding up to nothing, is not even a part of the calculation of harm v. good.
no, when you go public you have to follow public accounting procedures and the CEO is BOUND to do what's best for the share holders... such as sell the company to a high bidder, etc.
The owners will still have deciding votes, but there will also now be public influence from the investor community, with some legal muscle to insist on certain things.
We will split that light into a spectra (the rainbow of the light bouncing off that planet), and the spectra will tell us if there is life on that planet.
It's stunning really, just 20 years ago we thought that might never be possible, now it's just a matter of doing it.
Slashdot Mirror
> The best science payload is a person.
I don't get why you say that. Human survival in space is an engineering goal, scientifically that problem is solved, it's possible to survive in space. There is science that will help human survive in space, closed habitat ecology if possible will be a huge deal for humans in space and on earth.
But "best science payload" is a pretty loaded question.
I can't really compare space habitate to Astronomy. They are both useful goals. I just think they should finish what they stanrted. It was not scheduled to end at eternity, but neither will it reach it's scheduled end, it has been cut short.
That's all. It has been cut short and I don't like it. It's not worse than human space faring, in fact, it requires a human to go work on it in 2006, and that's great practice for engineering in space. Building $200 Million worth of new cameras for the Hubble was good engineering research, in support of science too, it would be nice to use that. That was the plan.
The plan is cut short... if it was just about making the next plan that's different, when you cut the plan short of course people call you to account for the waste and missed opportunity.
I grant that safety is the best part of the concern, but it's not as cut and dried as you say, they could have cost out a few plans to at least try to preserve the science.
In the end the safety issue is a judgement call, and so is the benefit of the doubt on the meaning of these reorganize NASA "plans". I don't trust them.
I want to know why people trust them. I'm open to trusting them. I want a moonbase too. I want man on mars. Sacraficing real science though?
flamebait? The President doesn't need your censor defense. This is a democracy, we are supposed to say shit like this to each other (you are free to think I'm wrong, even though you are), and what kind of panty waist tenderear place is slashdot becoming.
FUck fuck fuckity fuck, this is slashdot you wimps!
How long ago was that suit? How much was the final reduced settlement. What were the real details of what the woman wanted or could expect and their history.
Jesus Christ, generalizing from a couple cases that are ludicrous enough to get national coverage does not a trend make.
California also has this reputation and yet people fall and die in Yosemite Park every year on dangerous trails and hardly anyone sues, and less sue and win.
Sorry for the rude title though.
wrong, you can have a second shuttle ready to go to Hubble in case of emergency, in all probability it would not be needed and would be launched to the ISS to finish building it.
end of excuses.
>BTW, science is not the motivation for space travel. Nor are pretty pictures.
6 billion people, 6 billion possible motivations for something. Science is of course a motivation for space travel, as are other reasons.
why in the hell do you trust that Bush is going to make a moon base... because he's CLAIMING he will give NASA another billion a year, while shutting down live science operations.
No, Hubble had two brand new cameras going up in 2005 (now 2006 because of the shuttle disaster), and that's that.
I'll take the bird in the hand please. Do you know how far away we are from being able to build a moon telescope?! In contrast Hubble does unique science, is there, and we already have a plan.
Presidents are elected every four years, they are not supposed to just piss on anything they want and fuck with every 10 and 20 year plan around!
In the end it's just my opinion, but I've said why I have it.
because Hubble had new cameras going, which have already been built.
Better pray for Kepler and the rest too... they don't like science. Better mount a laser pointed at earth on it if you want it to make it to space.
Maybe NASA won't be wrecked, if that's so it'll be because people more influential than I that are pissed off just like me, only more so.
I'm self important? It's my tax money, not my instruments. I have an opinion.
Self important... what you want self-worthless. I seem to note you have a strong opinion on this too and you seem to like yours... I'm less suprised by that than you are by mine.
The moon is about the stupidest place in the world to launch missiles from and I think we can go to the moon and finish existing missions. If you read what I've been saying you'd know that I want a moon base my own damn self but I think that's not going to happen with anything Bush has done. He's not enabled that but it's an excuse to start rearranging all of NASA anyway.
"If it's a choice between our ability to defend ourselves and a twit with his experiment, I think I'll go with self-defense first, thankyouverymuch."
Hey, yeah, me to. But it's not.
But thanks for calling it my science! I support science for good reason. In fact, staying ahead in science is itself a national defense issue. Glad to hear you don't think you have an important self though, because it places your uninformed opinion quite well.
surely you are not trying to tell me you think the tinfoil hat crowd is on the side of the SATELITES? are you?
I happen to know different. They hate satelites... that's why they wear the hats. They think the Hubble is pointed at them.
Then again I have no idea what you're refering too.
you write like stephen king... like I needed that clear of a visualization!
no actually I did.
plus they were supposed to put two new cameras on fix the gyros and replace batteries, how geeky is that? that's as geeky as --- um, putting in new battereis. It's a new digital camera. A lot has happend in high tech digital cameras since 93.
So we are talking absolutely new results and ground based telescopes are barely catching just SOME of the things Hubble can.
$200 Million down the tube in science instruments, not to mention all the money that went into planning to use these (justifying the science, etc. etc.)
the cancelling of SM4 is purely about saving money.
This is wrong as your own post argues, he's not saving money, he's stealing it, he's moving it around to things that don't get done in labs at Universities and Research Centers. He's moving it closer to people that can take the money to stockholders and then invest it in "democracy".
new cameras were supposed to be installed, and the scientists that made science justifications have been planning for years to use then.
See here.
Why do you trust the President?
there are instruments, new cameras that is, ready to go to Hubble that were supposed to be installed in 2006, Bush just screwed not only the people that want to see their instruments used, but all the scientists that made science justifications and have therefore been planning to use those cameras for years and years.
They are throwing out years of scientific planning. Bush is screwing scientists and science, and you can support that or not but he is.
there are instruments built that were supposed to be installed on the Hubble in 2006... so that was new science, it's not just the mirror, it's the cameras, and they have new ones.
The actual expert in the "is this good science" argument is the astrophysicists... what do you think they'll say.
"Hey, guys, would you like us to throw away your instruments and flush 10 years of planning?"
Bush is screwing science I tell you!
my title was a little harsh, but that's my position on the issue, I don't think that's the real problem here.
by taking out the craft early you are interrupting an experiment... not all experiments react well to such interruption.
Bush whar preznit back in n'vember too!
But anyway ther was still a plan, and the fact is the article are also talking about redirecting NASA funds toward manned mars missions, from what? Science. Here is step one.
It's not supposed to last to 2013 without a visit and if it would I wouldn't complain because it's mission is to 2010. What's so hard to understand about a mission? That's not done.
You are wrong abot the better telescopes... the land based telescopes are barely reaching Hubble resolution with Adaptive optics at some wavelengths, and some stuff you just have to be in space for. It's not the end of science. But they are in fact attacking science, I believe.
send a space shuttle to the moon. Even if you could, it wouldn't be coming back.
that's what we can do with them!
btw, I would love to see us make a moon base... but I don't think they are goiing to do that... it's all an excuse to muck about with the current budget, and generally put their mark on NASA.
Hubble has a planned life. You support it. They knew how much a shuttle cost when they planned it... yes, right, see? I'm for phasing it out, that's not doing that. No, I'm happy when craft outlive their planned use 2x, not when they fall under. I think it's ludicrous. Instead, do the 2006 run and grant one after too, but using a new craft. Not a space plane which will take long to build, but more in line with a modernized staged rocket, the shuttle is a joke as a reusable craft anyway.
synonym for joke == good experiment that's over.
I feel entitled to a free slashdot t-shirt for that.
I know lots of people that still burn their hands on the stove or feel an electric shock when they stick a fork in the socket every now and then, but none of them have ever gotten paid.
As far as I know what you are talking about it an urban myth to make people feel like greedy little beggers.
Making NASA stronger == Kill NASA.
Don't Leave Children Behind == Leave them behind.
Healthy Forests == Cut down the forests.
I'm a space fan. I like manned space programs too. But they are going to wreck what NASA does do well, scientific research, for a program they will also not complete.
abolition of slavery did not trigger the civil war... the emancipation proclamation was done to reinvigorate the North to fight the war.
And yes... there are real issues of oppression involved with software.
And RMS cannot have done as much harm as good if we have GPLed software in the end.
What harm? Because of what people think of him (he's a total eccentric)? Who cares... who cares how people think? or feel? not me.
I care about the real world, and what's physically in it.
If Stallman started GNU because he likes flying purple dinosoars and wants them to return to Earth, it doesn't matter... we get GNU software and all the software it inspired, and the rest is just hot air. We're ahead. The hot air, adding up to nothing, is not even a part of the calculation of harm v. good.
no, when you go public you have to follow public accounting procedures and the CEO is BOUND to do what's best for the share holders... such as sell the company to a high bidder, etc.
The owners will still have deciding votes, but there will also now be public influence from the investor community, with some legal muscle to insist on certain things.
We will split that light into a spectra (the rainbow of the light bouncing off that planet), and the spectra will tell us if there is life on that planet.
It's stunning really, just 20 years ago we thought that might never be possible, now it's just a matter of doing it.