![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Tom Kent wrote: I don't know of a lot of science missions that are cancelled. That says more about your limited knowledge than about the state of NASA science missions, I'm afraid. The canceled ones don't generally issue salvos of press releases and get major media coverage. Hubble made it... Only after quite a struggle, though -- Hubble was originally supposed to be a mid-1970s project, and it ended up launching at the end of the 1980s. Moreover, that was a "flagship" project -- NASA could and did sacrifice other missions to protect Hubble's funding. ...We have all sorts of satellites and telescopes orbiting the earth, most of which never had to seriously fight for funding... You clearly have never participated in trying to get such a mission funded. *All* of them have to seriously fight for funding. As a case in point, Hubble originally had an X-ray counterpart, AXAF. It was repeatedly delayed by funding shortages -- it was supposed to be a 1980s project. A design shakeup in 1992 split it into two spacecraft. One of them became Chandra, finally launched in 1999... but the other is dead and forgotten. ...Why is NASA in the telescope building buisness? Or the monitoring of greenhouse gases buisness for that matter? It seems that its becoming more and more that just because the platform is based in space, it is NASA's juristiction. This isn't something that's "becoming" -- it's always been this way. Now mind you, it probably shouldn't be, but it is. Telescopes are a bit of a different monster. They're still about space exploration, just from a distance. Uh, no, they're about astronomy, which only rarely has much to to with space exploration, despite some superficial similarity. My view is NASA should step away from its emphasis on science. NASA should be developing technology to move out into our universe. There's a lot to be said for that. Trouble is, when NASA proposes to spend money developing such technology, the response tends to be "and just which *science missions* require this technology?" -- "Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer -- George Herbert | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
MSNBC - How a 'safe haven' could help save Hubble | Jim Oberg | Misc | 81 | December 14th 04 03:10 AM |
No safe haven at Hubble.... | Blurrt | Space Shuttle | 20 | May 10th 04 06:37 PM |
NASA Is Not Giving Up On Hubble! (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 2 | May 2nd 04 01:46 PM |
Congressional Resolutions on Hubble Space Telescope | EFLASPO | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | April 1st 04 03:26 PM |
NASA Engineers Support Hubble | Dale | Amateur Astronomy | 10 | February 10th 04 03:55 AM |