![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Is anyone concerned that by refusing to accept an end to Hubble that we
are really teaching mission designers and evaluators to avoid astronaut serviceable projects in the future? It seems to me that we should rationally and dispassionately deorbit Hubble, and move on towards launch of the next optical space telescope; but because of political and emotional reasons, we'd prefer to spend more money servicing the old vehicle, instead of spending that money on the next vehicle. Thoughts? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
John Hopkins-Led Team Present 3rd Hubble Option | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | February 3rd 05 12:13 AM |
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 |
Don't Desert Hubble | Scott M. Kozel | Space Shuttle | 54 | March 5th 04 04:38 PM |
Don't Desert Hubble | Scott M. Kozel | Policy | 46 | February 17th 04 05:33 PM |