The Hubble Space Telescope...

... belongs in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, not spread across the
earth as a debris field.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/994737.asp?0cv=TB10

begin quote

In the wake of the space shuttle Columbia disaster, NASA pulled the plug on
any plans it had to retrieve the Hubble Space Telescope at the end of its
life so it could be displayed in a museum.

end quote, begin rant

NASA (or better yet Congress) should pull the plug on some NASA managers,
instead of the Hubble Space Telescope. The Hubble Space Telescope has
contributed so much to our the knowledge of the Universe it would be
criminal not to put it in a museum for display along with all it's
achievements.

NASA management, definitely the "Wrong Stuff". Not a care in the world
about spreading Columbia all across East Texas, but worried about Hubble
debris. Not a creative or innovative thought about how to repair Columbia
on-orbit with the stuff they had on-board. No wonder they can't figure out
how to make a repair kit for the heat shield so they can service or bring
Hubble down safely.

end rant

Save the Hubble, from a disgraceful death,

Craig Fink

Craig Fink writes:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/994737.asp?0cv=TB10

begin quote

In the wake of the space shuttle Columbia disaster, NASA pulled the plug on
any plans it had to retrieve the Hubble Space Telescope at the end of its
life so it could be displayed in a museum.

end quote, begin rant

NASA (or better yet Congress) should pull the plug on some NASA managers,
instead of the Hubble Space Telescope. The Hubble Space Telescope has
contributed so much to our the knowledge of the Universe it would be
criminal not to put it in a museum for display along with all it's
achievements.


I disagree with your assessment. Sure, if it's cheap and safe, by all
means save important scientific stuff for a musuem. But if it will cost
a lot of money, or be risky, better to honor its heritage by spending
the money and/or risk on a new scientific instrument. Given the
choice, I'd much rather see new data from a new instrument than see the
Hubble hardware in a museum.

Lou Scheffer

In article k.net,
Craig Fink wrote:

end quote, begin rant

NASA (or better yet Congress) should pull the plug on some NASA managers,
instead of the Hubble Space Telescope. The Hubble Space Telescope has
contributed so much to our the knowledge of the Universe it would be
criminal not to put it in a museum for display along with all it's
achievements.

This part is, although strongly worded, possibly a decent argument. I
point out the notable absence of museum-bound space scientific hardware,
otherwise, though...

NASA management, definitely the "Wrong Stuff". Not a care in the world
about spreading Columbia all across East Texas, but worried about Hubble
debris.

*blink*

Craig, you really are being even more of a duplicitous little idiot than
you've managed with a hobbyhorse before. Are you actually suggesting, or
just somewhat unsubtly implying, that NASA managers *chose* to break
Columbia up over East Texas? That they had some way of stopping and
routing her over Central America instead, when it looked like there was
a prospect of bits falling off? I mean, *really*.

No, don't give me some **** about "well, if they'd seen to the
problem...", because that's not what you're saying; you're saying they
knew Columbia was going to break up, and were unconcerned about this.
The second cannot possibly follow if the first is a fiction, and you
know damn well it is.

Not a creative or innovative thought about how to repair Columbia
on-orbit with the stuff they had on-board. No wonder they can't figure out
how to make a repair kit for the heat shield so they can service or bring
Hubble down safely.

Uh... there's one in development. Not designed by NASA management,
because it's generally considered traditional that when you pay
engineers you get some of them to do the engineering.

One of the major reasons that a Hubble return flight is considered "off
the cards" is because they feel there are safety implications they don't
want to push. So, because they respond to a tragedy you flame them for
by adding safety restrictions to try and prevent it, you flame them for
not flying PR missions.

/rant

I may be missing something here. The fact that you appear to have turned
into a literate Bob Haller, for example, is reasonably confusing.

Save the Hubble, from a disgraceful death,

Save an attempt to run a space program, from people like you.

--
-Andrew Gray

Craig Fink wrote:

NASA management, definitely the "Wrong Stuff". Not a care in the world
about spreading Columbia all across East Texas, but worried about Hubble
debris. Not a creative or innovative thought about how to repair Columbia
on-orbit with the stuff they had on-board. No wonder they can't figure out
how to make a repair kit for the heat shield so they can service or bring
Hubble down safely.

Is such ignorance the product of native talent, extensive practice, or
a combination of the two?

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

Craig Fink wrote:

.. belongs in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, not spread across the
earth as a debris field.

Please. Get over it. I saw it launched and am very cognizant of the tremendous
achievments it has racked up. It has fulfilled its mission admirably, no matter
what eventually happens to it. You talk as if not recovering it would diminish
its accomplishments. One man's disgrace is another's way of going out in a
blaze of glory.

Was the fate of Mir or Skylab a "disgrace"? I don't think so.

If the money that would be saved could in any way speed up the eventual
deployment of the Webb ST then I say, "Hubble ST, thanks for everything.
Sayonara." In fact, I'll say that even if the money saved isn't directly poured
into the WST.

The legacy of Hubble is secure regardless of whether it's corpse is on display
or not for public gawking.

--
bp
Proud Member of the Human O-Ring Society Since 2003

Craig Fink wrote:

.. belongs in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, not spread across the
earth as a debris field.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/994737.asp?0cv=TB10

begin quote

In the wake of the space shuttle Columbia disaster, NASA pulled the plug on
any plans it had to retrieve the Hubble Space Telescope at the end of its
life so it could be displayed in a museum.

end quote, begin rant

NASA (or better yet Congress) should pull the plug on some NASA managers,
instead of the Hubble Space Telescope. The Hubble Space Telescope has
contributed so much to our the knowledge of the Universe it would be
criminal not to put it in a museum for display along with all it's
achievements.

NASA management, definitely the "Wrong Stuff". Not a care in the world
about spreading Columbia all across East Texas, but worried about Hubble
debris. Not a creative or innovative thought about how to repair Columbia
on-orbit with the stuff they had on-board. No wonder they can't figure out
how to make a repair kit for the heat shield so they can service or bring
Hubble down safely.

end rant

Save the Hubble, from a disgraceful death,

Is there a shuttle flight that would have utility and justification
independent of a HST return, that would take place at the correct time
and mission profile, when the HST has reached the end of its life?

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

I'd have thought that it might actually be useful to get it back and examine
what and how it has aged in orbit. Not having much luck are they? They lost
skylab, Mir was brought down, now although its possible, nobody wants to
risk it for Hubble... Well, I expect they will pay for a dummy model to be
made...

:-)

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________


"Craig Fink" wrote in message
hlink.net...
| .. belongs in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, not spread across the
| earth as a debris field.
|
| http://www.msnbc.com/news/994737.asp?0cv=TB10
|
| begin quote
|
| In the wake of the space shuttle Columbia disaster, NASA pulled the plug
on
| any plans it had to retrieve the Hubble Space Telescope at the end of its
| life so it could be displayed in a museum.
|
| end quote, begin rant
|
| NASA (or better yet Congress) should pull the plug on some NASA managers,
| instead of the Hubble Space Telescope. The Hubble Space Telescope has
| contributed so much to our the knowledge of the Universe it would be
| criminal not to put it in a museum for display along with all it's
| achievements.
|
| NASA management, definitely the "Wrong Stuff". Not a care in the world
| about spreading Columbia all across East Texas, but worried about Hubble
| debris. Not a creative or innovative thought about how to repair Columbia
| on-orbit with the stuff they had on-board. No wonder they can't figure out
| how to make a repair kit for the heat shield so they can service or bring
| Hubble down safely.
|
| end rant
|
| Save the Hubble, from a disgraceful death,
|
| Craig Fink


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free, so there!
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.543 / Virus Database: 337 - Release Date: 21/11/03

Craig Fink wrote in
hlink.net:


NASA (or better yet Congress) should pull the plug on some NASA
managers, instead of the Hubble Space Telescope. The Hubble Space
Telescope has contributed so much to our the knowledge of the Universe
it would be criminal not to put it in a museum for display along with
all it's achievements.



In many ways the Hubble is a failure they never even cut the
mirror correctly. Do we really want a monument to that simple
error. I still think we should try to build one the right way
but since management has gone so far down hill its likely our
next attempt would be far worse. Hubble could have done much
more if it was ground correctly. The extra lenses added to it
failed to make it as good as it should have been.




David A. Scott
--
My Crypto code
http://cryptography.org/cgi-bin/cryp...c/scott19u.zip
http://cryptography.org/cgi-bin/cryp...c/scott16u.zip
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip old version
My Compression code http://bijective.dogma.net/
**TO EMAIL ME drop the roman "five" **
Disclaimer:I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be drugged.
As a famous person once said "any cryptograhic
system is only as strong as its weakest link"

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in
:

Is there a shuttle flight that would have utility and justification
independent of a HST return, that would take place at the correct time
and mission profile, when the HST has reached the end of its life?

Not on the current manifest, I'm afraid. All planned shuttle flights are
either to ISS or HST. They're in different inclinations so you can't visit
both on the same mission. Plus, the Orbiter Docking System takes up too
much room in the payload bay for HST to fit.

A hypothetical mission would have to be launched in HST's orbital plane
(28.5 degrees inclination) and leave the payload bay empty for HST return.
The latter rules out a Spacehab-type science mission, leaving only a
satellite deploy mission possible. And the space shuttle is legally
prohibited from performing satellite deploys that could be done by an ELV.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Unfortunately, NASA does not seem to be taking a particularly rational
approach to saving Hubble. Goddard wants to spend $300 million on
developing a robotic servicing mission. Too bad for this option that
by the time the system is developed, all the Hubble gyros will likely
be out of action, making a robotic mission difficult if not
impossible. Johnson Space Center wants to use 2 Shuttles for a
servicing mission, one for the prime mission, one as a backup in case
the first Shuttle has problems inflight and the crew needs to be
rescued. Since there is no way that NASA would launch a Shuttle in a
few days in the wake of a possibly unknown crippling accident aboard a
prior Shuttle, this 2 Shuttle option won't pass the first serious
look.

So, things look grim not just for Hubble but to avoid a 2nd Skylab
type failure.


"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in message ...
Craig Fink wrote:

.. belongs in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, not spread across the
earth as a debris field.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/994737.asp?0cv=TB10

begin quote

In the wake of the space shuttle Columbia disaster, NASA pulled the plug on
any plans it had to retrieve the Hubble Space Telescope at the end of its
life so it could be displayed in a museum.

end quote, begin rant

NASA (or better yet Congress) should pull the plug on some NASA managers,
instead of the Hubble Space Telescope. The Hubble Space Telescope has
contributed so much to our the knowledge of the Universe it would be
criminal not to put it in a museum for display along with all it's
achievements.

NASA management, definitely the "Wrong Stuff". Not a care in the world
about spreading Columbia all across East Texas, but worried about Hubble
debris. Not a creative or innovative thought about how to repair Columbia
on-orbit with the stuff they had on-board. No wonder they can't figure out
how to make a repair kit for the heat shield so they can service or bring
Hubble down safely.

end rant

Save the Hubble, from a disgraceful death,

Is there a shuttle flight that would have utility and justification
independent of a HST return, that would take place at the correct time
and mission profile, when the HST has reached the end of its life?