NASA idiots cancel service mission to Hubble

Menwith wrote:

IMO, Hubble maintenence was the only useful thing that the shuttle did.
Go to the moon...and do what?

Build a rail gun mass launcher and throw rocks at the Moslems. Think of
it as the Kafir Kinetic Kill weapon.

Bob Kolker

"Menwith" wrote in message
...
Don't you really have a higher priority
scientific application that can more productively employ this funding?

I am not sure what you meant, but
the MIR-2 (aka ISS) is a total waste,
the mission that the Columbia was on when it burned up
was a total waste.
IMO, Hubble maintenence was the only useful thing that the shuttle did.
Go to the moon...and do what?
Menwith

They could build a fabulous radio telescope array there in the quiet
opposite the earth. It could also serve as one arm of a very long baseline
interferometer. Of course, they won't do it. Bush's idea is to use the
moon as a launching point for a mission to Mars--true idiocy.

Mark Folsom

(Harry Conover) writes:

"Mark Folsom" wrote in message ...
Just read in the NYT that NASA will not fly the scheduled mission to service
the Hubble telescope. The one thing they've done with the Shuttle that was
worth doing, and now they've chickened out. What a bunch of turkeys!!

Mark, at what point in time would you decide that Hubble had completed
its mission and productive lifetime?

Take into account the extreme costs involved in supporting it beyond
that "productive lifetime". Don't you really have a higher priority
scientific application that can more productively employ this funding?

How about going with the SEU advisory committee recommendations
for OSS priorities, completing SM4 and then ramping HST down post 2007
with the option of an open competition for an SM5 vs all comers
in a future cycle.

You know, like NASA had concluded through its formal process
just a few months ago and verbally committed to.

Harry Conover wrote:

"Mark Folsom" wrote in message ...
Just read in the NYT that NASA will not fly the scheduled mission to service
the Hubble telescope. The one thing they've done with the Shuttle that was
worth doing, and now they've chickened out. What a bunch of turkeys!!

Mark Folsom

Mark, at what point in time would you decide that Hubble had completed
its mission and productive lifetime?

That decision has been made a long time ago - by NASA. The service
mission that has now been canceled was supposed to be the last one, to
prolong Hubble's life untill a replacement is in operation.
It is quite obvious that Bush' interest in space is not for scientific
exploration.

db

"db" wrote in message ...
Harry Conover wrote:

"Mark Folsom" wrote in message
...
Just read in the NYT that NASA will not fly the scheduled mission to
service
the Hubble telescope. The one thing they've done with the Shuttle
that was
worth doing, and now they've chickened out. What a bunch of turkeys!!

Mark Folsom

Mark, at what point in time would you decide that Hubble had completed
its mission and productive lifetime?

That decision has been made a long time ago - by NASA. The service
mission that has now been canceled was supposed to be the last one, to
prolong Hubble's life untill a replacement is in operation.
It is quite obvious that Bush' interest in space is not for scientific
exploration.

Bush's program has nothing to do with NASA's
decision. They are free to service the Hubble if
they could do so safely and without wasting money.

But you've misrepresented NASA's decision.
Hubble's original lifetime was planned at 15
years... which will be up in 2005. So deciding
not to make any further servicing missions is
entirely consistent with their goals.

Early on, however, they planned to extend
that to 2010. However, Hubble has already
consumed the number of service missions
that were planned for it initially. Yes, at one
time NASA was planning on doing one more...
but not any longer.

The point is, the fact that this doesn't match
their previous plan is irrelevant. The question
is when is it appropriate to end the mission.
If we send one more mission, you or someone
else will be back here in 2008 or 2010 asking
the same questions -- "Hey, why is NASA
dumping the Hubble? They should send one
last Shuttle mission up and fix it!"

Bruce

Mark Folsom wrote:

Just read in the NYT that NASA will not fly the scheduled mission to service
the Hubble telescope. The one thing they've done with the Shuttle that was
worth doing, and now they've chickened out. What a bunch of turkeys!!

They indicate they are going to use the small change necessary for
Hubble maintainance to work on a Moon colony. What will happen is that
Hubble will burn and crash and we don't have a Moon colony either. NASA
has become (or always was) a thoroughly corrupt organization. Younger,
creative people will not work for the bloated stinking corpse (who can
blame them?).

The only way the U.S. will go back to the Moon is if the Chicoms
threaten to open a Peking style restaurant on the Moon. If that is the
case, the U.S.will see to it that a MacDonalds are Burger King will be
there first.

Bob Kolker

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
news:4taPb.107782$na.69897@attbi_s04...


Mark Folsom wrote:

Just read in the NYT that NASA will not fly the scheduled mission to
service
the Hubble telescope. The one thing they've done with the Shuttle that
was
worth doing, and now they've chickened out. What a bunch of turkeys!!

They indicate they are going to use the small change necessary for
Hubble maintainance to work on a Moon colony. What will happen is that
Hubble will burn and crash and we don't have a Moon colony either. NASA
has become (or always was) a thoroughly corrupt organization. Younger,
creative people will not work for the bloated stinking corpse (who can
blame them?).

I have to agree that Bush's decision to go to the moon doesn't mean we'll go
to the moon. But the reason is that he's just blowing smoke for the next
election--he wants to put some money into pivotal election states, along
with Texas, which always deserves largesse.

Mark Folsom