Hubble Marching orders

Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) ) wrote:

: wrote in message
: oups.com...
: So how many Hubbles, how many missions (perhaps even manned) to Mars
: could be paid for with the billions we've spent on our "mission" in the
: Middle East?
:

: None.

: It's ultimately a matter of political will. If enough folks really wanted a
: manned mission to Mars, the money would have been found.


But is money enough? I would agree that we could do a sample return
mission that was unmanned with today's technology, but could be do an
manned mission, given the money, with today's technology? According to a
Science Channel program on nanotechnology, use in medicine is not there
yet for a three year manned journey to Mars. Keeping the astronauts
healthy during the three year journey there and back would require
breakthroughs in nanotechnology in medicine that doesn't exist yet.

Eric

Christopher M. Jones ) wrote:
: wrote:
: So how many Hubbles, how many missions (perhaps even manned) to Mars
: could be paid for with the billions we've spent on our "mission" in the
: Middle East?

: How many could be funded with the billions the US spends on
: lipstick every year? A fair number either way. What's your
: point?

That space exploration dollars spent are better than war dollars spent?

Christopher M. Jones ) wrote:
: Fafnir wrote:
: No, I blame the cancellation of Hubble on Bush.
:
: He is, after all, president.

: Fair enough. Though, strictly speaking, he's not entirely
: responsible for Hubble being 15 years old.

Perhaps it is pure partisan politics?

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On 23 Jan 2005 21:22:52 -0000, in a place far, far away, Thialfi
: made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
: way as to indicate that:

: It's ultimately a matter of political will. If enough folks
: really wanted a
: manned mission to Mars, the money would have been found.
:
:
: It's a matter of leadership.
:
: Kennedy had it, Bush doesn't.

: Then how is that he got the budget for his new exploration program
: through Congress?

Tom DeLay doing his part for Houston, JSC and Texas.

It is quite obvious that the new NASA money is being used in a partisan
manner. Hubble is run out of GSFC in Maryland, which is Democratic
Senators, Paul Sarbanes' and Barbara Mikulski's domain. Cutting HST in
lieu of NASA budget increases only means one thing, the money is earmarked
for manned missions. Brother Jeb in Florida, KSC, and fellow Texan Tom
DeLay's JSC both benefit and Bush could care less about Democrats in
Maryland and their NASA center. In short, Bush is allowing exactly what
Eisenhower didn't want with NASA, to became a partisan agency favored in a
manner by those that currently are in power, even down to the center
level.

A true statesman would get the manned program back on track and save
Hubble. Bush is playing partisan politics within NASA and it is obvious.
He favors DeLay(JSC) over Mikulski(GSFC), and that too is obvious.

Eric

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:32:59 GMT, in a place far, far away,
: h (Rand Simberg) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: Geez, the loons are out in force today. Is there a full moon?

: Hey, I just went outside and looked tonight. The moon *is* full...

Did you start to grow hair, fangs and paws when you looked?

Jorge R. Frank ) wrote:
: Thialfi wrote in
: :

: In article
: h (Rand Simberg) wrote:
:
: On 23 Jan 2005 21:22:52 -0000, in a place far, far away,
: Thialfi
: made the phosphor on my monitor glow
: in such a
: way as to indicate that:
:
: It's ultimately a matter of political will. If enough folks
: really wanted a
: manned mission to Mars, the money would have been found.
:
:
: It's a matter of leadership.
:
: Kennedy had it, Bush doesn't.
:
: Then how is that he got the budget for his new exploration
: program
: through Congress?
:
: He didn't.

: You are incorrect. Bush's original FY05 budget proposal for NASA was
: $16.244 billion. The House cut Bush's request to $15.149 billion; the
: Senate to $15.579 billion. After a veto threat by the president and a
: threat by the House Majority Leader to kill the appropriations bill, a
: House-Senate conference agreed upon a figure of $16.200 billion, plus an
: unprecedented provision to allow NASA to reallocate funds within that
: figure as it sees fit.

The opeartive phrase, "...as it sees fit". With the cut to HST (GSFC), how
much do you want to bet it ALL goes to Tom DeLay (JSC) and brother Jeb
(KSC)? Wanna bet?

: Do try to keep up...

: You are the one who needs to keep up. Your position is false and your
: ignorance needs to be corrected.

Perhaps you need a lesson in "further analysis"?

Eric

: --
: JRF

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

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 04:17:33 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
: Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor
: on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: Geez, the loons are out in force today. Is there a full moon?
:
:
: Hey, I just went outside and looked tonight. The moon *is* full...
:
: So you ARE a space expret!
:
: Not really. I'ts not full until Tuesday. :-)

: I was just going on the visual aspect. Looks pretty full right now.

You were probably only seeing the neighbor kid giving you a salute.

: Apparently it's full enough to bring out the monthly loons (though
: sadly some of them hang out here month around).

Don't forget to include yourself, as I'm sure you meant that.

Eric

(Eric Chomko) wrote in
:

Jorge R. Frank ) wrote:
: Thialfi wrote in
: :

: In article
: h (Rand Simberg) wrote:
:
: On 23 Jan 2005 21:22:52 -0000, in a place far, far away,
: Thialfi
: made the phosphor on my monitor glow
: in such a
: way as to indicate that:
:
: It's ultimately a matter of political will. If enough folks
: really wanted a
: manned mission to Mars, the money would have been found.
:
: It's a matter of leadership.
:
: Kennedy had it, Bush doesn't.
:
: Then how is that he got the budget for his new exploration
: program
: through Congress?
:
: He didn't.

: You are incorrect. Bush's original FY05 budget proposal for NASA was
: $16.244 billion. The House cut Bush's request to $15.149 billion; the
: Senate to $15.579 billion. After a veto threat by the president and a
: threat by the House Majority Leader to kill the appropriations bill,
: a House-Senate conference agreed upon a figure of $16.200 billion,
: plus an unprecedented provision to allow NASA to reallocate funds
: within that figure as it sees fit.

The opeartive phrase, "...as it sees fit".

Right. That enables NASA to ensure that the new exploration program is
fully funded, even though the final figure was $44 million less than
originally requested.

With the cut to HST (GSFC),
how much do you want to bet it ALL goes to Tom DeLay (JSC) and brother
Jeb (KSC)? Wanna bet?

You'd lose. A large percentage of the new exploration program is being run
out of MSFC in Alabama.

: Do try to keep up...

: You are the one who needs to keep up. Your position is false and your
: ignorance needs to be corrected.

Perhaps you need a lesson in "further analysis"?

Perhaps you need a lesson in "getting the point."


--
JRF

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

(Eric Chomko) wrote in
:

But is money enough? I would agree that we could do a sample return
mission that was unmanned with today's technology, but could be do an
manned mission, given the money, with today's technology? According to
a Science Channel program on nanotechnology, use in medicine is not
there yet for a three year manned journey to Mars. Keeping the
astronauts healthy during the three year journey there and back would
require breakthroughs in nanotechnology in medicine that doesn't exist
yet.

I suspect this is a case of "if the only tool you have is a hammer, every
problem looks like a nail." Of *course* a nanotechnologist is going to
claim that a Mars mission will require breakthroughs in nanotechnology -
it's the only way *he* knows to solve the problem. That does not mean there
are no other solutions, and some of those solutions require no
breakthroughs in technology - just further development of technologies we
already have.


--
JRF

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

Jorge R. Frank ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote in
: :

: Jorge R. Frank ) wrote:
: : Thialfi wrote in
: : :
:
: : In article
: : h (Rand Simberg) wrote:
: :
: : On 23 Jan 2005 21:22:52 -0000, in a place far, far away,
: : Thialfi
: : made the phosphor on my monitor glow
: : in such a
: : way as to indicate that:
: :
: : It's ultimately a matter of political will. If enough folks
: : really wanted a
: : manned mission to Mars, the money would have been found.
: :
: : It's a matter of leadership.
: :
: : Kennedy had it, Bush doesn't.
: :
: : Then how is that he got the budget for his new exploration
: : program
: : through Congress?
: :
: : He didn't.
:
: : You are incorrect. Bush's original FY05 budget proposal for NASA was
: : $16.244 billion. The House cut Bush's request to $15.149 billion; the
: : Senate to $15.579 billion. After a veto threat by the president and a
: : threat by the House Majority Leader to kill the appropriations bill,
: : a House-Senate conference agreed upon a figure of $16.200 billion,
: : plus an unprecedented provision to allow NASA to reallocate funds
: : within that figure as it sees fit.
:
: The opeartive phrase, "...as it sees fit".

: Right. That enables NASA to ensure that the new exploration program is
: fully funded, even though the final figure was $44 million less than
: originally requested.

: With the cut to HST (GSFC),
: how much do you want to bet it ALL goes to Tom DeLay (JSC) and brother
: Jeb (KSC)? Wanna bet?

: You'd lose. A large percentage of the new exploration program is being run
: out of MSFC in Alabama.

Surprise, surprise! I wonder if Glenn Space Center in Ohio will get more
$$$ since that state was key to W getting reelected.

: : Do try to keep up...
:
: : You are the one who needs to keep up. Your position is false and your
: : ignorance needs to be corrected.
:
: Perhaps you need a lesson in "further analysis"?

: Perhaps you need a lesson in "getting the point."


I got the point alright.

Eric

: --
: JRF

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