Let Hubble die gracefully

The ISS became a welfare program for large aerospace companies on
several continents. Never has so much public money been spent to
accomplish so little.

As for Bush's exploration initiative, I'm sorry you feel the need to
characterize it as a "crusade". The plan makes a lot of sense, but as a
nation, I'm afraid we lack the collective will to make it happen. Our
population is older and soft-headed, and the teenagers who would design,
build, and fly the hardware, are far more concerned with PS2s and
hanging out. Perhaps another generation in another country will pick up
the torch.

Before the Columbia accident cut him off at the knees, Sean O'Keefe made
some good calls for the kind of space infrastructure we need to get
beyond LEO. I was hoping he'd find a way to kill off the ISS outright,
but that didn't happen, and $billions more were poured into our local
black hole. Too bad because IMO, the U.S. government is going to see
some difficult times, and harsh economic reality will force big cuts in
discretionary spending. Once the shuttles are grounded, and ISS is
"complete", watch for drastic budget reductions at NASA.

Hilton Evans wrote:

Correct.

However, I would mothball the ISS and the Bush Moon/Mars
crusades to get the money. The proceeds could
(theoretically) build a few more Kecks and
still leave change to fix Hubble or replace it with
next generation orbiting scopes.

That said there is also a case to be made for saving
Hubble. The public loves it and it still yields
scientific value. I'll take popular support for
physical science wherever I can get it.

Why? It would only ever get good views of less than half the sky, and
it would be useless nearly half the year (of course, during the other
half of the year it would offer 24-hour observing, so that sort of
makes up for it).

-Paul W.

On 24 Jan 2005 10:57:12 -0800, wrote:

That aside, a telescope in Antarctica would be money well spent.

----------
Remove 'Z' to reply by email.

Tim Killian wrote:
The ISS became a welfare program for large aerospace companies on
several continents. Never has so much public money been spent to
accomplish so little.

As for Bush's exploration initiative, I'm sorry you feel the need to
characterize it as a "crusade". The plan makes a lot of sense, but as
a
nation, I'm afraid we lack the collective will to make it happen. Our

population is older and soft-headed, and the teenagers who would
design,
build, and fly the hardware, are far more concerned with PS2s and
hanging out. Perhaps another generation in another country will pick
up
the torch.

speaking strictly as a member of the lazy PS2 generation
first, teenagers have always been concerned with hanging out. no more
so now than during the fourties and fifties.
second, the PS2 has inspired more kids to take up science in four years
than the entire manned space program in its history.
third, the next generation will be just as concerned (and by your logic
more so) with PS3 and hanging out than this one.

that aside 6% of university graduates are in science and the rest are
in arts. there could be a number of reasons why this happened. my
personal opinion is that america places so little value on highschool
science choosing a carrere in the field is an act of pure will and
determination.

no one has burned the martian chronicles. the inspiration is still
there. if you want more scientists you need to make the education
process more appealing.

henrietta

Hilton Evans wrote:
"Tim Killian" wrote in message
...
The ISS became a welfare program for large aerospace companies on
several continents. Never has so much public money been spent to
accomplish so little.

The superconducting supercollider might give
it a run for the money.


Only because the project was canceled. I am not saying it would have
revolutionalized particle physics, but it would have at least produced
good science.

--
Bill

When was the last time you saw a teenager:

1) build and fly a model airplane or rocket?
2) grind/polish/figure a telescope mirror?
3) write their own computer program?
4) ask about a ham radio license?

There are of course, rare exceptions, but my point is that most
teenagers in 2005 are content with enjoying the fruits of technology,
not in understanding the underpinnings, or creating something new. That
is in sharp contrast with the culture that existed in the '50s and '60s.
We talk about education and we spend exorbitant sums on public schools,
but from my perspective, the achievement level of average high school
students today is 1-2 years behind the level of students from my
generation. We have dumbed everything down, teachers, students,
entertainment, etc.

What I see are kids (and adults as well) who are willing to substitute
watching and daydreaming for actual achievement. Leadership is certainly
important, but without people willing to pick up tools or learn
difficult concepts, there can be no collective will. And without a
collective will, there can be no real achievements on national-scale
technology efforts like space exploration, energy independence, etc.


Hilton Evans wrote:




I spend a fair amount of time around MIT(libraries) and haven't
found this.



Our population is older and soft-headed, and the teenagers who would
design,
build, and fly the hardware, are far more concerned with PS2s and
hanging out.

"Tim Killian" wrote in message
...
When was the last time you saw a teenager:

1) build and fly a model airplane or rocket?
2) grind/polish/figure a telescope mirror?
3) write their own computer program?
4) ask about a ham radio license?

There are of course, rare exceptions, but my point is that most
teenagers in 2005 are content with enjoying the fruits of technology,
not in understanding the underpinnings, or creating something new. That
is in sharp contrast with the culture that existed in the '50s and '60s.
We talk about education and we spend exorbitant sums on public schools,
but from my perspective, the achievement level of average high school
students today is 1-2 years behind the level of students from my
generation. We have dumbed everything down, teachers, students,
entertainment, etc.

What I see are kids (and adults as well) who are willing to substitute
watching and daydreaming for actual achievement. Leadership is certainly
important, but without people willing to pick up tools or learn
difficult concepts, there can be no collective will. And without a
collective will, there can be no real achievements on national-scale
technology efforts like space exploration, energy independence, etc.


Are you in contact with a lot of kids, or are you basing your judgments on
what you see on the news? My kids and their friends are an amazing bunch
(regularly engaged in 1-3 above, among other things), and I consider myself
privileged to know them. Maybe my experiences are outside of the norm, or
maybe yours are. In any case, I know that there are a lot of great kids.
Maybe you should seek them out?

Dennis

wrote in message oups.com...

Hilton Evans wrote:
"Tim Killian" wrote in message
...
The ISS became a welfare program for large aerospace companies on
several continents. Never has so much public money been spent to
accomplish so little.

The superconducting supercollider might give
it a run for the money.


Only because the project was canceled. I am not saying it would have
revolutionalized particle physics, but it would have at least produced
good science.

I agree. I was opining on the money spent and the return
on the investment and not the merits of the program.


--
Hilton Evans
-----------------------------------------------
ChemPen Chemical Structure Software
http://www.chempensoftware.com

My daughter is in high school, and I see what her friends and classmates
do on a regular basis. Last year I was a judge at their science fair,
and saw first hand what the "best and brightest" were up to these days.
A few of the 80+ projects had scientific merit, but most were truly
lame, 5th-grade stuff. One effort I though showed real insight involved
testing a theory that sun spots have an effect on climate. The other
four judges dismissed it outright because the boy used 50 years of
historical sunspot data in his analysis instead of actually doing the
measurements! These people had so little understanding of how science
works in the real world, they couldn't even recognize it when it was in
front of them. But the other judges were impressed by crap like jumping
an RC car off a ramp to see how far it traveled. Only a handful of
projects showed any math skills beyond addition and subtraction. Many of
these kids have desktop computers at home more powerful than the first
Cray super computers, but not a single project involved an original
computer program, and only a few used Excel and/or Power Point.

I wish it were different, but the majority of kids I see today have
little interest in physical sciences, mathematics, or model making.


Dennis Woos wrote:


Are you in contact with a lot of kids, or are you basing your judgments on
what you see on the news? My kids and their friends are an amazing bunch
(regularly engaged in 1-3 above, among other things), and I consider myself
privileged to know them. Maybe my experiences are outside of the norm, or
maybe yours are. In any case, I know that there are a lot of great kids.
Maybe you should seek them out?

Dennis

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:19:57 GMT, "Hilton Evans"
wrote:

wrote in message oups.com...
Both Keck telescopes put together cost less than half the projected
repair cost of Hubble (adjusted for inflation). There are places in
Antarctica with seeing better than the theoretical resolution of HST.
IMHO it would make more sense to use the money to place a pair of 10
meter+ class telescopes on Dome C rather than repair Hubble.

Correct.

However, I would mothball the ISS and the Bush Moon/Mars
crusades to get the money. The proceeds could
(theoretically) build a few more Kecks and
still leave change to fix Hubble or replace it with
next generation orbiting scopes.

That said there is also a case to be made for saving
Hubble. The public loves it and it still yields
scientific value. I'll take popular support for
physical science wherever I can get it.


Me I'll take physical science wherever I can get it over popular support
any day.

-JATO
http://jatobservatory.org

Tim Killian wrote:
When was the last time you saw a teenager:
I am 19

1) build and fly a model airplane or rocket?
both required part of seventh grade cericulum

2) grind/polish/figure a telescope mirror?
I have, but then again what percentage of teenagers did this back in
your day
3) write their own computer program?
required part of tenth grade cerriculum

4) ask about a ham radio license?
we have this new fandangeld internet, its swell.

There are of course, rare exceptions, but my point is that most
teenagers in 2005 are content with enjoying the fruits of technology,

not in understanding the underpinnings, or creating something new.
That
is in sharp contrast with the culture that existed in the '50s and
'60s.
We talk about education and we spend exorbitant sums on public
schools,

ah! the crux of the problem: you spend half as much as you should which
is twice as much as you want.

but from my perspective, the achievement level of average high school

students today is 1-2 years behind the level of students from my
generation. We have dumbed everything down, teachers, students,
entertainment, etc.

What I see are kids (and adults as well) who are willing to
substitute
watching and daydreaming for actual achievement. Leadership is
certainly
important, but without people willing to pick up tools or learn
difficult concepts, there can be no collective will. And without a
collective will, there can be no real achievements on national-scale
technology efforts like space exploration, energy independence, etc.


the hard thing about hard work is its hard. no one wants to do it. no
one has ever wanted to do it. technology has changed but people have
not.
can you point to one specific quantifiable change in society? have you
seen any statistics or quantitative evidence to back up your claim? if
you cant then you have no right to hold your opinion.
there is a word for what you a curmudgeon.

Henrietta