Politics of the Hubble telescope

This is the first post [in reference to a post in a non-newsgroup forum
where the issue was being discussed--this post is just a brief-investment
related discussion opportunity] that even comes close to dealing with the
(dare I say) insightful issue of the transition costs. There is no surprise
that technology has advanced since Hubble was designed and built, and that
we could build a better one now using less money. It's called the advantage
of hindsight, or getting behind the learning curve, etc.

The way this issue should be addressed in (again dare I say) scientific and
economic terms would be based on the value of the scientific research Hubble
can perform versus the lost opportunity costs from the interval when there
would be no such telescope available.

Not the reality, but a deliberate exaggeration to clarify the issue: Imagine
that we needed a space telescope to detect asteroids that were liable to
strike the earth. In that case, we would absolutely need to keep the Hubble
in service until a replacement telescope could be prepared--and better to
have several in orbit all the time.

Unfortunately, the current reality is that this is mostly a political issue,
and the deeper danger is that scientific research is not important to the
religious fanatics in charge, since they already know all the answers. It's
not a matter of spending $1 billion on Hubble or committing $0.5 billion for
a better replacement--it's that they would prefer to spend zilch on science
and $200 billion on getting rid of Saddam. (If Saddam was worth $200
billion, it certainly makes one shudder to imagine the costs for getting rid
of the other tyrants, since Saddam was one of the weakest and least
important ones.)

Actually, this is tightly linked to politics surrounding the Space Shuttle.
I heard this story from the same fellow who wrote most of Reagan's Star Wars
speech (though he specifically disavowed the specific bit about Star Wars).
He was chancellor of the UT system at that time. The Space Shuttle part was
actually related to Nixon, however. As Apollo was winding down, NASA went to
Nixon with a very ambitious proposal for a much more flexible kind of Space
Shuttle system, but Nixon said it was *way* too expensive. The current
version was actually the third or fourth reduced proposal. In the long term,
the compromise was bad pretty much every way you slice it. America's manned
space program is nearly dead, and 13 astronauts and one teacher are very
dead.

--
Trolls fed to "The vile spewers of mindless blather thread" and/or ploinked.

Shannon Jacobs trolled:

troll content

"Politics are for the moment. An equation* is for eternity."
- Albert Einstein.

* or HST image

Nothing to say? So why not save us the ploink?

*ploink*

barney wrote:
Shannon Jacobs trolled:

troll content

"Politics are for the moment. An equation* is for eternity."
- Albert Einstein.

* or HST image

--
Rove's campaign slogan was stable leadership. Oh. So that's why Dubya
is replacing most of his cabinet? Maybe Rumsfeld (AKA Rumsfailed)
will be the only "stable" failure?

Trolls fed to "The vile spewers of mindless blather thread" and/or
ploinked.