Hubble Economics - modern math?

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 20:01:06 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
"The Ruzicka Family" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


Stop being such a sanctimonious jerk. You may love Bush, but there's no
reason to act like him.

I don't love Bush.

Glad to hear it. Why then do you feel a need to make snide comments to me
when I simply express my own personal opinion of the guy?

Because said opinion was stupid and baseless.

You do not know me.

Nor, obviously, you me.

You're absolutely correct. I know as much about you as you do about me.
That's why I don't go out of my way to make unprovoked dumb-ass comments
about you. I'd appreciate the same respect.

My comment wasn't "dumb-ass." It was based on your idiotic post.

The Ruzicka Family wrote:

oh, geez...did I somehow insult you in some way with my little joke? (you
did, of course, notice the little smile/wink symbol at the end of it, right?
that means it was a joke!)

Hey, here's a joke:

President Dean!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAAA!!!

HA!

Ha.
Hmm. That's not funny, on second thought. "Terrifying" is a better
descriptor, now that I think about it...


--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

Because said opinion was stupid and baseless.

It was only "stupid and baseless" in your own opinion. You're certainly
entitled to your own opinion! What is unnecessary though, is criticizing
others who do not share your opinions. That's being a bit narrow-minded and
intolerant.


You do not know me.

Nor, obviously, you me.

You're absolutely correct. I know as much about you as you do about me.
That's why I don't go out of my way to make unprovoked dumb-ass comments
about you. I'd appreciate the same respect.

My comment wasn't "dumb-ass." It was based on your idiotic post.

Again, an opinion based upon information gleaned from years of data
collection is not idiotic. While you may not share that opinion, that does
not in any way invalidate it. What IS idiotic and childish are the arrogant
and narrow-minded comments you seem to think you're obligated to make. No
one asked you to join the thread. If all you do is try to tear down other
people when they make, in YOUR lofty opinion, statements that you think are
"stupid" or "idiotic," (and I've seen you do this before) then all you do is
prove yourself to be rather petty.

But tell you what....knowing as how you need to always have the last word,
you go right ahead and respond to this with more childish and unnecessary
comments. I'll go back to ignoring you, and you can "claim victory" over
another "loser." That should stroke your ego quite nicely!

Hey, here's a joke:

President Dean!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAAA!!!

HA!

Ha.
Hmm. That's not funny, on second thought. "Terrifying" is a better
descriptor, now that I think about it...

You're absolutely right! More and more, I'm beginning to think that Dean
would make a bad President. He just doesn't have the temperament for it.
But even being bad at it, he'd be magnitudes better than what's in the White
House now. At least he'd have SOME intelligence. Then again, Mickey Mouse
would even be better.

Honestly though, I really don't think there's a need to go off on a huge
flamewar here over Bush or the Democrats. You like/dislike whomever you
want. Please allow me the same courtesy.

"The Ruzicka Family" wrote ...
Hey, here's a joke:

President Dean!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAAA!!!

HA!

Ha.
Hmm. That's not funny, on second thought. "Terrifying" is a better
descriptor, now that I think about it...

You're absolutely right! More and more, I'm beginning to think that Dean
would make a bad President. He just doesn't have the temperament for it.
But even being bad at it, he'd be magnitudes better than what's in the White
House now. At least he'd have SOME intelligence. Then again, Mickey Mouse
would even be better.

Honestly though, I really don't think there's a need to go off on a huge
flamewar here over Bush or the Democrats. You like/dislike whomever you
want. Please allow me the same courtesy.

Remind me again, what exactly does the 'moderated' stand for in 'sci.space.moderated' ?

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 05:41:35 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
"The Ruzicka Family" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Because said opinion was stupid and baseless.

It was only "stupid and baseless" in your own opinion. You're certainly
entitled to your own opinion! What is unnecessary though, is criticizing
others who do not share your opinions. That's being a bit narrow-minded and
intolerant.

This is hilarious coming from someone who called the president an
"arrogant, holier-than-thou, asshole."

As I said, projection.

Paul Blay wrote:

Remind me again, what exactly does the 'moderated' stand for in 'sci.space.moderated' ?


I was wondering that myself; at the moment .moderated has more flame
wars going than .history... this sort of defeats the purpose of the
whole thing, doesn't it?

Pat

(Bill Clark) wrote in message . com...
So NASA cancels a shuttle maintance mission and says it's cheaper to

(1) re-write the shuttle software program to work with three gyros
operational instead of four; then probably with two instead of three
(we don't even know this is POSSIBLE yet)

(2) design, test, and built a new experiental robot spacecraft that
when launched will rendezvous with the Hubble, attach to it, then
guide it to splashdown in a remote part of the ocean (we don't know if
this is POSSIBLE either)

I find it hard to believe that a single shuttle trip to Hubble to do
regular maintenance will be cheaper than these very risky, unproven
elaborate programs.

As far as that goes, what happens if Bush loses the election and the
next President disagrees with his plans for NASA? Then several
billion dollars will be spent, and many priceless missions canceled,
for nothing at all.

There really is no alternative to canceling the Hubble mission. The
simple reality is that if the shuttle hooks up with hubble, it can't
then change orbits to hook up with the ISS in case of damage to the
shuttle that prevents a safe reentry.

America has made the decision that dead astronauts are absolutely
unacceptable. That decision has consequences.

Besides, Hubble has been up for quite a long time, trying to jiggle a
couple more years of results out of it instead of concentrating on
future missions and an HST replacement is silly. Its done its duty,
let it rest.

I'm as much of a fan of a mission to the moon and to Mars, but I
believe that NASA should not act on what the President says. Changes
in space policy of this magnitude must be approved by Congress, and
officially written into law after lengthy public debate. Otherwise
we're just chasing our tail like a dog.

As a note, I hate manned missions in general, if mars is important
then my preference would be to pave the planet in rovers and stations.

That said, congress approves things on a year by year basis when you
get down to it, and what *really* matters is what the next year's
appropriation bill looks like. If congress would rather have a fleat
of space telescopes or a jupiter orbiter or whatever, then *that* is
what is going to get the money, and that is what will happen. That
said, you can bet your paycheck, Bush has already felt out those on
the appropriation committees and mostly certainly has a majority of
members ready to appropriate according to the new directive.

We should also be thanking him for the timing he chose, the media only
covers landings, crashes, and big policy statements. With his timing,
and a little luck on MER-B, we will get three decent, positive
headliners in a row about space exploration. All in one month's
time.

On 22 Jan 2004 Pat Flannery wrote in
:

Paul Blay wrote:

Remind me again, what exactly does the 'moderated' stand for in
'sci.space.moderated' ?

It means that the moderators can look at posts. We currently run a
white list for most people. Unfortunatly some people are rather
abusing this with off topic stuff. We might have to crack down but
I'd far rather that people thought a bit about what they posted.

I was wondering that myself; at the moment .moderated has more
flame wars going than .history... this sort of defeats the purpose
of the whole thing, doesn't it?

What in here would you describe as a flame war? I've seen some people
arguing over things (and some people presenting arguments that are
really off the wall) but nothing that I would have defined as a flame
war. Your milage obviously varies so I;d be interested to see by how
much.

f/ups to poster
--
Graham Drabble
If you're interested in what goes on in other groups or want to find
an interesting group to read then check news.groups.reviews for what
others have to say or contribute a review for others to read.

What in here would you describe as a flame war? I've seen some people
arguing over things (and some people presenting arguments that are
really off the wall) but nothing that I would have defined as a flame
war. Your milage obviously varies so I;d be interested to see by how
much.

My apologies if this seems to have gotten out of hand. It really is
incredible that a person can make a simple statement of opinion here and end
up getting jeered and ridiculed by immature individuals who seem intolerant
of differing viewpoints. Even when I suggested that each of us is entitled
to individual viewpoints, that too was apparently blown off. It really is a
shame that a few can make this newsgroup less than it should be.
As I told the other poster though, he can go right ahead and assume he's
"won" or whatever else he wants to dream up. I have better things to do
than humor an adolescent.
Again though, it was not my intent to prolong an otherwise minor "debate."
I was simply agreeing with the original poster. Hopefully, this thread can
now die a quiet death.