Bush's space plan: most people don't care

I'm surprized Bush did not say we are going to the stars. Most people
don't seem to take much interest in these Mars probes.Truth is the
picture the viking orbiter took of the" face" in 1976 held their
interest,and made the front page of every news paper. Truth is the
Viking lander site Utopia Planitia looks more interesting than where the
Spirit came down. It has lots more different rocks to check out. I'm
comparing both sites as I type. I'm hoping NASA is not landing these
probes in the same areas over and over Maybe only Mars poles are
different,and the rest of Mars looks the same because it is a dusty,
dry, cold, red surface with lots of rocks and,craters. Well it does have
mountains and valleys. NASA is staying close to the equator,and thats
not good for exploring. NASA likes doing the same thing over and over.
Bert

It would have been a lot better if NASA did not have such good luck with
the Rube Goldberg shuttles. Lets think how better it would have been if
the Challenger was the shuttles first flight,and they tried again with
the Columbia. Two failures in a row would have scuttled the shuttles.
True the same amount of people would have been killed(sad but true) but
37 years of time and money would have been saved. We would not hear Bush
coning us about building a base on the moon.(it would be there 25 years
ago.) The shuttle is an astronaut killer,and a waste of time and money.
Bert

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
It would have been a lot better if NASA did not have such good luck with
the Rube Goldberg shuttles. Lets think how better it would have been if
the Challenger was the shuttles first flight,and they tried again with
the Columbia. Two failures in a row would have scuttled the shuttles.
True the same amount of people would have been killed(sad but true) but
37 years of time and money would have been saved. We would not hear Bush
coning us about building a base on the moon.(it would be there 25 years
ago.) The shuttle is an astronaut killer,and a waste of time and money.

Pres. Bush/NASA has basically said the shuttle is to be retired, and the
moon is now our new target. How is that a con? Are you not now getting
exactly what you have always wanted, Bert?

BV.
www.iheartmypond.com

BV No I'm not getting what I wanted 37 years to late,and I don;t like
that to much of my spacetime has been wasted,plus 14 lives blown to
bits. We can't shut down the shuttle because the great thinking of NASA
over 37 years has only given us the shuttle. They saw to it nothing else
would evolve. The only reason NASA liked building the space station is
it goes round and round in low orbit.(what else?) NASA now has no way
of servicing the Hubble,and to cover this up they will tell you its
obsolete,and not worth fixing,and besides that we need a new one. Truth
is no new Hubble is being built as I type,and Bush has seen to it that
my America has only great negative money to burn. This is an election
year,and my country can not afford 4 more years of Bush. He will promise
you everything,but there is no money to pay for it. Like it is
said "Talk is cheap" Bert

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
BV No I'm not getting what I wanted 37 years to late,and I don;t like
that to much of my spacetime has been wasted,plus 14 lives blown to
bits. We can't shut down the shuttle because the great thinking of NASA
over 37 years has only given us the shuttle. They saw to it nothing else
would evolve. The only reason NASA liked building the space station is
it goes round and round in low orbit.(what else?) NASA now has no way
of servicing the Hubble,and to cover this up they will tell you its
obsolete,and not worth fixing,and besides that we need a new one. Truth
is no new Hubble is being built as I type,and Bush has seen to it that
my America has only great negative money to burn. This is an election
year,and my country can not afford 4 more years of Bush. He will promise
you everything,but there is no money to pay for it. Like it is
said "Talk is cheap" Bert

Bert,

The shuttle is being decommissioned. The Hubble is still valuable, but the
number of available missions between now and the decomission of the shuttle
fleet don't allow for us to do everything that we want, so something has to
be compromised. Unfortunately, the Hubble is the loser. Hopefully, we will
find an alternate solution. As for Hubble II, no there is no Hubble II, but
as I understand it there is a new more powerful scope on it's way. To be
launched this year, if I am not mistaken.

The ISS was and is a cool and valuable experiment. I believe we are learning
much that will help with a moon base, mars base...and further into the
future.

In another thread (was it this one but earlier on?) I asked what your
acceptable failure rate was. I never saw your answer. Would you care to
respond? Certainly 14 lives and three craft lost is awful, but clearly there
has to be some level of acceptable loss, otherwise we would never get off
the ground.

As for Bush burning our money...well...I'd be happy to discuss that in
alt.politics, but not here.

BV.
www.iheartmypond.com

In message , BenignVanilla
writes

The shuttle is being decommissioned. The Hubble is still valuable, but the
number of available missions between now and the decomission of the shuttle
fleet don't allow for us to do everything that we want, so something has to
be compromised. Unfortunately, the Hubble is the loser. Hopefully, we will
find an alternate solution. As for Hubble II, no there is no Hubble II, but
as I understand it there is a new more powerful scope on it's way. To be
launched this year, if I am not mistaken.

2011, if everything goes right. Still time to reduce the power of the
new telescope, which won't have the visible-light and ultraviolet
ability of Hubble anyway. They've (i.e. you) already spent hundreds of
millions on new instruments for Hubble, which are good for nothing else.
--
Save the Hubble Space Telescope!
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote
in message ...
In message , BenignVanilla
writes

The shuttle is being decommissioned. The Hubble is still valuable, but
the
number of available missions between now and the decomission of the
shuttle
fleet don't allow for us to do everything that we want, so something has
to
be compromised. Unfortunately, the Hubble is the loser. Hopefully, we
will
find an alternate solution. As for Hubble II, no there is no Hubble II,
but
as I understand it there is a new more powerful scope on it's way. To be
launched this year, if I am not mistaken.

2011, if everything goes right. Still time to reduce the power of the
new telescope, which won't have the visible-light and ultraviolet
ability of Hubble anyway. They've (i.e. you) already spent hundreds of
millions on new instruments for Hubble, which are good for nothing else.

It's a shame I agree. I'd like to see the Hubble stay operational, but I
guess we have to have priorities. Maybe us alt.astronomy types should start
a grass roots movement to gather up donations to fund a mission?

BV.
www.iheartmypond.com

BV If the Hubble was part of the base we should have on the moon 30
years ago we would not have this problem today. NASA+ Bush has taken
away man's desteny to explore the universe 800 million for the
Spirit was OK at the time. At this time we are now 600 billion further
in debt Bert

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
BV If the Hubble was part of the base we should have on the moon 30
years ago we would not have this problem today. NASA+ Bush has taken
away man's desteny to explore the universe 800 million for the
Spirit was OK at the time. At this time we are now 600 billion further
in debt Bert

I agree, the moon could be a cool place for an array of scopes, but not the
Hubble. As I understand it, the Hubble needs to be kept away from any
sources of contamination. Which is why it has no rockets of it's own to
adjust it's position. Besides, Bert, how would we service the scope on Mars?
Surely that would make the scope even more expensive, until we have a colony
there.

BV.
www.iheartmypond.com

BV I can see man walking on Mars,but never a colony. The moon is only
three days away. We now have to build a rocket ship 3 times bigger than
the Apollo.,and the moon lander being big enough to be the moon base,and
from the start can hold 10 astronauts. Use atomic energy. BV we have
transportation on the Moon and should have this base in walking distance
from the moon rover. This is what we should have had 25 years ago. What
we have now is a not to interesting space station,and round and round
she goes for another 37 years. Bert