Write or call Congress to save Hubble space telescope

On 25 Jan 2005 05:00:19 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

RichA wrote in
:

On 25 Jan 2005 02:50:47 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

"RichA" wrote in
egroups.com:

Does anyone know the Space Shuttle's schedule for the next year past
initial launch dates?

2005 May 12 STS-114/ISS LF-1
2005 Jul 10 STS-121/ISS ULF-1.1
2005 Dec 08 STS-115/ISS-12A

Lovely. They won't send the Shuttle to fix Hubble because it's
"too risky" but they'll send three missions in six months to that
worthless money-pit, the ISS.

What rock have you been hiding under? All 28 remaining shuttle flights are
going to ISS.

Nice. 18 x $400m = $7,200,000,000 worth of Shuttle flights to support
a worthless space station that has cost $150b so far. Why can't they
just use the cheap Russian rockets for this? If it hadn't been for
them, the crew up there would be dead by now anyway.
-Rich

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 23:25:57 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: The war is important. NASA isn't.

I think you have it backwards.

It doesn't matter what you think. It only matters what the
politicians and people who vote for them think.

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 23:36:00 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Rand, it is you that can't undertand the idea of using ISS as a robot
repair testbed.

Of course I understand that. This is the first time that the subject
has actually come up. But it still has nothing to do with HST robotic
servicing, and remains a non-sequitur.

RichA wrote in
:

On 25 Jan 2005 05:00:19 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

What rock have you been hiding under? All 28 remaining shuttle flights
are going to ISS.

Nice. 18 x $400m = $7,200,000,000 worth of Shuttle flights to support
a worthless space station that has cost $150b so far.

Wrong numbers. 6 years x $4b/year = $24 billion for the shuttle program
through 2010. But the space station program has not cost anywhere near
$150b so far. In fact, it has yet to crack $50b: $9b for 1984-93, roughly
$2b/year since.

Why can't they
just use the cheap Russian rockets for this?

The Russians would rather sell nuclear technology to Iran than sell
spacecraft to NASA. And yes, it is an "either-or" choice, under US law.

--
JRF

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

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in
:

On 26 Jan 2005 03:06:50 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Jorge R.
Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Nice. 18 x $400m = $7,200,000,000 worth of Shuttle flights to
support a worthless space station that has cost $150b so far.

Wrong numbers. 6 years x $4b/year = $24 billion for the shuttle
program through 2010. But the space station program has not cost
anywhere near $150b so far. In fact, it has yet to crack $50b: $9b for
1984-93, roughly $2b/year since.

Only if you don't count the costs of Shuttle, required to actually
deliver and assemble it.

OK, then throw in 3/4 of the shuttle budget from 1998-2003. You still don't
get anywhere near $150b.


--
JRF

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

Christopher M. Jones ) wrote:
: Rand Simberg wrote:
: On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:49:10 -0700, in a place far, far away, Greg
: Crinklaw made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
: Here's some friendly advice: if you don't like him
: then I suggest you use your kill file rather than let him make an ass
: out of you.
:
: He never accomplishes that. And his posts are so consistently and
: obtusely hilarious that I can't bring myself to killfile him.

: No, he doesn't, you do all that work yourself. The effect
: is the same. Seriously, Rand, you're smarter than this, at
: some point you have to just let it be and let someone else
: have the last word, regardless of whether that last word is
: wrong. Construct your arguments to be of sufficient quality
: so that it doesn't matter who has the last word.

The operative word is "quality". TQM was created for folks like Rand.
I bet he believes TQM to be bunk, too. A theory of course. But one I'd
like to test.

Eric

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 23:25:57 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: : The war is important. NASA isn't.
:
: I think you have it backwards.

: It doesn't matter what you think. It only matters what the
: politicians and people who vote for them think.

Me being part of the latter group makes your statement self-contradictory.
But logic is not your strong point, so I'm not surprised.

Eric

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 23:36:00 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: Rand, it is you that can't undertand the idea of using ISS as a robot
: repair testbed.

: Of course I understand that. This is the first time that the subject
: has actually come up. But it still has nothing to do with HST robotic
: servicing, and remains a non-sequitur.

I think you're just being obtuse now. The subject finally sunk into your
skull and non-sequiturs have nothing to do with it.

Eric

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:28:13 -0600, in a place far, far away,
: "Christopher M. Jones" made the
: phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: then I suggest you use your kill file rather than let him make an ass
: out of you.
:
: He never accomplishes that. And his posts are so consistently and
: obtusely hilarious that I can't bring myself to killfile him.
:
: No, he doesn't, you do all that work yourself. The effect
: is the same. Seriously, Rand, you're smarter than this, at
: some point you have to just let it be and let someone else
: have the last word, regardless of whether that last word is
: wrong.

: Believe me, if I didn't do that, the argument truly would be endless.
: Believe it or not, I ignore more of Eric's idiotic posts than I
: respond to. But I suppose I should just make a New Year's Resolution
: to killfile him, as it is probably a waste of everyone's time, no
: matter how entertaining. Perhaps treating him like the inadvertent
: troll that he is might reduce the volume of his idiotic posts.

Yes, but killfiling me won't stop your idiotic posts. Those I'd respond to
and you wouldn't be able to let go. So even if you killfile me your
messages wouldn't stop being posted, and to those I would respond.

Chris has killfile'd me yet his post was the source of this thread.
Go figure.


Eric

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:28:13 -0600, in a place far, far away,
"Christopher M. Jones" made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

then I suggest you use your kill file rather than let him make an ass
out of you.

He never accomplishes that. And his posts are so consistently and
obtusely hilarious that I can't bring myself to killfile him.

No, he doesn't, you do all that work yourself. The effect
is the same. Seriously, Rand, you're smarter than this, at
some point you have to just let it be and let someone else
have the last word, regardless of whether that last word is
wrong.

Believe me, if I didn't do that, the argument truly would be endless.
Believe it or not, I ignore more of Eric's idiotic posts than I
respond to. But I suppose I should just make a New Year's Resolution
to killfile him, as it is probably a waste of everyone's time, no
matter how entertaining. Perhaps treating him like the inadvertent
troll that he is might reduce the volume of his idiotic posts.