MSNBC (JimO) - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury

"Scott M. Kozel"
It was -Algore- who tried to steal the election.

I like Bush okay and have been in his "camp", more or less, I used to think
that the deal in Florida was that it was a close race and Bush managed to
end up with a few more votes, as near as they could tell.

But I now suspect that there was a little more to it. The Republican
executive branch in Florida did some things in the years leading up to the
election. About 43,000 were removed from the voting rolls, mostly
Democrats, due to felony convictions. Except that a large percentage of the
voters removed were not felons. But that is not really considered "bad".
Some of it is politics. The party in power gets to do things just because
they won the last election.

Then you do some other tricks. Create voting delays in DEM precincts, stuff
like that. Then get some "help" from the vote counters. These are somewhat
more offensive from a moral standpoint.

Anyway the ruling Republicans did a lot to tip the playing field in Bush's
favor. I don't need some crap about Algore stealing the election when the
fix or attempted fix in Florida was the other way.
As close as the race was, Gore's campaign was weak. He won New Mexico by
400 votes....should have been huge. Lost Tennesse....He was not popular in
his home state, but jeez. The goofy little effer lost. People don't like
being talked down to or lectured to. Not from Algore for sure. I agree
with Gore that the automobile is an obsolete relic, but people (NASCAR
dads?) are not going to vote for that.

This next election may be wild. No DEM has won the presidency without the
South. And no Republican Prez-elect has done it without Ohio.

The same Al Gore that "invented" the internet?

The same ******* that loaded up your phone bill with fees. Democrate get a
definite hard on for new taxes. Creeps.

March 25, 2004

Blockhead wrote:

"John Doe"

A statement from NASA I would have found very reassuring/reasonable would
have been:

Hubble missions delayed indefinitely until Shuttle has tested

Yeah but that assumes that NASA wants to keep Hubble going. I think they
were done fooling with the thing and decided now was a good time to turn it
shut it down. (Keep hitting the rocks together, JD.)

Oh Sure ... After paying for and constructing the optics, training for and
scheduling the mission, just cancel it. That sounds familiar. Spend a lot of
money, kill a lot of people, do something half assed and then pull out. Better
off not doing it at all, eh? That's the American way.

Just keep throwing the rocks at each other, Blockhead.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

Derek Lyons wrote:

starman wrote:

With public support for NASA being rather sparse these days, it might be
a good idea to not trash an existing project that clearly has the
public's support, even if it doesn't make complete sense to those who
are better informed.

Right. So we turn the space program over to the masses as a bread and
circuses progam.

You certainly have a knack for hyperbole. Like it or not, public opinion
is part of the equation which determines NASA's funding. The public has
seen the results of Hubble and they (finally) like what they've seen.
That's more than can be said for the ISS so far. Most people don't know
it exists. It would be foolish to squander public support for a proven
space research tool, just to save the cost of one service mission.
Hubble has many years of good science left in it. It could be a long
time before we build another optical (visible light) research scope in
space.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

Or to translate from hallerspeak "I am unwilling to actually address
the question asked, so I will attempt to divert the discussion of
issues into yet another groundless criticism of NASA".

D.
--

ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Any ISS flight may have some foam shedding that damages TPS and a early
engine
shutdown for any number of reasons.

In which case they cant deorbit or get to station

Now please tell me how this is riskier than a hubble service flight????

Simple:

In an IIS flight you have the following problems (given your description)

Success - Get to station no problem.
Foam Strike - get to station, have repair capability
ATO - get to lower orbit, no foam strike, success.
Foam Strike and ATO - get to lower orbit, foam strike, no repair capability.
Result - LOV

Now, with a HST flight you have:
Success - Get to station no problem.
Foam Strike - No repair capability. Result LOV
ATO - get to lower orbit, no foam strike, success.
Foam Strike and ATO - get to lower orbit, foam strike, no repair capability.
Result - LOV

You now have two failure modes. And strictly speaking you can't say
anything like "this doubles your odds of failure" since with a FS/ATO, you
have to have TWO simultaneous failures occur to result on a LOV. With a
HST, you now only need ONE failure that can result in a LOV.

Given all that, even w/o hard numbers, one can see that one can easily build
a matrix showing the difference in safety between an HST flight and an ISS
flight.

Personally, though, I think ultimately an HST upgrade/repair flight is
probably worth the safety factor. An HST retrieval flight is harder to
justify.



Hey this is my opinion

starman wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:

starman wrote:

With public support for NASA being rather sparse these days, it might be
a good idea to not trash an existing project that clearly has the
public's support, even if it doesn't make complete sense to those who
are better informed.

Right. So we turn the space program over to the masses as a bread and
circuses progam.

You certainly have a knack for hyperbole. Like it or not, public opinion
is part of the equation which determines NASA's funding.

Actually, it's almost certainly not part of the equation. The
majority of the public believes NASA's budget is far higher than it
is. Except for a handful of Congressional districts, Congressmen &
Senators are well aware that space issues neither gain nor lose them
votes at the polls.

The public has seen the results of Hubble and they (finally) like what they've
seen. That's more than can be said for the ISS so far.

Which says more about peoples ability to be impressed by pretty
pictures than anything else. (Few people knew about Magellan for
example. Many knew about the snakebit Galileo.)

It would be foolish to squander public support for a proven
space research tool, just to save the cost of one service mission.

We don't have public support for a space research tool. Not one in a
hundred Americans could actually name what it is that Hubble *does*
beyond producing pretty pictures.

Hubble has many years of good science left in it. It could be a long
time before we build another optical (visible light) research scope in
space.

Then we fix the process and the problems rather than throwing lives
away.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

In message , Derek Lyons
writes
starman wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:

starman wrote:

With public support for NASA being rather sparse these days, it might be
a good idea to not trash an existing project that clearly has the
public's support, even if it doesn't make complete sense to those who
are better informed.

Right. So we turn the space program over to the masses as a bread and
circuses progam.

You certainly have a knack for hyperbole. Like it or not, public opinion
is part of the equation which determines NASA's funding.

Actually, it's almost certainly not part of the equation. The
majority of the public believes NASA's budget is far higher than it
is. Except for a handful of Congressional districts, Congressmen &
Senators are well aware that space issues neither gain nor lose them
votes at the polls.

The public has seen the results of Hubble and they (finally) like what they've
seen. That's more than can be said for the ISS so far.

Which says more about peoples ability to be impressed by pretty
pictures than anything else. (Few people knew about Magellan for
example. Many knew about the snakebit Galileo.)

And apparently there was some argument about putting cameras on Galileo.
(I still find it incomprehensible that no-one considered testing the
deployment of the HGA). Never forget who is paying for this.


It would be foolish to squander public support for a proven
space research tool, just to save the cost of one service mission.

We don't have public support for a space research tool. Not one in a
hundred Americans could actually name what it is that Hubble *does*
beyond producing pretty pictures.

There are also a lot of pretty pictures showing people fixing Hubble.
Except for Hubble repair missions, US manned space flight in the last 20
years or so has been a mixture of absolute disaster and deep
embarrassment - blocked toilets on the Shuttle, an astronaut using a
pipe as a handle and causing a leak on ISS, joyrides for politicians
with more than a hint of corruption.
There's now talk of a robot mission to replace Hubble's batteries. If
they can pull that off, one of the last justifications for manned space
flight disappears until/unless it is reborn as a commercial venture.
--
Save the Hubble Space Telescope!
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote:
Now, with a HST flight you have:
Success - Get to station no problem.
Foam Strike - No repair capability. Result LOV

Hasn't CAIB recommented stand-alone repair capability ?

My understanding was that they would temporarily "waive" this requirement for
flights to ISS since ISS would be able to help with inspections and repairs.
But eventually, the shuttle should have its own repair ability. Is that
correct ?

If the Shuttle is to travel only to ISS, why is Nasa bothering with a special
boom addition to the shuttle's arm ?

(bob haller) wrote in message ...
ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Any ISS flight may have some foam shedding that damages TPS and a early engine
shutdown for any number of reasons.

In which case they cant deorbit or get to station

Now please tell me how this is riskier than a hubble service flight????
Hey this is my opinion

Hey I have to make a compliment he Bob did not make any serious
typos... ;-)
Ok, there's the missing ' in "they can't deorbit" and the missing n
for "an early engine"...

You must have been pretty ****ed off to type so well ;-P

Back to lurking...

"Blockhead" wrote:

"Scott M. Kozel"

It was -Algore- who tried to steal the election.

I like Bush okay and have been in his "camp", more or less, I used to think
that the deal in Florida was that it was a close race and Bush managed to
end up with a few more votes, as near as they could tell.

But I now suspect that there was a little more to it. The Republican
executive branch in Florida did some things in the years leading up to the
election. About 43,000 were removed from the voting rolls, mostly
Democrats, due to felony convictions. Except that a large percentage of the
voters removed were not felons. But that is not really considered "bad".
Some of it is politics. The party in power gets to do things just because
they won the last election.

Then you do some other tricks. Create voting delays in DEM precincts, stuff
like that. Then get some "help" from the vote counters. These are somewhat
more offensive from a moral standpoint.

B A L O N E Y !

The local election boards in Florida in 2000 were dominated by Democrat
local control, and the state supreme court was dominated by Democrats.