NASA idiots cancel service mission to Hubble

db wrote in sci.astro:


It is at the request of mr Bush, he wants NASA to focus on going to
the moon and mars.


....for a nickel and a dime. At the time the US realizes it's not possible
to go to the Moon and Mars for a nickel and a dime, the project is
cancelled and the administration has killed a few obnoxious money-
consuming projects like the Shuttle and ISS.

Money that can be used for more important projects, like ensuring tax cuts
for companies like Halliburton, and for deprived US billionaires.

--
CeeBee


"I am not a crook"

"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message
...
On a sunny day (Sat, 17 Jan 2004 07:07:01 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
wrote in :

Mark Folsom wrote:

Just read in the NYT that NASA will not fly the scheduled mission to
service
the Hubble telescope. The one thing they've done with the Shuttle that
was
worth doing, and now they've chickened out. What a bunch of turkeys!!

Mark Folsom

Time to replace the current administration!
Honest, I agree with Sam on this subject.

Well it's been long since time, for a lot of reasons--but the sheep are
unlikely to do it.

Mark Folsom

"agnina" wrote in message
om...
Even before the new plans to go to the moon and Mars, NASA was
planning on decommissioning the Hubble Space Telescope after the next
servicing mission. They have already started the project for the Next
Generation Space Telescope (NGST) which will be much larger and
further away from the earth.

But the next servicing mission would have enabled it to operate for several
more years, and included a number of upgrades. Plus the NGST doesn't
replace anywhere near all the capability of the Hubble. They're tossing one
of the great treasures of modern civilization in the trash long before its
time--and for political bull**** at that. It's a stupid unnecessary
tragedy.

Mark Folsom

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:45:26 -0800, "Mark Folsom"
wrote:

But the next servicing mission would have enabled it to operate for several
more years, and included a number of upgrades. Plus the NGST doesn't
replace anywhere near all the capability of the Hubble. They're tossing one
of the great treasures of modern civilization in the trash long before its
time--and for political bull**** at that. It's a stupid unnecessary
tragedy.

What's more, it doesn't even make sense from a political viewpoint; if
NASA can't do something as routine as a Hubble maintenance mission,
there's not much chance of people believing the guff about them
sending people to Mars. A truly bizarre piece of stupidity.

--
"Sore wa himitsu desu."
To reply by email, remove
the small snack from address.
http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace

In sci.physics, Uncle Al

wrote
on Sat, 17 Jan 2004 07:54:24 -0800
:
Mark Folsom wrote:

Just read in the NYT that NASA will not fly the scheduled mission to service
the Hubble telescope. The one thing they've done with the Shuttle that was
worth doing, and now they've chickened out. What a bunch of turkeys!!

How can Management be held responsible when they never lift the heavy
end? Management makes decisions, workers make mistakes. American
zero-goal education comes to the US space program: Make the average
low enough and every mission is above it.

Uncle Al sees a bright bright day when the Space Scuttle will be
hauled out to its launch pad, fueled, diagnostics run, defueled,
diagnostics run, and hauled back to its hangar. Mission accomplished!


I think they've done that at least once already -- in fact, I
might have taped part of it. :-) I happened to be taping a
shuttle launch (I wanted to try to analyze it at the time to
see how long it took for them to get into orbit). This
particular launch was scrubbed by an engine cutoff just
before the boosters would have lit. Oops...

The next few minutes were spent "safing" the orbiter (there go
those darned nouns acting as verbs again). I don't remember
when they rescheduled the launch now.

Ah, Hubble. We mourn you.

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

Russell Wallace wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:45:26 -0800, "Mark Folsom"
wrote:

But the next servicing mission would have enabled it to operate for several
more years, and included a number of upgrades. Plus the NGST doesn't
replace anywhere near all the capability of the Hubble. They're tossing one
of the great treasures of modern civilization in the trash long before its
time--and for political bull**** at that. It's a stupid unnecessary
tragedy.

What's more, it doesn't even make sense from a political viewpoint; if
NASA can't do something as routine as a Hubble maintenance mission,
there's not much chance of people believing the guff about them
sending people to Mars. A truly bizarre piece of stupidity.

Political reality only exists for the moment. Official Truth is
evanescent. History does not exist. Yesterday does not exist, except
in treasonous utterances.

"We have always been at war with Eurasia."
"We have always been at war with Eastasia"
"We have always been at war with Oceania."

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Bush is President

The irksome totality is twofold:

1) Jesus H. Christ, look at what the loyal opposition offers in
counterpoint.

2) Historical dictators - Alexander of Macedonia, Gengis Khan,
Julius Caesar, Napolean, Hitler, Stalin, Mao - for all their
revisionist atrocities accomplished persistently great things. They
built nations out of near nothing, left public works valued to this
day, created the future though it was borne on the backs of corpses.
Khruschev made his bones building the Moscow subway. It couldn't
goddamned be done no how no way, and by god he goddamned did it to
spec, reasonably on time and within budget, buried nuclear shelter
deeply into the bedrock. So what if thousands died doing it?

Bush the Lesser has easily blown to Hell at least $250 billion
on his watch. What have we gotten to show for it? Halliburton?
Washington exists to destroy the future. It has finally discovered a
task at which it is expert and facile. And enthusiastic. Science is
on its hit list. Miracles belong only to managers.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...

The next few minutes were spent "safing" the orbiter (there go
those darned nouns acting as verbs again).

That looks more like an adjective-verb transformation to me.

Nasa is concerned with only one thing, getting the most money
to fly Monkey crap missions on the Space Shuttle II.
They would gladly ditch the Hubble if they thought it would
get them an extra two cents.
Also the arguement that Hubble is obsolete, is a half truth, sorta
like saying that a car that has run out of gas is useless.
There were plans for Hubble improvements.

The thinking of Nasa, after Columbia burned up, was,
1)the Hubble is a problem, if why go back for servicing missions,
that fact will be used by our critics to argue that a new shuttle is not needed

2)argue safety
3)therefore, new shuttle flights must be in the same orbital plane as ISS
4)therefore, we must abandon the Hubble

Keep in mind that every dollar spent on 'science' is one less dollar
spent on the astronaut-soap-opera.

Menwith

Mark Folsom wrote:

Just read in the NYT that NASA will not fly the scheduled mission to service
the Hubble telescope. The one thing they've done with the Shuttle that was
worth doing, and now they've chickened out. What a bunch of turkeys!!

Mark Folsom

In article , (Steve Harris ) writes:
Uncle Al wrote in message ...
Mark Folsom wrote:

Just read in the NYT that NASA will not fly the scheduled mission to service
the Hubble telescope. The one thing they've done with the Shuttle that was
worth doing, and now they've chickened out. What a bunch of turkeys!!

How can Management be held responsible when they never lift the heavy
end? Management makes decisions, workers make mistakes. American
zero-goal education comes to the US space program: Make the average
low enough and every mission is above it.

Uncle Al sees a bright bright day when the Space Scuttle will be
hauled out to its launch pad, fueled, diagnostics run, defueled,
diagnostics run, and hauled back to its hangar. Mission accomplished!

COMMENT:

This month's Popular Science had a an article on fixing NASA, and with
it as intro picture, a classy photo of the last Saturn V, lying on its
side in Florida, with a handicapped parking space in the parking lot
in front of it.
Welcome to the 21st century.

My heart lept for about 10 seconds, as I thought that they were
actually going to do a piece suggesting that NASA's problems stem
partly from the switch from a culture in which the prime motivator was
to get the job done, to one at present in which the prime motivator
seems to be to provide equal opportunity jobs, out of congressional
pork (see most of the rest of goverment).

But no, although the author made a number of good suggestions, not a
single (politically incorrect) word was spoken about the need for a
strict performance-based institution. Such things are, after all, now
illegal, where as they weren't in the 1960's. You can have equal
opportunity employment mills in academia, where the only difference
that results is that the number of papers is the same, but they are
crappier ones, and nobody notices because the reviewing standard has
fallen also. But in engineering if you do this, not only do bridges
tend to fall down, and things tend to fall out of the sky also. And
hit the ground or water faster than they should. Wups. With NASA,
people have noticed this happening, but they would rather literally
die (or more specifically, kill more astronauts) than fix it.

Well, at least the astronauts who are hamburgerized these days are
properly ethnically, racially, religiously, and sexually diverse.
Killing a liberal lady schoolteacher is good for the NTA, as it
reminds them that they are still here on planet Earth with those laws
of nature which pay absolutely no attension to who does or doesn't get
"left behind" when it comes to math and physics. No matter how hard
politicians and management would like to pretend otherwise.

Couldn't agree more.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

In article ,
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sat, 17 Jan 2004 07:07:01 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
wrote in :

Mark Folsom wrote:

Just read in the NYT that NASA will not fly the scheduled mission to
service
the Hubble telescope. The one thing they've done with the Shuttle that
was
worth doing, and now they've chickened out. What a bunch of turkeys!!

Mark Folsom

Time to replace the current administration!
Honest, I agree with Sam on this subject.

Sigh! NASA has been under all kinds of administrations and still
is screwing up. There's another thread going somewhere else
where the comment is that one of the problems is that it's a
civilian government org rather than military. [gasping emoticon
replacing bell-bottomed jeans]. I've just read Tip O'Neill's
auto-bio. It appears that the old-style political machines
upgraded themselves from dealing with individual pork to production
line pork without quality control.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.