NASA idiots cancel service mission to Hubble

In article ,
Uncle Al wrote:
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.

A large fraction of Americans have beliefs about the age of the universe
that are routinely contradicted by most sciences, including astronomy.
What would be the net effect on Bush's popularity if he dumped the Hubble
telescope into some convenient ocean?

--
David Canzi --

David Canzi wrote:

In article ,
Uncle Al wrote:
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.

A large fraction of Americans have beliefs about the age of the universe
that are routinely contradicted by most sciences, including astronomy.
What would be the net effect on Bush's popularity if he dumped the Hubble
telescope into some convenient ocean?

He'd polish the Bible Belt. Mobs would fill the streets proclaiming
hosannas that the Earth was 6000 years old. The meek shall inherit
the Earth, and Hell with it.

What makes you think NASA could hit an ocean, as opposed to Paris or
Teheran?

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:33:00 -0800, Uncle Al
wrote:

David Canzi wrote:

In article ,
Uncle Al wrote:
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.

A large fraction of Americans have beliefs about the age of the universe
that are routinely contradicted by most sciences, including astronomy.
What would be the net effect on Bush's popularity if he dumped the Hubble
telescope into some convenient ocean?

He'd polish the Bible Belt. Mobs would fill the streets proclaiming
hosannas that the Earth was 6000 years old. The meek shall inherit
the Earth, and Hell with it.

What makes you think NASA could hit an ocean, as opposed to Paris or
Teheran?


Or Washington DC. THAT would be poetic.





--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: TuriFake(at)hotmail.com

"Shake it like a polaroid picture."
- Andre 3000 of Outkast

"Harry Conover" wrote in message
om...
"Mark Folsom" wrote in message
...
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

Mark, at what point in time would you decide that Hubble had completed
its mission and productive lifetime?

It's planned productive lifetime is being cut short by the decision to
cancel this last service trip. It isn't nearly obsolete. A great deal of
the planned service was upgrades.


Take into account the extreme costs involved in supporting it beyond
that "productive lifetime". Don't you really have a higher priority
scientific application that can more productively employ this funding?

A number of posts here have amply explained the very productive time that
was ahead for the Hubble after the next scheduled servicing. It has been
one of the most spectacular results of the whole space program. It should
be kept going as long as it continues to produce the steady stream of
spectacular results that it has been producing like nothing else in
existence. The whole idiotic space station, for all its tens of billions,
will *never* produce as much good science as the Hubble has produced in a
week.

Where have you been?

Mark Folsom

In article , (David Canzi) writes:
In article ,
Uncle Al wrote:
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.

A large fraction of Americans have beliefs about the age of the universe
that are routinely contradicted by most sciences, including astronomy.
What would be the net effect on Bush's popularity if he dumped the Hubble
telescope into some convenient ocean?

Negative.

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

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
om...
"Paul R. Mays" wrote in message
...

Hi Dr. Mays

Sorry--there are ultraviolet and infrared bands you can't see at all
from
the surface--ever.

So is this worth a $1/2 billion to keep this wavelength?

It is not a "wavelength", stupid.
It wouldn't cost $1/2 billion to add another mission
either. That is a bogus number.


So, you're full of ****.
Mark Folsom

That sucks. you make one good point on the opacity
of the atmosphere - at one wavelength - and shoe-
horn this into a complete insult of our arguments.

Because he is right and you are bull****ting.
Only an ignorant dolt would consider calling the
ultraviolet portion of the spectrum " one wavelength".
It is considerably larger than the visible portion
of the spectrum. Would you, equally stupidly, call
the visible portion of the spectrum "one wavelength"?

The fact is - Hubble is a national treasure - not yet
in the prime of its life - not remotely obsolete - the
most productive telescope in history - with a nearly
quarter of a billion dollars worth of equipment already in
existence, paid for, bagged up in clean rooms,
ready and waiting to be installed - which, if installed,
would increase its productivity by another order
of magnitude. It would not become obsolete in its
entire operational lifetime - even if that lasted another
decade.

"David Canzi" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Uncle Al wrote:
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.

A large fraction of Americans have beliefs about the age of the universe
that are routinely contradicted by most sciences, including astronomy.

A pity.

What would be the net effect on Bush's popularity if he dumped the Hubble
telescope into some convenient ocean?

It would demonstrate once again to the world that the
USA is simply incapable of finishing anything it starts.
The net effect would be yet another increase in the rate
of intentional stupidification of the American population.

It would be another raging bull set loose in the Museum of Mental
Arts.

"Mark Folsom" wrote in message
...
"Harry Conover" wrote in message
om...
"Mark Folsom" wrote in message
...
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

Mark, at what point in time would you decide that Hubble had completed
its mission and productive lifetime?

It's planned productive lifetime is being cut short by the decision to
cancel this last service trip. It isn't nearly obsolete. A great deal of
the planned service was upgrades.

Exactly. You don't put a racehorse out to pasture until it starts losing
races. Not before it has even reached the prime of its life.
With almost a quarter billion dollars of upgrades ALREADY in existence
(and waiting in a clean room) to be installed - Hubble could still have had
fully one third of its mission left. With those upgrades - it would not have
become obsolete for its entire operational lifetime - even if it lasted
another decade.
http://hubble.gsfc.nasa.gov/overview/



Take into account the extreme costs involved in supporting it beyond
that "productive lifetime".

The estimates that have been bandied about in the popular press of the costs
involved in adding one more mission to existing shuttle operations have been
over-blown for dramatic reasons. Shuttle operations operate with basically a
fixed overhead. All of those people get paid whether it flies or not. It has
been
estimated that it would actually cost between $50 million and $100 million
to add
another flight to its existing manifest. Bear in mind that, in this case,
the cargo has
already been bought and paid for.
Secondly, it would not, in any way, shape, or form be a case of
"supporting it past
its "productive lifetime" ".


Don't you really have a higher priority
scientific application that can more productively employ this funding?

No. There has been no sign of any intention to replace the capablities
of the existing flight hardware that is sitting on the ground waiting to be
installed. It is already bought and paid for. The detectors can't be used
on the ground. There is no intention to use any of that $200 million worth
of state-of-the-art detectors in any other spacecraft. A complete
and utter waste.
When Hubble is gone it is gone for good. Before it has even reached its
scientific peak. This is a crime against intelligence.


A number of posts here have amply explained the very productive time that
was ahead for the Hubble after the next scheduled servicing. It has been
one of the most spectacular results of the whole space program. It should
be kept going as long as it continues to produce the steady stream of
spectacular results that it has been producing like nothing else in
existence. The whole idiotic space station, for all its tens of billions,
will *never* produce as much good science as the Hubble has produced in a
week.

Where have you been?

Mark Folsom

"Harry Conover" wrote in message
om...
"Mark Folsom" wrote in message
...
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

Mark, at what point in time would you decide that Hubble had completed
its mission and productive lifetime?

Take into account the extreme costs involved in supporting it beyond
that "productive lifetime". Don't you really have a higher priority
scientific application that can more productively employ this funding?

I would have said that Hubble only reaches the end of its useful life when
there are alternative facilities available which have higher resolution,
greater sensitivity, better pointing stability, better seeing and a better
bandwidth than Hubble.

Telescopes are not just toys which you throw away when you have become tired
of playing with them.

Franz

Don't you really have a higher priority
scientific application that can more productively employ this funding?

I am not sure what you meant, but
the MIR-2 (aka ISS) is a total waste,
the mission that the Columbia was on when it burned up
was a total waste.
IMO, Hubble maintenence was the only useful thing that the shuttle did.
Go to the moon...and do what?
Menwith


Harry Conover wrote:

"Mark Folsom" wrote in message ...
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

Mark, at what point in time would you decide that Hubble had completed
its mission and productive lifetime?

Take into account the extreme costs involved in supporting it beyond
that "productive lifetime". Don't you really have a higher priority
scientific application that can more productively employ this funding?

Harry C.