NASA idiots cancel service mission to Hubble

"db" wrote in message ...
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?

That decision has been made a long time ago - by NASA. The service
mission that has now been canceled was supposed to be the last one, to
prolong Hubble's life untill a replacement is in operation.
It is quite obvious that Bush' interest in space is not for scientific
exploration.

Bush's program has nothing to do with NASA's
decision. They are free to service the Hubble if
they could do so safely and without wasting money.

But you've misrepresented NASA's decision.
Hubble's original lifetime was planned at 15
years... which will be up in 2005. So deciding
not to make any further servicing missions is
entirely consistent with their goals.

Early on, however, they planned to extend
that to 2010. However, Hubble has already
consumed the number of service missions
that were planned for it initially. Yes, at one
time NASA was planning on doing one more...
but not any longer.

The point is, the fact that this doesn't match
their previous plan is irrelevant. The question
is when is it appropriate to end the mission.
If we send one more mission, you or someone
else will be back here in 2008 or 2010 asking
the same questions -- "Hey, why is NASA
dumping the Hubble? They should send one
last Shuttle mission up and fix it!"

Bruce

"Chosp" wrote in message news:Pc7Pb.42205$XD5.31150@fed1read06...
From: Chosp )
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
. com...
"Paul R. Mays" wrote in message ...

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

It is not a "wavelength", stupid.

Any low level dingbat phycist knows we'll need to
pay big bucks to acquire data outside of the visual
range captured at ground level. This data, in my view,
is marginal wrt the visual data received at ground level.
You will need to prove the data acquired by the
"un-filtered" wavelengths by Hubble is worth ANOTHER
$500,000,000 that has already been spent and
(in my view) has not produced any serious break-
through in astronomy.

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

Bull, check the GOA figures.

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".

Any one who handles with "chosps" ain't worth a
pinch of ra-coon ****.

It is considerably larger than the visible portion
of the spectrum. Would you, equally stupidly, call
the visible portion of the spectrum "one wavelength"?

My point was clear, if you intend to spend nearly
a $ 1,000,000,000 chasing wavelengths???

The fact is - Hubble is a national treasure

It was, but servicing that old junk takes funds
from the NGST. Hubble is a 1980 clunker, why
not invest the funds that may keep the old Hubble
going into a new and improved NGST - there are
two s's in progress - and get an improved unit.

- 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.

Ok keep that in mind and put it in the NGST.
IMO, I'd rather see any of NASA's financial
resources dedicated to an improved space-telescope
- designated NGST - too satisfy wavelength issues.
But that telescope better be serviceable by robots,
otherwise taxpayers will pop a fuse. And I won't blame
them.

((chosp, that's a dingbat handle, get real)).

Regards, Ken S. Tucker

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
om...

Pure idiocy.