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

Scott M. Kozel wrote:

JazzMan wrote:

Scott M. Kozel wrote:
JazzMan wrote:
Scott M. Kozel wrote:
JazzMan wrote:
Scott M. Kozel wrote:
JazzMan wrote:
Scott M. Kozel wrote:

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

The same Al Gore that "invented" the internet?

The one and same! :-]

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.htm

You should stop spouting the mindless drivel of the
extremists and do your own research sometime. You made
yourself look like an idiot. It's not that hard to use
your own mind instead of loaning it out to other idiots.

Now, now, Jazz, allow the nice attendant to clean the vomit off of your
face, and to reinstall your head protector. Everything's going to be
all right.

LOL! I hope the people that borrowed your brain left a
deposit...

Why didn't you try to fight off the buzzard that stole yours?

He didn't get far. Like the last two that tried, he puked
it up just a few hundred feet away, so I went and got it
back.

Oh, I see... You might consider carrying a shotgun with you, to "take
down" any more such attempts.

Too hard to pick out all the pellets when I'm eating...

JazzMan
--
************************************************** ********
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
************************************************** ********
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
************************************************** ********

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:59:37 -0800, in a place far, far away, Steve
Hix made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

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

And they still couldn't get enough to win.

Because the Governor and Secretary of State were Republicans.

Even the NYT, Times and Newsweek gave up on that line of argument
shortly after the election.

Yes, but Dick won't. He still fantasizes that Al Gore is president.

Typical right-wing lie. People who have deluded themselves into
believing that Bush won the election fair and square, and that it was
*Al Gore* who tried to steal the election, should not throw stones.

"Dick Morris" wrote in message

Typical right-wing lie. People who have deluded themselves into
believing that Bush won the election fair and square, and that it was
*Al Gore* who tried to steal the election, should not throw stones.

Even though I didn't vote for Al, I admire him, and think he's actually got
his head and heart in the right place; he was very noble in his concession.
One can certainly argue that it doesn't seem right that a guy who got more
votes lost the election. I don't think either one tried to "steal" the
election. I think they both wanted to make sure that the right outcome was
arrived at. I do think that within the election rules we have set up -
albeit now seen as a leaky and imprecise system when the vote is especially
close - that Bush probably barely won the election the way the rules are
laid out.

Jon

"JimO" wrot...
MSNBC - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4580820/

Instead of arguing about whether the shuttle can/cannot do the job, or
whether Bush is/isn't to blaim, has anyone stopped to think if there could
be a better way? Not just to fix the problem of this service visit, but all
the others too? If the shuttle can only go to the ISS then why not take
hubble there as well?

Deep Space One has proven the effectiveness and capacity of ion-propulsion.
The required deltaV of 3kmps is well within the capacity of such a system,
at which point the hubble can be serviced in perfect safety. Afterwards the
ion-drive system can move it away if required, and then come back to the
station for service, refueling and storage. Such a reusable OTV would have
many uses, not the least of which would be further hubble missions.

John

"John" wrote in message ...
"JimO" wrot...
MSNBC - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4580820/

Instead of arguing about whether the shuttle can/cannot do the job, or
whether Bush is/isn't to blaim, has anyone stopped to think if there could
be a better way? Not just to fix the problem of this service visit, but all
the others too? If the shuttle can only go to the ISS then why not take
hubble there as well?

Because Hubble would not work well, or at all, at or
near ISS.

"Christopher M. Jones" wrote...
"John" wrote...
"JimO" wrot...
MSNBC - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4580820/

Instead of arguing about whether the shuttle can/cannot do the job, or
whether Bush is/isn't to blaim, has anyone stopped to think if there
could
be a better way? Not just to fix the problem of this service visit, but
all
the others too? If the shuttle can only go to the ISS then why not take
hubble there as well?

Because Hubble would not work well, or at all, at or
near ISS.

Hence I said Hubble could be moved away afterwards. Return the OTV to the
station, replace the worn out ion drive grids and either send it off to do
something else or dock it to part of the station. Repeat five years later.
Keeping such a 'spaceship' at the station could be good practice for keeping
the mars and moon ships there whilst they're being assembled at a later
date.

John

On 3/30/04 2:12 AM, in article ,
"John" wrote:

"Christopher M. Jones" wrote...
"John" wrote...
"JimO" wrot...
MSNBC - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4580820/

Instead of arguing about whether the shuttle can/cannot do the job, or
whether Bush is/isn't to blaim, has anyone stopped to think if there
could
be a better way? Not just to fix the problem of this service visit, but
all
the others too? If the shuttle can only go to the ISS then why not take
hubble there as well?

Because Hubble would not work well, or at all, at or
near ISS.

Hence I said Hubble could be moved away afterwards. Return the OTV to the
station, replace the worn out ion drive grids and either send it off to do
something else or dock it to part of the station. Repeat five years later.
Keeping such a 'spaceship' at the station could be good practice for keeping
the mars and moon ships there whilst they're being assembled at a later
date.

John


John, I just finished reading an article in the April (new issue) of Sky and
Telescope (NASA Seeks To Give Hubble The Heave-Ho,pp. 24-25 ). In that
article it states "NASA now plans to develop a robot that will fly to the
telescope, attach a retrorocket, and steer the spacecraft to a harmless
reentry over an unpopulated area.."

My question is: (if there are any experts in orbital mechanics out there
please tell me why this wouldn¹t work, Im not an expert on this subject )
why cant the retrorocket be used instead (as you have suggested ) to put the
Hubble in the same area as the ISS. It would seem to me that that would
solve the immediate safety problem as well as provide a service platform for
servicing the Hubble and installing the COS and the WFC3.

Any thoughts on solutions out there?

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 11:07:51 -0800, in a place far, far away, Chuck
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:


My question is: (if there are any experts in orbital mechanics out there
please tell me why this wouldn¹t work, Im not an expert on this subject )
why cant the retrorocket be used instead (as you have suggested ) to put the
Hubble in the same area as the ISS.

It would require a large plane change, and far too much delta v.
Deorbiting is cheap, but moving it to a 52 degree orbit would cost
almost as much in propellant as launching it in the first place.

"Chuck" wrote ...
My question is: (if there are any experts in orbital mechanics out there
please tell me why this wouldn¹t work, Im not an expert on this subject )
why cant the retrorocket be used instead (as you have suggested ) to put
the
Hubble in the same area as the ISS. It would seem to me that that would
solve the immediate safety problem as well as provide a service platform
for
servicing the Hubble and installing the COS and the WFC3.

Any thoughts on solutions out there?

NASA will probably use a solid rocket, since they use a lot of those for
changing orbits and require less care than liquid fuels. Henec are cheeper.
A solid rocket required to send hubble to the ISS would be too big. So would
a liquid rocket. The change is 3kmps, which is about a third of the
acceleration that the shuttle needs to get into orbit in the first place.

Ion drives are an order of magnatude more efficient than the shuttle's
engines though. A ion-drive OTV need only weigh a ton or two, and could bye
launched as a progress/soyuz varient. (For minimum cost.)

It would of course require NASA to invest a little money now to save a
fortune later. Something NASA has never been very good at, even on the rare
occasions congress allows them the chance.

John

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 21:05:45 +0100, in a place far, far away, "John"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

The change is 3kmps, which is about a third of the
acceleration that the shuttle needs to get into orbit in the first place.

What's your basis for that number? How much of a plane change were
you assuming?