|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#191
January 31st 05, 04:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#192
January 31st 05, 06:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
George William Herbert ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote: : George William Herbert ) wrote: : : Eric Chomko wrote: : : George William Herbert ) wrote: : : : Eric Chomko wrote: : : : You wouldn't KNOW! : : : : : There's no evidence of it. JWST is still planned to be operated by : : : STSI as far as I know, and GSFC's involvement is still key. : : : : But to hav a period where we have no ST makes no sense. : : : Why? : : Because the current demand for use outweighs its use. It is not like it : isn't used. : The current "demand" of every major telescope outweighs its use. : Because the users aren't paying for it. The point is that Hubble will continue to get used if repaired. : : We have no other spectrum in which an orbital observatory : : has had continuous operations. It's not like we don't have : : plenty of ground based telescopes. : : But none compete with Hubble. : This is just grossly ignorant, Eric. The light gathering : capability of *many* ground based telescopes far exceeds : that of Hubble. Keck I and II individually far exceed Hubble's : light gathering. The atmospheric influence is another factor other than light gathering power. Hubble doesn't have weather to deal with. I don't care how good your telescope is, if you have a storm overhead you don't get to view your object. Hubble has no such problem. Who is ignorant on this one? : Hubble brings a high resolution UV capability that you can't : do from the ground, and a undistorted resolution that is : slightly superior to ground based telescopes. It also can : do much longer exposures than ground based telescopes can : do at the moment, somewhat balanced by its inferior light : gathering area. Slighty superior? You totally ignore local weather at your ground-based observatories. : Extremely large ground based telescopes now in the design : stages, such as Europe's OWL telescope (www.eso.org/projects/owl/) : should be superior to Hubble in almost every way except : UV spectrum capabilities. Do you have examples of any ground-based image that is superior to the Hubble equivalent? : Here, you tell me why ISS is more important than Hubble? : : : If there's some requirement for a truly permanent continuous : : orbital telescope visible spectrum coverage, then that : : requirement has never been articulated clearly to the : : science planners. It has ever been clearly articulated : : to the public, or congress. : : You make it seem we haven't been using it! : No, Eric. We are clearly using it. : The astronomical community was not promised that Hubble : or a successor in the visible spectrum would remain in : continuous operation forever. There has never been a : plan or program office whose job it was to provide a : continuous perpetual availability of orbital optical : astronomy platforms. If Hubble were broken and needed serious repair, then I be inclined to agree. But since Hubble just needs PM, we really should simply do it. : *All* the great observatories had expected lifespans, : in some cases very short ones. As have their followons. : There has never been a plan to have continuous IR coverage : in space, or gamma ray or x-ray. Or visible. : If there had been a guarantee of continuous coverage, : NGST / Webb Telescope would have been done as a less : ambitious project intended to fly within Hubble's initially : designed lifespan. That was rather explicitly not the : planning decision made by the Astronomical community. : JWST was pushed out in order to get its capabilities as : high as possible. Yes, but it won't be ready until 2011. : : The current program has never *planned* to have truly : : continous permanent orbital telescope visible spectrum : : coverage. : : : People demanding that Hubble be kept going are asking : : for something over and above what has been promised : : in the past. : : So, Is it broken? No. What does it need? Regular PM. Who are we to : kill it if it still is of great service? : If its regular PM was not a Big Deal, then we would not be having : this conversation, Eric. But there's no Jiffy Lube Gyro Shop in : Hubble's orbital plane. The closest thing is a shuttle. : : : There was no pre-Columbia change in the Hubble plans or NGST plans. : : : : Hubble was to have a repair mission soon as I recall. : : : Ok, you're arguing in the parent thread that NASA is : : shifting resources to JSC away from "other useful things" : : like Hubble. : : : Why did the Hubble repair mission go away? : : Because the current administration feels that all 27 shuttle missions must : go to ISS. : : : Where did the money the Hubble repair mission was going to : : spend go? : : To ISS, as I understand it. : That is not correct. It's gone to Return to Flight, : the new general purpose Shuttle bucket. But isn't every shuttle now destined to be an ISS shuttle? : : The mission went away because Shuttle is now considered : : brittle, and the money did not go to KSC, it went into : : NASA general planning fund, and probably has ended up : : with Return to Flight or Exploration Systems destinations. : : You act like it isn't clear that Hubble is GSFC and ISS is JSC. C'mon, : don't pretend to be naive on this issue. : ISS isn't getting more funding, Eric. ISS's capabilities : and funding have been frozen for some time now. : What's eating money is Shuttle Return to Flight, which is : required to do any Shuttle missions at all. Of which ALL remaining shuttle missions go to ISS. What part of the fact that all shuttle missions going to ISS, don't you get WRT HST getting the shaft? : : The Congressional committees didn't cause Columbia to burn up. : : Right, but why should ISS get all the benefit and HST get squat? : Because ISS happens to be the destination they can go to and, : if they broke the Shuttle on ascent, park the Shuttle and have : the crew survive on ISS until a rescue flight can come up : and get them down. Well, I suspect that the first few should do exactly that. : If we had an equivalent safe haven in Hubble's orbit, : or ISS had been built in Hubble's orbital plane, : there would be no argument that there's no additional : risk for the Hubble mission, and the actual flight cost : of the Hubble mission would have been acceptable, : and the incremental flight risk would have been : acceptable. : But post-Columbia, NASA leadership are being extra : cautious about Shuttle operations. Hubble does not : posess one mission safety requirement which they have : imposed on ongoing flight operations. : : The Congressional committees didn't establish the new flight : : safety guidelines. : : No, the allocated the funds. : : : The Congressional committees didn't do the engineering that : : estimated that it will take a billion dollars in new money : : to fly the robotic servicing mission. : : Right. : : : : As I indicated earlier in thread, the only big winners from : : : the Exploration Initiative to date are HQ. : : : : But all centers that support manned spaceflight will get preference, IMO. : : : Preference for WHAT? : : Exclusive use of the shuttle. ISS! : : : All centers that support manned spaceflight are getting nada : : right now. All the money's at HQ and Steidle isn't sending it : : to the centers, Eric. : : When we return to flight all that will change and you know it! : What, Exploration's budget is going to get taken away and : given to JSC for Shuttle and ISS? The majority? Yes! : That's absurd. Tell me that in 2-4 years! : : Follow the money. Steidle is not playing the usual NASA : : center funding game. He's building a small, from what I have : : personally seen very innovative (for NASA) new team at HQ and : : doing widespread outreach to find many alternative ideas on : : how to get things done. Some of these are publically released : : Exploration aquisition and research programs, some are private : : initiatives which they're doing behind the scenes to try and : : see how things can get better and cheaper. : : : But, and I would really appreciate it you'd LISTEN this time, : : THEY ARE NOT SENDING THE MONEY TO THE CENTERS. : : No, they are simply focusing on which projects they favor, and THAT has : indirect affect on who gets money. : : If and when Hubble gets decommissioned, where do you think the funds saved : will go? If you don't think ISS, the you're being disingenuous. : And the indirect reallocation is through the shuttle. : What funds will be saved decommissioning Hubble? STScI is : a very low cost facility. Operations teams at both GSFC and STScI would probably disagree. : ISS isn't getting any more components. The production line : is shut down and the workers are gone. : Shuttle isn't getting any more upgrades than Return to Flight : requires now. Which was the same situation after the Challenger disaster. : : Your idea of what's been happening with Exploration Systems : : funds is simply wrong. I've been trying to tell you all week. : : And I'm trying to tell you that you see it from the other side while : thinking you view it from a neutral place. It goes back to making up : your mind on things without taking a truely empathetic point-of-view. We : have been around with this before! : : : You don't appear to believe that it's possible for them to : : be doing business differently. Please, if you don't believe : : my relaying of the information, then go do your own research : : and see what OExS has been doing for the last year. : : It's all public info. : : Look 27 shuttles and none are available to sevice Hubble? No, I;m not : buying it! : : : Repeat after me! : : THEY ARE NOT SENDING THE MONEY TO THE CENTERS. : : Say it again! : : THEY ARE NOT SENDING THE MONEY TO THE CENTERS. : : Hallelujah! Say it again! : : THEY ARE NOT SENDING THE MONEY TO THE CENTERS. : : One more time! : : THEY ARE NOT SENDING THE MONEY TO THE CENTERS. : : Reform be blessed! : : I know that! It is based upon programs. Those programs are suspectible to : favor and who is in power. ISS is popular and HST isn't. The planned usage : of the shuttle has made that clear. : Please repeat after me: : The ISS production facilities are shut down. : The Shuttle upgrades other than Return to Flight are : terminated and their workers are gone. Yet, ALL 27 STS missions are to ISS and none, out of a needed ONE, are going to HST. It doesn't HAVE to be that way. A decision was made. A political one! : You can't hold any sort of reasonable opinion on : this if you won't research and see what programs : have been shut down and where the money really : has gone, Eric. I know what is going on! I've seen it before. : You and Greg are living in 2002 land. It's not 2002 : anymore, and the structural differences in how NASA : is doing things are immense. If you can't be bothered : to look and see what's changed and how significant that is, : then you're rendering yourself irrellevant. : The changes have happened, and if you blind yourself : to them you know nothing. You keep assuming that programs : which don't exist anymore will benefit from problems and : funding shifts in the future. ISS production is dead : and gone. Shuttle long term upgrades are dead and gone. : Stop living in fantasyland. They can't eat your budget : when they're dead programs. So when we start shuttling the astronauts and the cosmonauts up to ISS, along with supplies, that money has already been spent? ISS will cost us nothing more tommorrow than it cost us today? Eric : -george william herbert :
|
|
#193
January 31st 05, 06:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#194
January 31st 05, 11:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
George William Herbert wrote:
gregg wrote: : We have no other spectrum in which an orbital observatory : has had continuous operations. CHANDRA has been operating continuously since launch in 1998. It operates in the X-Ray spectrum. You're missing the point, In reading below I see that...evidently what was meant by "continuous operations" was from one observatory to another. and it was deployed July 23, 1999. Sorry..slip of the finger-typo. Chandra had a design lifetime of 5 years on orbit. It probably will last longer, but that's the advertised design lifetime. The followon mission, Constellation-X, is still in long term planning and not expected to launch until 2011 at the earliest. That schedule was known and accepted when Constellation-X was formalized in 1996, before Chandra was launched in 1999 but when Chandra's design and planned lifetime on orbit were known. There is no plan which formally requires or guarantees that there will be a continuous X-ray observatory in orbit from the time Chandra launched in 1999 going through the forseeable future. Agreed. The design and schedule for Constellation-X were timed with the implicit acknowledgement that it's likely that Chandra will fail before Constellation-X gets launched, and that therefore it's likely there will be a gap in observation capability. Yes now I understand what was attempted to be said. -- Saville Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments: http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat: http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm Steambending FAQ with photos: http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm
|
|
#195
February 1st 05, 07:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#196
February 1st 05, 10:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 19:16:40 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Notice how Rand didn't answer. Eric, the vast majority of your posts are far too stupid to waste time responding to. Contrary to appearances, I actually do have other things to do.
|
|
#197
February 4th 05, 04:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In sci.space.policy George William Herbert wrote:
Please explain how this is adequate evidence to justify your conclusion that every NASA employee interviewed on this subject lied about it, every WH employee interviewed on this subject lied about it, and the lack of otherwise known physical or documentary evidence. Don't you see, George? The complete lack of evidence is what proves the conspiracy! Mike ----- Michael Kent Apple II Forever!! St. Peters, MO
|
|
#198
February 4th 05, 05:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In sci.space.policy George William Herbert wrote:
Please explain how this is adequate evidence to justify your conclusion that every NASA employee interviewed on this subject lied about it, every WH employee interviewed on this subject lied about it, and the lack of otherwise known physical or documentary evidence. Don't you see, George? The complete lack of evidence is what proves the conspiracy! Mike ----- Michael Kent Apple II Forever!! St. Peters, MO ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ If you tell someone else, what you were told and what you believe, does it remain a lie ? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
|
|
#199
February 4th 05, 06:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael Kent ) wrote:
: In sci.space.policy George William Herbert wrote: : Please explain how this is adequate evidence to justify : your conclusion that every NASA employee interviewed on : this subject lied about it, every WH employee interviewed : on this subject lied about it, and the lack of otherwise : known physical or documentary evidence. : Don't you see, George? The complete lack of evidence is what proves the : conspiracy! Yes, make the conspiracy as big as possible so as to make it unbelieveable. That is what lone nutters do WRT the JFK assassination. When in reality, a key few in the know and the rest simply following orders on a need-to-know basis is all you need. Oh, and a means to cover up. Eric : Mike : ----- : Michael Kent Apple II Forever!! : St. Peters, MO :
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Robots to rescue Hubble? | Steve Dufour | Misc | 23 | May 6th 04 09:15 AM |
| NASA Is Not Giving Up On Hubble! (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 2 | May 2nd 04 01:46 PM |
| Don't Desert Hubble | Scott M. Kozel | Policy | 46 | February 17th 04 05:33 PM |
| UA Scientist Sheds New Lights On Outer Planets With Hubble Space Telescope | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 22nd 04 09:05 PM |
| Hubble Space Telescope first casualty of Bush space initiative | Tom Abbott | Policy | 10 | January 21st 04 05:20 AM |
Linear Mode
