|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Hubble: We Don't Need No Stinking Glasses
Goodbye Hubble. you served us well. The Hubble Space Telescope (HST) is
doomed to reenter the earth's atmosphere on a Kamikaze mission a few years hence. Its fate was sealed in the FY06 budget just sent to Congress. I can yada yada over its history and potential and historic findings, but the point of this blog is a question: "Do we actually know what we're doing here?" The answer is strikingly simple but all too familiar - probably not. We are taking an instrument of historic value - a national treasure - and throwing it away like so much rubbish that has the potential to serve for many years or even decades in the future. The HST discovered so incredibly much in its relatively short life (compare its life to the great telescope at Palomar where its namesake did so much of his pioneering work.) The corporate whine is that it is just too expensive to keep it in service. Okay - it is expensive - but I would strongly argue with "too expensive". The fact is, everything is expensive. We are almost certainly making a mistake. The very day HST is gone we will go back to astronomical myopia. The decision to scrap the HST is like saying that we as a human species no longer need our glasses and we are quite content to be nearsighted. That, of course is patent foolishness and is, in fact, idiotic. And yet, alas, we have decided: we don't need no stinking glasses. The last moron that said that was hit by a bus. =========== From Dennis Chamberland's Blog Quantum Limit http://QuantumLimit.com The Ultimate Mars Colony http://MarsWars.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 19:45:25 -0500, "a" wrote:
Goodbye Hubble. you served us well. The Hubble Space Telescope (HST) is doomed to reenter the earth's atmosphere on a Kamikaze mission a few years hence. Its fate was sealed in the FY06 budget just sent to Congress. I can yada yada over its history and potential and historic findings, but the point of this blog is a question: "Do we actually know what we're doing here?" The answer is strikingly simple but all too familiar - probably not. We are taking an instrument of historic value - a national treasure - and throwing it away like so much rubbish that has the potential to serve for many years or even decades in the future. The HST discovered so incredibly much in its relatively short life (compare its life to the great telescope at Palomar where its namesake did so much of his pioneering work.) The corporate whine is that it is just too expensive to keep it in service. Okay - it is expensive - but I would strongly argue with "too expensive". The fact is, everything is expensive. We are almost certainly making a mistake. The very day HST is gone we will go back to astronomical myopia. The decision to scrap the HST is like saying that we as a human species no longer need our glasses and we are quite content to be nearsighted. That, of course is patent foolishness and is, in fact, idiotic. And yet, alas, we have decided: we don't need no stinking glasses. The last moron that said that was hit by a bus. =========== From Dennis Chamberland's Blog Quantum Limit http://QuantumLimit.com The Ultimate Mars Colony http://MarsWars.com There once was a 'scope called the Hubble, When launched t'was already in trouble. The end of the Shuttle, Has led to its scuttle. It soon will be nothing but rubble. Rusty |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Rusty" wrote in message
... There once was a 'scope called the Hubble, When launched t'was already in trouble. The end of the Shuttle, Has led to its scuttle. It soon will be nothing but rubble. LOL! Well done! -- Alan Erskine We can get people to the Moon in five years, not the fifteen GWB proposes. Give NASA a real challenge |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Rusty wrote: There once was a 'scope called the Hubble, When launched t'was already in trouble. The end of the Shuttle, Has led to its scuttle. It soon will be nothing but rubble. Rusty Burma Shave! -- Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D., GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C "The loss of the American system of checks and balances is more of a security danger than any terrorist risk." -- Bruce Schneier http://dischordia.blogspot.com http://www.angryherb.net |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:16:29 -0800, Rusty
wrote: There once was a 'scope called the Hubble, When launched t'was already in trouble. The end of the Shuttle, Has led to its scuttle. It soon will be nothing but rubble. ....Oh great. Now Rusty thinks he's Pat. OM -- "No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Rusty wrote: On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 19:45:25 -0500, "a" wrote: Goodbye Hubble. you served us well. The Hubble Space Telescope (HST) is doomed to reenter the earth's atmosphere on a Kamikaze mission a few years hence. Its fate was sealed in the FY06 budget just sent to Congress. I can yada yada over its history and potential and historic findings, but the point of this blog is a question: "Do we actually know what we're doing here?" The answer is strikingly simple but all too familiar - probably not. We are taking an instrument of historic value - a national treasure - and throwing it away like so much rubbish that has the potential to serve for many years or even decades in the future. The HST discovered so incredibly much in its relatively short life (compare its life to the great telescope at Palomar where its namesake did so much of his pioneering work.) The corporate whine is that it is just too expensive to keep it in service. Okay - it is expensive - but I would strongly argue with "too expensive". The fact is, everything is expensive. We are almost certainly making a mistake. The very day HST is gone we will go back to astronomical myopia. The decision to scrap the HST is like saying that we as a human species no longer need our glasses and we are quite content to be nearsighted. That, of course is patent foolishness and is, in fact, idiotic. And yet, alas, we have decided: we don't need no stinking glasses. The last moron that said that was hit by a bus. =========== From Dennis Chamberland's Blog Quantum Limit http://QuantumLimit.com The Ultimate Mars Colony http://MarsWars.com There once was a 'scope called the Hubble, When launched t'was already in trouble. The end of the Shuttle, Has led to its scuttle. It soon will be nothing but rubble. Rusty Hi... In the being of the American space program, failure happen alot. What was the driving force?...the cold war era. I think that the space program is could up with a marketing program or something. The shuttle is a bus no more no less. It is a tool to reach for bigger and better things. Scuttle the Hubble would be due to **** poor home budget planning. Use you imagination. We have not advance in the flight department in 30 years. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
We don't _really_ need Hubble.
We can do better, and are. Both in orbit, and on the ground. Astronomy will not be seriously impared by Hubble's demise. But an updated Hubble using that leftover mirror and updated instruments/systems could probably be kept rather busy. Launch it on whatever unmanned rocket and keep options open for future servicing. Hubble is dying after having served us so well; time to put our efforts into a replacement. --Damon |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 20:27:42 -0600, Damon Hill
wrote: We don't _really_ need Hubble. ...You go to Hell. You go to Hell and you *die* :-P OM -- "No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
OM om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote
in : On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 20:27:42 -0600, Damon Hill wrote: We don't _really_ need Hubble. ..You go to Hell. You go to Hell and you *die* :-P Eh, what's your problem? That was uncalled for, sir. Try it again in 24 hours when you're sober and civil. --Damon I have more respect for you than that. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 23:16:05 -0600, Damon Hill
wrote: OM om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote in : On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 20:27:42 -0600, Damon Hill wrote: We don't _really_ need Hubble. ..You go to Hell. You go to Hell and you *die* :-P Eh, what's your problem? That was uncalled for, sir. ....Pat? You want to clue Damon in on this quote? :-) OM -- "No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
John Hopkins-Led Team Present 3rd Hubble Option | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | February 3rd 05 12:13 AM |
NASA Is Not Giving Up On Hubble! (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 2 | May 2nd 04 01:46 PM |
Congressional Resolutions on Hubble Space Telescope | EFLASPO | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | April 1st 04 03:26 PM |
Don't Desert Hubble | Scott M. Kozel | Space Shuttle | 54 | March 5th 04 04:38 PM |
Hubble images being colorized to enhance their appeal for public - LA Times | Rusty B | Policy | 4 | September 15th 03 10:38 AM |