HST Shutdown

Hi

What do people think to the idea that the hubble could be left to waste
away because it's either too expensive or too risky to launch a service
mission.

Just thought I would ask opinions, I know the HST is going to be
replaced sometime around 2012, however unless serviced the hubble will
not be operational before then.

Given the contributions it's still making, should there be further
servicing missions esp as all shuttle missions are ISS related, so this
would have to be a special mission.

Paul

nightbat wrote

PAUL SUTTON wrote:

Hi

What do people think to the idea that the hubble could be left to waste
away because it's either too expensive or too risky to launch a service
mission.

Just thought I would ask opinions, I know the HST is going to be
replaced sometime around 2012, however unless serviced the hubble will
not be operational before then.

Given the contributions it's still making, should there be further
servicing missions esp as all shuttle missions are ISS related, so this
would have to be a special mission.

Paul

nightbat

Ha, ha, ha, ha, if the predicted 2012 long solar system cycle
Wormwood comet gets here we won't need anything but net reported Darla's
Starships out of here, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Seriously, per Officer
Florida Bert, Nasa doesn't have a reliable space transport vehicle
worthy of risking human astronaut or pilot lives to service the Hubble.
The cost and risk is being debated and shuttle major updated, however,
is the Hubble future mission needed servicing worth the possible loss of
one human life?

ponder on,
the nightbat

nightbat wrote:
nightbat wrote

PAUL SUTTON wrote:

Hi

What do people think to the idea that the hubble could be left to waste
away because it's either too expensive or too risky to launch a service
mission.

Just thought I would ask opinions, I know the HST is going to be
replaced sometime around 2012, however unless serviced the hubble will
not be operational before then.

Given the contributions it's still making, should there be further
servicing missions esp as all shuttle missions are ISS related, so this
would have to be a special mission.

Paul

nightbat

Ha, ha, ha, ha, if the predicted 2012 long solar system cycle
Wormwood comet gets here we won't need anything but net reported Darla's
Starships out of here, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Seriously, per Officer
Florida Bert, Nasa doesn't have a reliable space transport vehicle
worthy of risking human astronaut or pilot lives to service the Hubble.
The cost and risk is being debated and shuttle major updated, however,
is the Hubble future mission needed servicing worth the possible loss of
one human life?

ponder on,
the nightbat


nightbat,

Why not use the HST half the time for military purposes? It could
photograph areas such Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and North Korea.

With a military purpose, our cultural values will allow the pilots to
become justifiably expendable, and science also will be served.

Double-A

On Wed, 25 May 2005 08:03:18 -0500
nightbat wrote:

nightbat wrote

PAUL SUTTON wrote:

Hi

What do people think to the idea that the hubble could be left to
waste away because it's either too expensive or too risky to launch
a service mission.

Just thought I would ask opinions, I know the HST is going to be
replaced sometime around 2012, however unless serviced the hubble
will not be operational before then.

Given the contributions it's still making, should there be further
servicing missions esp as all shuttle missions are ISS related, so
this would have to be a special mission.

Paul

nightbat

Ha, ha, ha, ha, if the predicted 2012 long solar system cycle
Wormwood comet gets here we won't need anything but net reported
Darla's Starships out of here, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Seriously, per
Officer Florida Bert, Nasa doesn't have a reliable space transport
vehicle worthy of risking human astronaut or pilot lives to service
the Hubble. The cost and risk is being debated and shuttle major
updated, however, is the Hubble future mission needed servicing worth
the possible loss of one human life?

Yes, as the most critical times are launch and landing, once up there
it's pretty easy going. So it's no more a risk of going to hubble than
going to the ISS or going up to launch a spy satellite.

The only issue of concern of going to Hubble is if there is damage to
the shuttle it cannot get to the ISS and if the damage is bad enough
like last time it won't be able to land, so crew will no doubt take
suiced pills.




ponder on,
the nightbat

nightbat wrote

Double-A wrote:

nightbat wrote:
nightbat wrote

PAUL SUTTON wrote:

Hi

What do people think to the idea that the hubble could be left to waste
away because it's either too expensive or too risky to launch a service
mission.

Just thought I would ask opinions, I know the HST is going to be
replaced sometime around 2012, however unless serviced the hubble will
not be operational before then.

Given the contributions it's still making, should there be further
servicing missions esp as all shuttle missions are ISS related, so this
would have to be a special mission.

Paul

nightbat

Ha, ha, ha, ha, if the predicted 2012 long solar system cycle
Wormwood comet gets here we won't need anything but net reported Darla's
Starships out of here, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Seriously, per Officer
Florida Bert, Nasa doesn't have a reliable space transport vehicle
worthy of risking human astronaut or pilot lives to service the Hubble.
The cost and risk is being debated and shuttle major updated, however,
is the Hubble future mission needed servicing worth the possible loss of
one human life?

ponder on,
the nightbat

nightbat,

Why not use the HST half the time for military purposes? It could
photograph areas such Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and North Korea.

With a military purpose, our cultural values will allow the pilots to
become justifiably expendable, and science also will be served.

Double-A

nightbat

What and start a major budget war between the Pentagon and Nasa
for don't we have enough government bureaucracy infighting already as it
is? The peaceful original space mission of the Hubble would be
compromised and what's next Marine storm troopers on the ISS? No,
Officer Double-A, for I will not risk one Earth Science Star Race
Diplomatic Elect Officer for disguised military purposes nor would I
approve of the switching of the Hubble primary space mission for part
time military one. All human life is important and valuable and just
because some pilots wear a military uniform does not lessen that fact at
all. The Hubble should remain primary science oriented with increased
importance placed on upgrading and improved safer space designed
transport vehicles. As your Captain elect I know I must have your
complete trust for your safety and duty reliance, just as any military
pilots would demand of their Commanding Officer authority, well being,
and mission priority. The military have plenty of lower orbit
surveillance satellites, the Hubble Telescope should never be made an
military target.

carry on,
the nightbat

On Wed, 25 May 2005 16:42:56 +0200
Charles D. Bohne wrote:

On Wed, 25 May 2005 15:10:38 +0100, Ray Vingnutte
wrote:

The only issue of concern of going to Hubble is if there is damage to
the shuttle it cannot get to the ISS and if the damage is bad enough
like last time it won't be able to land, so crew will no doubt take
suiced pills.

I doubt that they are much concerned about the crew ... however,
a shuttle is very expensive and they might need them for military
purposes as well. Millions of people risk their life daily as part of
their job ...

It's all rather academic really, they can't get the damn thing off the
launch pad, they reached it once then had to take it back.

C.

On Wed, 25 May 2005 09:48:50 -0500
nightbat wrote:

nightbat wrote

Double-A wrote:

nightbat wrote:
nightbat wrote

PAUL SUTTON wrote:

Hi

What do people think to the idea that the hubble could be left
to waste away because it's either too expensive or too risky to
launch a service mission.

Just thought I would ask opinions, I know the HST is going to
be replaced sometime around 2012, however unless serviced the
hubble will not be operational before then.

Given the contributions it's still making, should there be
further servicing missions esp as all shuttle missions are ISS
related, so this would have to be a special mission.

Paul

nightbat

Ha, ha, ha, ha, if the predicted 2012 long solar system
cycle
Wormwood comet gets here we won't need anything but net reported
Darla's Starships out of here, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Seriously, per
Officer Florida Bert, Nasa doesn't have a reliable space transport
vehicle worthy of risking human astronaut or pilot lives to
service the Hubble. The cost and risk is being debated and shuttle
major updated, however, is the Hubble future mission needed
servicing worth the possible loss of one human life?

ponder on,
the nightbat

nightbat,

Why not use the HST half the time for military purposes? It could
photograph areas such Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and North Korea.

With a military purpose, our cultural values will allow the pilots
to become justifiably expendable, and science also will be served.

Double-A

nightbat

What and start a major budget war between the Pentagon and
Nasa
for don't we have enough government bureaucracy infighting already as
it is? The peaceful original space mission of the Hubble would be
compromised and what's next Marine storm troopers on the ISS? No,
Officer Double-A, for I will not risk one Earth Science Star Race
Diplomatic Elect Officer for disguised military purposes nor would I
approve of the switching of the Hubble primary space mission for part
time military one. All human life is important and valuable and just
because some pilots wear a military uniform does not lessen that fact
at all. The Hubble should remain primary science oriented with
increased importance placed on upgrading and improved safer space
designed transport vehicles. As your Captain elect I know I must have
your complete trust for your safety and duty reliance, just as any
military pilots would demand of their Commanding Officer authority,
well being, and mission priority. The military have plenty of lower
orbit surveillance satellites, the Hubble Telescope should never be
made an military target.

Then whats this all about...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Mar28.html

This has to be complete utter madness, weapons in space pointing down to
Earth.




carry on,
the nightbat

nightbat wrote:
nightbat wrote

Double-A wrote:

nightbat wrote:
nightbat wrote

PAUL SUTTON wrote:

Hi

What do people think to the idea that the hubble could be left to waste
away because it's either too expensive or too risky to launch a service
mission.

Just thought I would ask opinions, I know the HST is going to be
replaced sometime around 2012, however unless serviced the hubble will
not be operational before then.

Given the contributions it's still making, should there be further
servicing missions esp as all shuttle missions are ISS related, so this
would have to be a special mission.

Paul

nightbat

Ha, ha, ha, ha, if the predicted 2012 long solar system cycle
Wormwood comet gets here we won't need anything but net reported Darla's
Starships out of here, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Seriously, per Officer
Florida Bert, Nasa doesn't have a reliable space transport vehicle
worthy of risking human astronaut or pilot lives to service the Hubble.
The cost and risk is being debated and shuttle major updated, however,
is the Hubble future mission needed servicing worth the possible loss of
one human life?

ponder on,
the nightbat

nightbat,

Why not use the HST half the time for military purposes? It could
photograph areas such Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and North Korea.

With a military purpose, our cultural values will allow the pilots to
become justifiably expendable, and science also will be served.

Double-A

nightbat

What and start a major budget war between the Pentagon and Nasa
for don't we have enough government bureaucracy infighting already as it
is? The peaceful original space mission of the Hubble would be
compromised and what's next Marine storm troopers on the ISS? No,
Officer Double-A, for I will not risk one Earth Science Star Race
Diplomatic Elect Officer for disguised military purposes nor would I
approve of the switching of the Hubble primary space mission for part
time military one. All human life is important and valuable and just
because some pilots wear a military uniform does not lessen that fact at
all. The Hubble should remain primary science oriented with increased
importance placed on upgrading and improved safer space designed
transport vehicles. As your Captain elect I know I must have your
complete trust for your safety and duty reliance, just as any military
pilots would demand of their Commanding Officer authority, well being,
and mission priority. The military have plenty of lower orbit
surveillance satellites, the Hubble Telescope should never be made an
military target.

carry on,
the nightbat


Wouldn't you be willing to risk your life for such a noble cause as
saving the Hubble? It's better than just sitting around here on Earth
waiting for the inevitable dry rot to set in and take you down
unheralded.

Double-A

On 25 May 2005 08:09:38 -0700
"Double-A" wrote:


nightbat wrote:
nightbat wrote

Double-A wrote:

nightbat wrote:
nightbat wrote

PAUL SUTTON wrote:

Hi

What do people think to the idea that the hubble could be left
to waste away because it's either too expensive or too risky
to launch a service mission.

Just thought I would ask opinions, I know the HST is going to
be replaced sometime around 2012, however unless serviced the
hubble will not be operational before then.

Given the contributions it's still making, should there be
further servicing missions esp as all shuttle missions are ISS
related, so this would have to be a special mission.

Paul

nightbat

Ha, ha, ha, ha, if the predicted 2012 long solar system
cycle
Wormwood comet gets here we won't need anything but net reported
Darla's Starships out of here, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Seriously,
per Officer Florida Bert, Nasa doesn't have a reliable space
transport vehicle worthy of risking human astronaut or pilot
lives to service the Hubble. The cost and risk is being debated
and shuttle major updated, however, is the Hubble future mission
needed servicing worth the possible loss of one human life?

ponder on,
the nightbat

nightbat,

Why not use the HST half the time for military purposes? It could
photograph areas such Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and North Korea.

With a military purpose, our cultural values will allow the pilots
to become justifiably expendable, and science also will be served.

Double-A

nightbat

What and start a major budget war between the Pentagon and
Nasa
for don't we have enough government bureaucracy infighting already
as it is? The peaceful original space mission of the Hubble would be
compromised and what's next Marine storm troopers on the ISS? No,
Officer Double-A, for I will not risk one Earth Science Star Race
Diplomatic Elect Officer for disguised military purposes nor would I
approve of the switching of the Hubble primary space mission for
part time military one. All human life is important and valuable and
just because some pilots wear a military uniform does not lessen
that fact at all. The Hubble should remain primary science oriented
with increased importance placed on upgrading and improved safer
space designed transport vehicles. As your Captain elect I know I
must have your complete trust for your safety and duty reliance,
just as any military pilots would demand of their Commanding Officer
authority, well being, and mission priority. The military have
plenty of lower orbit surveillance satellites, the Hubble Telescope
should never be made an military target.

carry on,
the nightbat


Wouldn't you be willing to risk your life for such a noble cause as
saving the Hubble? It's better than just sitting around here on Earth
waiting for the inevitable dry rot to set in and take you down
unheralded.

I tell you this, I don't want to grow old in this society, my only
prospect for the future is ending up in an old peoples home, alone,
drugged up to keep me quite while they steal my pension. No thanks, I
intend to be gone before that ever happens.



Double-A

On Wed, 25 May 2005 17:53:04 +0200
Charles D. Bohne wrote:

On Wed, 25 May 2005 15:52:04 +0100, Ray Vingnutte
wrote:

It's all rather academic really, they can't get the damn thing off
the launch pad, they reached it once then had to take it back.

So why not ask the Russians? For the right payment they would
do the job :-)

I read that the US government won't allow payments to be made to the
Russians. I also read that some are trying to get that changed but as
it's all political I wouldn't hold much hope for it.

C.