A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Science Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Hubble Economics - modern math?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 18th 04, 04:51 AM
Bill Clark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hubble Economics - modern math?

So NASA cancels a shuttle maintance mission and says it's cheaper to

(1) re-write the shuttle software program to work with three gyros
operational instead of four; then probably with two instead of three
(we don't even know this is POSSIBLE yet)

(2) design, test, and built a new experiental robot spacecraft that
when launched will rendezvous with the Hubble, attach to it, then
guide it to splashdown in a remote part of the ocean (we don't know if
this is POSSIBLE either)

I find it hard to believe that a single shuttle trip to Hubble to do
regular maintenance will be cheaper than these very risky, unproven
elaborate programs.

As far as that goes, what happens if Bush loses the election and the
next President disagrees with his plans for NASA? Then several
billion dollars will be spent, and many priceless missions canceled,
for nothing at all.

I'm as much of a fan of a mission to the moon and to Mars, but I
believe that NASA should not act on what the President says. Changes
in space policy of this magnitude must be approved by Congress, and
officially written into law after lengthy public debate. Otherwise
we're just chasing our tail like a dog.

Bill Clark
http://home.austin.rr.com/whcii/

  #2  
Old January 18th 04, 05:40 PM
The Ruzicka Family
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hubble Economics - modern math?

I couldn't agree with you more. I would dearly love to see humans sent to
Mars, as well as establishing a base on the Moon. That said, however, I
believe Bush is merely grandstanding and trying to show the electorate that
he has "vision." For Bush, this is no more than a political move for
reelection. Something of this magnitude needs to be mote thoroughly
discussed, dissected, etc, between actual science and space experts, as well
as both sides of Congress, to make sure it's a workable long-range plan that
can and will be implemented, no matter who may be sitting in the White House
in the future. Hell! In order to come up with a long-range energy plan,
Bush/Cheney spent MONTHS in consultations with energy industry leaders and
the GOP leadership (although they refused to consult ALL sides...but I won't
go there now..). Doesn't something of the magnitude of going to Mars
deserve as much or more?

"Bill Clark" wrote in message
om...
So NASA cancels a shuttle maintance mission and says it's cheaper to

(1) re-write the shuttle software program to work with three gyros
operational instead of four; then probably with two instead of three
(we don't even know this is POSSIBLE yet)

(2) design, test, and built a new experiental robot spacecraft that
when launched will rendezvous with the Hubble, attach to it, then
guide it to splashdown in a remote part of the ocean (we don't know if
this is POSSIBLE either)

I find it hard to believe that a single shuttle trip to Hubble to do
regular maintenance will be cheaper than these very risky, unproven
elaborate programs.

As far as that goes, what happens if Bush loses the election and the
next President disagrees with his plans for NASA? Then several
billion dollars will be spent, and many priceless missions canceled,
for nothing at all.

I'm as much of a fan of a mission to the moon and to Mars, but I
believe that NASA should not act on what the President says. Changes
in space policy of this magnitude must be approved by Congress, and
officially written into law after lengthy public debate. Otherwise
we're just chasing our tail like a dog.

Bill Clark
http://home.austin.rr.com/whcii/


  #3  
Old January 19th 04, 03:20 PM
Horatio
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hubble Economics - modern math?

"Bill Clark" wrote in message
om...
So NASA cancels a shuttle maintance mission and says it's cheaper to

(1) re-write the shuttle software program to work with three gyros
operational instead of four; then probably with two instead of three
(we don't even know this is POSSIBLE yet)

(2) design, test, and built a new experiental robot spacecraft that
when launched will rendezvous with the Hubble, attach to it, then
guide it to splashdown in a remote part of the ocean (we don't know if
this is POSSIBLE either)

I find it hard to believe that a single shuttle trip to Hubble to do
regular maintenance will be cheaper than these very risky, unproven
elaborate programs.

As far as that goes, what happens if Bush loses the election and the
next President disagrees with his plans for NASA? Then several
billion dollars will be spent, and many priceless missions canceled,
for nothing at all.

I'm as much of a fan of a mission to the moon and to Mars, but I
believe that NASA should not act on what the President says. Changes
in space policy of this magnitude must be approved by Congress, and
officially written into law after lengthy public debate. Otherwise
we're just chasing our tail like a dog.

Bill Clark
http://home.austin.rr.com/whcii/


Basically, it's throwing away the Hubble to gain the re-election of a
ruthless President. The Hubble images have been stunning, and changed our
perception of the Universe completely, inspiring many new cosmological
theories. It's a treasure and it's life should be, if anything, extended .
When the VLST is in use the Hubble will still be useful and astronomers will
still be fighting for time on it.
America has achieved few more inspiring successes than the launch and
operation of the Hubble Space Telescope. It represents the very best of
America.
G.Bush; have you seen through him yet?
Over here in the UK we certainly hope so. We can't wait for the _good_
Americans to come back and remove him from office.

Horatio.

  #4  
Old January 21st 04, 03:30 AM
The Ruzicka Family
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hubble Economics - modern math?

Basically, it's throwing away the Hubble to gain the re-election of a
ruthless President. The Hubble images have been stunning, and changed our
perception of the Universe completely, inspiring many new cosmological
theories. It's a treasure and it's life should be, if anything, extended .
When the VLST is in use the Hubble will still be useful and astronomers

will
still be fighting for time on it.
America has achieved few more inspiring successes than the launch and
operation of the Hubble Space Telescope. It represents the very best of
America.
G.Bush; have you seen through him yet?
Over here in the UK we certainly hope so. We can't wait for the _good_
Americans to come back and remove him from office.

Horatio.


I, for one, am hoping and praying that the arrogant, holier-than-thou,
asshole gets a painful taste of reality this November and loses!
Just one American's opinion.

Paul

  #5  
Old January 21st 04, 05:11 AM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hubble Economics - modern math?

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:30:23 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
"The Ruzicka Family" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

G.Bush; have you seen through him yet?
Over here in the UK we certainly hope so. We can't wait for the _good_
Americans to come back and remove him from office.

Horatio.


I, for one, am hoping and praying that the arrogant, holier-than-thou,
asshole


Looks like projection to me.

  #6  
Old January 21st 04, 02:47 PM
The Ruzicka Family
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hubble Economics - modern math?


I, for one, am hoping and praying that the arrogant, holier-than-thou,
asshole


Looks like projection to me.


Stop being such a sanctimonious jerk. You may love Bush, but there's no
reason to act like him. You do not know me. You do not now my position on
most things, nor how I relate to or treat other people. Therefore, you have
absolutely no idea whether or not I truly am what I criticize in Bush.
Ergo, you're blowing it out of your ass.

Why don't we both get back to the task at hand: debating the pros and cons
of whether or not Bush has a realistic "vision" for going to Mars. Isn't
that what this newsgroup is for?

By the way, I heard that one way Bush plans to save money when we get to
Mars is to transport the astronauts around Mars by way of rafts on the
canals! ;-)

  #7  
Old January 21st 04, 03:48 PM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hubble Economics - modern math?

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 05:47:32 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
"The Ruzicka Family" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


I, for one, am hoping and praying that the arrogant, holier-than-thou,
asshole


Looks like projection to me.


Stop being such a sanctimonious jerk. You may love Bush, but there's no
reason to act like him.


I don't love Bush.

You do not know me.


Nor, obviously, you me.

  #8  
Old January 21st 04, 03:58 PM
Roger Balettie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hubble Economics - modern math?

"The Ruzicka Family" wrote:
Stop being such a sanctimonious jerk.


Then... moments later, you wrote:

By the way, I heard that one way Bush plans to save money when we get to
Mars is to transport the astronauts around Mars by way of rafts on the
canals! ;-)


Try getting your information from places other than moveon.org and you'll
have more credibility around here.

Regards,
Roger
--
Roger Balettie
former Flight Dynamics Officer
Space Shuttle Mission Control
http://www.balettie.com/

  #9  
Old January 22nd 04, 06:48 PM
rwwff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hubble Economics - modern math?

(Bill Clark) wrote in message . com...
So NASA cancels a shuttle maintance mission and says it's cheaper to

(1) re-write the shuttle software program to work with three gyros
operational instead of four; then probably with two instead of three
(we don't even know this is POSSIBLE yet)

(2) design, test, and built a new experiental robot spacecraft that
when launched will rendezvous with the Hubble, attach to it, then
guide it to splashdown in a remote part of the ocean (we don't know if
this is POSSIBLE either)

I find it hard to believe that a single shuttle trip to Hubble to do
regular maintenance will be cheaper than these very risky, unproven
elaborate programs.

As far as that goes, what happens if Bush loses the election and the
next President disagrees with his plans for NASA? Then several
billion dollars will be spent, and many priceless missions canceled,
for nothing at all.


There really is no alternative to canceling the Hubble mission. The
simple reality is that if the shuttle hooks up with hubble, it can't
then change orbits to hook up with the ISS in case of damage to the
shuttle that prevents a safe reentry.

America has made the decision that dead astronauts are absolutely
unacceptable. That decision has consequences.

Besides, Hubble has been up for quite a long time, trying to jiggle a
couple more years of results out of it instead of concentrating on
future missions and an HST replacement is silly. Its done its duty,
let it rest.

I'm as much of a fan of a mission to the moon and to Mars, but I
believe that NASA should not act on what the President says. Changes
in space policy of this magnitude must be approved by Congress, and
officially written into law after lengthy public debate. Otherwise
we're just chasing our tail like a dog.


As a note, I hate manned missions in general, if mars is important
then my preference would be to pave the planet in rovers and stations.

That said, congress approves things on a year by year basis when you
get down to it, and what *really* matters is what the next year's
appropriation bill looks like. If congress would rather have a fleat
of space telescopes or a jupiter orbiter or whatever, then *that* is
what is going to get the money, and that is what will happen. That
said, you can bet your paycheck, Bush has already felt out those on
the appropriation committees and mostly certainly has a majority of
members ready to appropriate according to the new directive.

We should also be thanking him for the timing he chose, the media only
covers landings, crashes, and big policy statements. With his timing,
and a little luck on MER-B, we will get three decent, positive
headliners in a row about space exploration. All in one month's
time.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.