The Hubble Space Telescope...

... belongs in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, not spread across the
earth as a debris field.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/994737.asp?0cv=TB10

begin quote

In the wake of the space shuttle Columbia disaster, NASA pulled the plug on
any plans it had to retrieve the Hubble Space Telescope at the end of its
life so it could be displayed in a museum.

end quote, begin rant

NASA (or better yet Congress) should pull the plug on some NASA managers,
instead of the Hubble Space Telescope. The Hubble Space Telescope has
contributed so much to our the knowledge of the Universe it would be
criminal not to put it in a museum for display along with all it's
achievements.

NASA management, definitely the "Wrong Stuff". Not a care in the world
about spreading Columbia all across East Texas, but worried about Hubble
debris. Not a creative or innovative thought about how to repair Columbia
on-orbit with the stuff they had on-board. No wonder they can't figure out
how to make a repair kit for the heat shield so they can service or bring
Hubble down safely.

end rant

Save the Hubble, from a disgraceful death,

Craig Fink

Craig Fink writes:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/994737.asp?0cv=TB10

begin quote

In the wake of the space shuttle Columbia disaster, NASA pulled the plug on
any plans it had to retrieve the Hubble Space Telescope at the end of its
life so it could be displayed in a museum.

end quote, begin rant

NASA (or better yet Congress) should pull the plug on some NASA managers,
instead of the Hubble Space Telescope. The Hubble Space Telescope has
contributed so much to our the knowledge of the Universe it would be
criminal not to put it in a museum for display along with all it's
achievements.


I disagree with your assessment. Sure, if it's cheap and safe, by all
means save important scientific stuff for a musuem. But if it will cost
a lot of money, or be risky, better to honor its heritage by spending
the money and/or risk on a new scientific instrument. Given the
choice, I'd much rather see new data from a new instrument than see the
Hubble hardware in a museum.

Lou Scheffer

Craig Fink wrote:

NASA management, definitely the "Wrong Stuff". Not a care in the world
about spreading Columbia all across East Texas, but worried about Hubble
debris. Not a creative or innovative thought about how to repair Columbia
on-orbit with the stuff they had on-board. No wonder they can't figure out
how to make a repair kit for the heat shield so they can service or bring
Hubble down safely.

Is such ignorance the product of native talent, extensive practice, or
a combination of the two?

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

Craig Fink wrote:

.. belongs in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, not spread across the
earth as a debris field.

Please. Get over it. I saw it launched and am very cognizant of the tremendous
achievments it has racked up. It has fulfilled its mission admirably, no matter
what eventually happens to it. You talk as if not recovering it would diminish
its accomplishments. One man's disgrace is another's way of going out in a
blaze of glory.

Was the fate of Mir or Skylab a "disgrace"? I don't think so.

If the money that would be saved could in any way speed up the eventual
deployment of the Webb ST then I say, "Hubble ST, thanks for everything.
Sayonara." In fact, I'll say that even if the money saved isn't directly poured
into the WST.

The legacy of Hubble is secure regardless of whether it's corpse is on display
or not for public gawking.

--
bp
Proud Member of the Human O-Ring Society Since 2003

I'd have thought that it might actually be useful to get it back and examine
what and how it has aged in orbit. Not having much luck are they? They lost
skylab, Mir was brought down, now although its possible, nobody wants to
risk it for Hubble... Well, I expect they will pay for a dummy model to be
made...

:-)

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________


"Craig Fink" wrote in message
hlink.net...
| .. belongs in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, not spread across the
| earth as a debris field.
|
| http://www.msnbc.com/news/994737.asp?0cv=TB10
|
| begin quote
|
| In the wake of the space shuttle Columbia disaster, NASA pulled the plug
on
| any plans it had to retrieve the Hubble Space Telescope at the end of its
| life so it could be displayed in a museum.
|
| end quote, begin rant
|
| NASA (or better yet Congress) should pull the plug on some NASA managers,
| instead of the Hubble Space Telescope. The Hubble Space Telescope has
| contributed so much to our the knowledge of the Universe it would be
| criminal not to put it in a museum for display along with all it's
| achievements.
|
| NASA management, definitely the "Wrong Stuff". Not a care in the world
| about spreading Columbia all across East Texas, but worried about Hubble
| debris. Not a creative or innovative thought about how to repair Columbia
| on-orbit with the stuff they had on-board. No wonder they can't figure out
| how to make a repair kit for the heat shield so they can service or bring
| Hubble down safely.
|
| end rant
|
| Save the Hubble, from a disgraceful death,
|
| Craig Fink


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free, so there!
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.543 / Virus Database: 337 - Release Date: 21/11/03

Hi Brian,

I agree with you 100%, there is still plenty to be learned from the Hubble
if it were to be brought safely back to earth. Maybe not from an
astronomers point of view, but an engineering point of view. Launched in
1990, with a planned end of mission in 2010, that gives it 20 years in the
low earth orbit environment.

Another low earth orbit environment study, was LDEF, had it's stay in orbit
extended by the Challenger disaster. But, Hubble has spent much more time
in space. Plus, from an engineering standpoint, I would think it would be a
great study on orbital debris. It could even be used as a control in future
leo orbital debris studies. A great turn of the millennium orbital debris
data point. Especially if it is allow to continue to 2010, 10 before and 10
years after the year 2000.

The tube or sun-shield essentially blocks half the sky from orbital debris
from impacting the inside of the tube. It's entire attitude history is well
known. I would think that it would be very interesting to see what the
impact distribution inside the tube looks like, as well as impacts to the
mirror and exterior.

It would be hard to come up with a better control data point for future
orbital debris studies.

It just doesn't seem right to have a dummy model of anything in a museum.

Craig Fink

Brian Gaff wrote:

I'd have thought that it might actually be useful to get it back and
examine what and how it has aged in orbit. Not having much luck are they?
They lost skylab, Mir was brought down, now although its possible, nobody
wants to risk it for Hubble... Well, I expect they will pay for a dummy
model to be made...

:-)

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:

__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________


"Craig Fink" wrote in message
hlink.net...
| .. belongs in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, not spread across
| the earth as a debris field.
|
| http://www.msnbc.com/news/994737.asp?0cv=TB10
|
| begin quote
|
| In the wake of the space shuttle Columbia disaster, NASA pulled the plug
on
| any plans it had to retrieve the Hubble Space Telescope at the end of
| its life so it could be displayed in a museum.
|
| end quote, begin rant
|
| NASA (or better yet Congress) should pull the plug on some NASA
| managers, instead of the Hubble Space Telescope. The Hubble Space
| Telescope has contributed so much to our the knowledge of the Universe
| it would be criminal not to put it in a museum for display along with
| all it's achievements.
|
| NASA management, definitely the "Wrong Stuff". Not a care in the world
| about spreading Columbia all across East Texas, but worried about Hubble
| debris. Not a creative or innovative thought about how to repair
| Columbia on-orbit with the stuff they had on-board. No wonder they can't
| figure out how to make a repair kit for the heat shield so they can
| service or bring Hubble down safely.
|
| end rant
|
| Save the Hubble, from a disgraceful death,
|
| Craig Fink


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free, so there!
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.543 / Virus Database: 337 - Release Date: 21/11/03

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:08:04 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

I'd have thought that it might actually be useful to get it back and examine
what and how it has aged in orbit. Not having much luck are they? They lost
skylab, Mir was brought down, now although its possible, nobody wants to
risk it for Hubble... Well, I expect they will pay for a dummy model to be
made...

There already is one... in Houston, I think. :-)

Brian

Craig Fink wrote in
hlink.net:


NASA (or better yet Congress) should pull the plug on some NASA
managers, instead of the Hubble Space Telescope. The Hubble Space
Telescope has contributed so much to our the knowledge of the Universe
it would be criminal not to put it in a museum for display along with
all it's achievements.



In many ways the Hubble is a failure they never even cut the
mirror correctly. Do we really want a monument to that simple
error. I still think we should try to build one the right way
but since management has gone so far down hill its likely our
next attempt would be far worse. Hubble could have done much
more if it was ground correctly. The extra lenses added to it
failed to make it as good as it should have been.




David A. Scott
--
My Crypto code
http://cryptography.org/cgi-bin/cryp...c/scott19u.zip
http://cryptography.org/cgi-bin/cryp...c/scott16u.zip
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip old version
My Compression code http://bijective.dogma.net/
**TO EMAIL ME drop the roman "five" **
Disclaimer:I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be drugged.
As a famous person once said "any cryptograhic
system is only as strong as its weakest link"

In article ,
David A. Scott wrote:
In many ways the Hubble is a failure they never even cut the
mirror correctly. Do we really want a monument to that simple
error. I still think we should try to build one the right way

All the current instruments on the HST are designed to use the
mirror as built. The corrective mirror were only used on the first
generation of instruments

(Alan Barclay) wrote in
:


All the current instruments on the HST are designed to use the
mirror as built. The corrective mirror were only used on the first
generation of instruments



Are you saying the so called correct optics have been physically
removed from the HST. If so how close to the oringal design before
the obvious flaw good management would have caught is it?


David A. Scott
--
My Crypto code
http://cryptography.org/cgi-bin/cryp...c/scott19u.zip
http://cryptography.org/cgi-bin/cryp...c/scott16u.zip
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip old version
My Compression code http://bijective.dogma.net/
**TO EMAIL ME drop the roman "five" **
Disclaimer:I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be drugged.
As a famous person once said "any cryptograhic
system is only as strong as its weakest link"