 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / February 2004Hubble Hobbles & The Fear Factor
The Bush administration has used the Columbia Shuttle disaster of last year as an excuse to drastically curtail and undermine all future Shuttle programs. One of the casualties of this very ill advised policy is the Hubble Telescope. The Hubble Telescope was originally launched in 1990, and has been serviced by the Space Shuttle about 4 times already. Since then, the Hubble has gone on to generate some of the most spectacular images in the history of Astronomy. In 1994, the Hubble provided the first convincing evidence of "Black Holes". And to this day, the Hubble has still been the source of some of the best available views of the Planet Jupiter, among other planets. For more information go to this link: http://www.hubble.nasa.gov/ For more than a decade now, Astronomers have been standing in line to use the Hubble, far more than can be accomodated in the space telescope's tight observing schedule. Astronomers have correctly described the Hubble Telescope as the most productive scientific instrument ever built. But as a result of Bush's new policy, in the absense of a Shuttle repair mission, the Hubble Telescope will just deteriorate in a matter of a few years and then become completely useless. Bush's policy contends that sending the Shuttle to repair the Hubble is too risky an adventure. Yet he proposes waiting almost a decade before building another Shuttle so that it can be sent to a place that is far, far riskier: the Moon & Mars. This makes no sense. We are obligated under international treaties to continue construction of the International Space Station, which Bush promises we will do, because it is supposedly not as risky to send a Shuttle there. Due to last year's Shuttle disaster, it looks like a fear of Space travel has permeated in the American culture. This fear is a bad thing, it is stifling our progress. If we are not willing to accept the risks of space travel, then what's the point of building the Space Station? Occupants of the Space Station are there to study the effects of space on people, in preparation for longer flights. The American people, Astronauts & the Scientific community are all willing to accept the risks of space flight. The Space Shuttle program, the Hubble Telescope & scientific progress, these are all things that should NOT be impeded based on trumped up or imagined fears. Abel Malcolm http://www.hubble.nasa.gov/ <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Educate yourself & go to these links: http://www.moveon.org & http://www.salon.com & http://www.buzzflash.com & http://www.democrats.org & http://www.commondreams.org & http://www.bushwatch.com & http://www.academycomputerservice.com/economics/charts.htm & http://earth.prohosting.com/songofth/jobcreation.jpg > The Bush administration has used the Columbia Shuttle disaster of last > year as an excuse to drastically curtail and undermine all future > Shuttle programs. Having one come apart will do that. > ill advised policy The Hubble is near the end of its *planned* mission and has had more service flights than were originally planned, including the optics repair and the change-out of the main power bus...... > trumped up or imagined fears. Alrighty then. I suspect that if the Shuttle had not malfunctioned that the Hubble would have been retired anyway. So you may be right about using the Shuttle as an excuse, but the end result is the same. >Alrighty then. I suspect that if the Shuttle had not malfunctioned that >the Hubble would have been retired anyway. So you may be right about using >the Shuttle as an excuse, but the end result is the same. There was a service mission planned for Hubble late last year to replace some malfunctioning gyros and upgrade electronics. That would have kept the Hubble going until 2010, when the James Wilson telescope is due to be launched. There was never any intention to keep Hubble going beyond then. W/O that service mission it's *unlikely* that Hubble will remain operational until its replacement is launched but not impossible. -- After Kerry returned from Vietnam he became an antiwar activist. But was he really? In 1972 he threw his medals away to protest the war. Years later it turned out that he had thrown someone ELSE'S medals away and kept his. Ask yourself this: Would Patricia Ireland burn someone else's bra? Then doesn't this make Kerry a fraud? "OrionCA" > it's *unlikely* that > Hubble will remain operational until its replacement is launched but > not impossible. The Webb Telescope will be a powerful sun of a gun, and will operate in the infra-red band rather than visual, which is good because there is a lot of dust in the Universe and we want to see what is behind it. The thing that concerns me is that the Webb Telescope cannot be serviced after launch. I rate its risk of failure as high, based on experience with Hubble. >The Webb Telescope will be a powerful sun of a gun, and will operate in the >infra-red band rather than visual, which is good because there is a lot of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >after launch. I rate its risk of failure as high, based on experience with >Hubble. What concerns me is that hubble will be deorbited before webb is operatrional and webb may finde some areas of interest hubble could of looked at. webb will lack some hubble abilities too. In the event of a budget cut or launch failure webb might be delayed or never occur. As to service if the new manned launcher really happens we might be able to service webb. It should be redesigned to permit in orbit repairs. Wouldnt it be sad to get webb out there, have a part fail that cant be replaced in orbit because of the design? >if the new manned launcher really happens we might be able to >service webb. It should be redesigned to permit in orbit repairs. Nope. It won't *be* in orbit, but in deep space, 1,000,000 mi. from earth. Human beings will never travel 10 days from earth to fix it, it would be cheaper to build a new one. >Nope. It won't *be* in orbit, but in deep space, 1,000,000 mi. from earth. >Human beings will never travel 10 days from earth to fix it, it would be >cheaper to build a new one. Why decide were stuck in LEO? Great training for a mars mission which will be many times longer. near earth asteroids in this distance range too. Economically it might be a looser but for training and such its a great worthwhile destination http://www.geocities.com/kent_betts/bozo33.html Hand wave to folks in talk.politics.misc Last time you had a tummy ache, did you whine about Bush then too? The Columbia disintegrated killing seven astronauts. An independent commission concluded that NASA had grown careless about assessing risks of space flight. NASA's own people re-assessed the general risks of a Hubble mission vis-a-vis and found them higher than they had thought. They made a decision. It won't save much money. Where is Bush in all of this? On your brain, too be sure. Jim O PS: His national guard service was entirely honorable, and attacks on it are by idiots designed for other idiots. So THERE! > The Bush administration has used the Columbia Shuttle disaster of last > year as an excuse to drastically curtail and undermine all future [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > http://www.academycomputerservice.com/economics/charts.htm & > http://earth.prohosting.com/songofth/jobcreation.jpg >The Bush administration has used the Columbia Shuttle disaster of last >year as an excuse to drastically curtail and undermine all future >Shuttle programs. An "excuse" ... or just a good time to change gears ? >One of the casualties of this very ill advised policy is the Hubble >Telescope. There's gonna be a bigger and better one launched just a couple of years after the expensive-to-keep Hubble is likely to stop working. No big deal. Advances in ground-based telescopy - adaptive optics in particular - should fill in any pressing need during the 'gap'. >Astronomers have correctly described the Hubble Telescope as the most >productive scientific instrument ever built. And amongst the most expensive. It can't go for long between major overhauls. Forget it. The Hubble is and SHOULD BE history. Great while it lasted, but it's better to spend future money on new telescopes and launch systems better, cheaper and SAFER than the shuttles. For a LONG time now, the 'space' program has been stuck in the narrow space of low-earth-orbit, going nowhere fast. A horrible waste of money. If we're gonna spend that much, let's spend it on the GOOD stuff - moving upwards and onwards. > The Bush administration has used the Columbia Shuttle disaster of last > year as an excuse to drastically curtail and undermine all future > Shuttle programs. > > One of the casualties of this very ill advised policy is the Hubble > Telescope. It's not an "excuse". It's due to the fact that we only have 3 shuttles left, which will now be operating under new and very restrictive safety rules. And we have to husband those 3 shuttles in order to keep servicing the International Space Station, which as you know was Clinton's boondoggle and welfare program for Russia. O'Keefe cancelled the Hubble servicing mission on that basis--safety. > If we are not willing to accept the risks of space travel, then what's > the point of building the Space Station? Non sequitur. There was never any point to building the Space Station in its current design. The ISS will never do anything to justify its cost. Except provide welfare checks to Russian scientists, so hopefully they won't sell their services to rogue states to produce weapons. It would have been easier to just send a B-2 stealth bomber flying low over Russian scientific complexes, and drop millions of thousand-dollar bills out of the bomb bay. If we want to undertake the "risks of space travel," then let's do it for a worthy purpose that men and women would risk their lives for: Mars. Titan. Europa. -- Steven L. > Educate yourself & go to these links: Moveon, Buzzflash, Democrats.org and Bushwatch? I think you meant to say, "If you hate Bush with a passion that douses all logic and independent thought, go to these links to sit in the dark and feed yourself manure." This pretty well blows the rest of your argument, as specious as it was to begin with, out of the water and exposes it as just another thinly-veiled "Blame Bush" rant. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.