You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access
to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to start new topics, reply to conversations, privately message other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join RX8Club.com today!
"The Bush administration has cut funding for any future mission manned or robotic" says it all. I'm sure some of you neo-cons will find something good in it.
it will cost more to put up anotherr hubble like scope than to maintain it for a few more years. BUSH IS A F***ING MADMAN, a manned mission to mars does hardly as much scientifically as the hubble does in one month. It is a sad day for space exploration, because of the f***ing moron in office.
sorry im a little angry because yet again bush's priorites are completely in the wrong place.
Well, if they do decide to scrap it, I hope they take it out of orbit. There's so much trash up there, it's going to be dangerous to launch into space soon.
it will cost more to put up anotherr hubble like scope than to maintain it for a few more years. BUSH IS A F***ING MADMAN, a manned mission to mars does hardly as much scientifically as the hubble does in one month. It is a sad day for space exploration, because of the f***ing moron in office.
sorry im a little angry because yet again bush's priorites are completely in the wrong place.
I couldn't agree more. Mars is all about glorifying Bush; Hubble is all about science. Gee, I wonder which is more important to Bush?
Well if NASA didn't mess-up so many things (insert Robin Williams stand-up routine) this would be a harder decision to justify. I am not supporting Bush on this but NASA either needs better PR or better management and this would not be happing.
Well if NASA didn't mess-up so many things (insert Robin Williams stand-up routine) this would be a harder decision to justify. I am not supporting Bush on this but NASA either needs better PR or better management and this would not be happing.
I don't understand this comment. NASA certainly has messed up a lot of things (particularly, ironically, Mars trips), but Hubble is not one of them. Also, the NASA budget is being increased, but NASA's poster project is being scrapped. This makes sense?
I don't know about a wrench which cost $4 billion, but certainly a lot of mistakes have been made. My point is that Bush actually wants to increase the NASA budget, but kill Hubble. If he's punishing NASA, that's a very odd way to do it. Rather, it seems likely that this is all a precurser to his grandiose dream to have a manned mission to Mars, which is not at all about science--it would cost an unbelievable amount of money; would be very dangerous, and, if NASA's spotty record is an issue, should not be undertaken until NASA cleans up its act.
In the meantime, Hubble has been doing spotless work for well over a decade, doing more for astronomy than any other instrument, ever. Why kill it?
I don't understand this comment. NASA certainly has messed up a lot of things (particularly, ironically, Mars trips), but Hubble is not one of them. Also, the NASA budget is being increased, but NASA's poster project is being scrapped. This makes sense?
" The first images back from the telescope were generally regarded as a big disappointment for astronomers and all concerned in the project. They were blurred, and despite image processing could not match the
predicted resolution. It was determined that the main mirror had been ground slightly too flat at the edges, a problem that could have been tested for on the ground if the funds had been available."
Alot of money has been spent fixing Hubble. But the out of focus lens was one of the more discussed problems and losing one of the mars projects because of a conversion error of feet to meters.
I don't know about a wrench which cost $4 billion, but certainly a lot of mistakes have been made. My point is that Bush actually wants to increase the NASA budget, but kill Hubble. If he's punishing NASA, that's a very odd way to do it. Rather, it seems likely that this is all a precurser to his grandiose dream to have a manned mission to Mars, which is not at all about science--it would cost an unbelievable amount of money; would be very dangerous, and, if NASA's spotty record is an issue, should not be undertaken until NASA cleans up its act.
In the meantime, Hubble has been doing spotless work for well over a decade, doing more for astronomy than any other instrument, ever. Why kill it?
I think the reason is that more contractor buddies of the Bush administration would benefit from a Mars project ($$$$$), than upkeep on Hubble and other ‘ lesser’ projects.
Since we're stuck with an astronomy cretin in the White House for four more years, would it be possible to gather enough private funding to keep Hubble going? I have no idea how much it would cost, but I'd sure be willing to donate to the cause.
Since we're stuck with an astronomy cretin in the White House for four more years, would it be possible to gather enough private funding to keep Hubble going? I have no idea how much it would cost, but I'd sure be willing to donate to the cause.
the cost would be fairly astronomical (no pun intended) and restricted to unmanned repairs. What we should do is see if the ESA would be willing to start maintaining the hubble
How exactly is he an astronomy cretin? He has said in the past he wants to further man's exploration of outer space. Mars is a step in that direction. Yeah, I'd like to keep Hubble, it is a great tool.
But that said..., it's had problems from the get go. It's an extremely expensive satellite that eats up a huge portion of the budget in maintenance, and it's fouled up more than once. I'd rather we go to Mars.
If people are so outraged, they should write their congressman. In the mean time, send money to Paul Allen and all other privateers. Maybe they can buy Hubble from NASA. Alternitively, we could set up a telescope on the moon. Much more stable, easier maintenance with gravity. No atmosphere to get in the way..., plus we get a moon base. All we would need then would be a "laser".
I might need a "laser" to defend against some flames now.
the cost would be fairly astronomical (no pun intended) and restricted to unmanned repairs. What we should do is see if the ESA would be willing to start maintaining the hubble
That's a good idea too. Like the International space station. Spread the cost around.
Space is too expensive for one country these days.
I kinda liked the Hubble telescope Well, not much I can do now. I hope the ESA can buy it from NASA, or something like that. Despites it's many malfunctions it's a very powerful tool to further our knowledge of space. I'm dissapointed
__________________
Where do you go when it gets dark?
Is there room for me there?
How long will it take you to wake up?
Before you go will you wake me?
what exactly do you mean by that? im guessing since the bulk of us see this as almost a tragedy ill pose this question...explain to me how diverting funds to research (not even plan at this point) a manned mission to mars, does more for science than what hubble is doing now? do you even know why hubble is such a valuable tool and the extent of its abilities?
Implying, I would imagine, that they are no better than the Jim Jones followers who willingly drank cyanide-laced Kool Aid just because their leader told them to.
Actually, I'd have to agree with the analogy. The Bushies really do follow their leader blindly and without question, spouting the approved rhetoric and condemning those who disagree.
Linear Mode
