The Hubble 'Scope

[admiral_ju00]

i've been wandering, since nasa will most likely abandon the hubble, what will possible cause them to reconsider? naturally their budget may be a bit tight, but to let it go to waiste w/o a fight is stupid. why are they simply willing to let it die(and don't tell me "no budget, dah" cause that's a given)? thinking of all the wonders that it has shows us thus far, it would be stupid and irresponcible to 'can' the 'scope. the plan bush proposed is ok, grossly underestimated financially and perhaps even technologically, but at least nasa now has a goal to get back to the moon and i don't know how practical is the notion of mars, but still they must maintain the hubble. i wander what 'tard decided that it was a good idea to do so.

 

i haven't seen anything that might indicate their change of heart, goddamnit.

perhaps they should be bombarded with emails asking them to rethink their logic might do, eh?

 

i will loose any and all respect for nasa, should they continue with their plan.

[Sayonara]

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2982

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Seems someone should have done a search...

 

Though I think NASA is way too political and not enough scientifical. Perhaps they should become a private organization.

[Sayonara]

Scientifical?

[Crash]

Well ya know.........not political?!

[geistkiesel]

i've been wandering' date=' since nasa will most likely abandon the hubble, what will possible cause them to reconsider? naturally their budget may be a bit tight, but to let it go to waiste w/o a fight is stupid. why are they simply willing to let it die(and don't tell me "no budget, dah" cause that's a given)? thinking of all the wonders that it has shows us thus far, it would be stupid and irresponcible to 'can' the 'scope. the plan bush proposed is ok, grossly underestimated financially and perhaps even technologically, but at least nasa now has a goal to get back to the moon and i don't know how practical is the notion of mars, but still they must maintain the hubble. i wander what 'tard decided that it was a good idea to do so.

 

i haven't seen anything that might indicate their change of heart, goddamnit.

perhaps they should be bombarded with emails asking them to rethink their logic might do, eh?

 

i will loose any and all respect for nasa, should they continue with their plan.[/quote']

 

Only occasionally do I pass rumors around, but here is a worthy exception. NASA was designed with basic military purposes. Look at the sorece of budget. look at the ease in which NASA publishes results of space experiments.

 

Anyway, when Hubble first went into space there was the glich in the reflecting mirrors, remember? Something about how the mirrors were tested and that acrucial step un the testing process, product reliabilty, whatever, had been ommitted. This essentially prohibited Hubble fram being used effectively for space exploration for about two years. The promised rumor: Military interests had the supposed "telescopic reflector flaw" planned into the first launch mission. Hubble worked perfectly, as designed: as a high resolutuion telescope mapping various parts of the planet surface, as perceived needs arose.

 

Why kill the Hubble program? Someone, like a curious nerdy scientist, might find something embarrassing for NASA or other military interests to explain.

 

NASA: The first rule is: NASA is an arm of the militarty establishment.

[admiral_ju00]

NASA: The first rule is: NASA is an arm of the militarty establishment.

 

Well, you do realize that many-a-scientist work for the Military?? Not just NASA, but actually all Scientists have an option to work with or for them.

 

Not because they want to create new means of destroying a nation or their own hidden agendas, but mainly because a Job for Military(especially for a Scientist) quite frequently means that it's a job with lots and lots of funds for the project, ability to test one's hypotheses with much greater results(more toys, more 'test' subjects, etc), a relatively solid job security(maybe more than in some civilian institutions), etc. Also, it may provide a stepping stone of making one's name highly distinguished amongst the scientific community.

 

Hell, even with my studies/passion in Physical Anthropology, surely the military will offer plenty of work for me

 

So to say that NASA scrapped Hubble simply because it didn't suite the needs of it's partner/employer/whatever (Military) is plain wrong.

[fafalone]

Sean O'Keefe needs to step down as leader of NASA. He's more concerned with Washington politics than science and the will of the people, both the public and those in his organization.

 

Who's with me?

[admiral_ju00]

Can I get a Standing Ovation for fafalone!!!!!

[[Tycho?]]

Seems someone should have done a search...

 

Though I think NASA is way too political and not enough scientifical. Perhaps they should become a private organization.

 

I think privatising NASA would be a bad idea. The more privatized it gets, the more money becomes an issue. Space exploration should not be an attempt for profit.

[admiral_ju00]

Oh hell yeah!!!

 

Experts say NASA should pursue rescue mission.

 

NASA should keep open the option of sending astronauts to fix the Hubble Space Telescope, a panel of experts advised on Tuesday.

 

The panel was set up by the US National Academies, at the request of NASA, to advise the agency on how best to service and prolong the life of the ageing telescope. Astronomers view Hubble as vital for spying on distant black holes and baby galaxies, and for gleaning clues about the birth of the universe.

 

In January, NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe said that sending astronauts to repair the telescope was too dicey after last year's Columbia disaster. But after protests from scientists and politicians, the agency said that a robotic repair mission might be possible..........

 

Courtesy of Nature