Save (or don't) the Hubble Telescope

[BehindEnemyLines]

Astronaunts try to save the Hubble


Petition to Save or Don't Save

 

[lozina]

I say let it rot. We got budget problems so let's act fiscally conservative here. Images of distant galaxies won't help us reduce our dependency on Middle East oil, fight terrorism, find a new clean renewable fuel source, or solve any problem we're currently having!

 

[Zephyr106]

Don't forget that the Hubble's replacement is already building, to be put up a few years after the Hubble is crashed (by current time tables). This new telescope will be unservicable because it will be positioned on the far side of the moon, without interference from Earth. Scientists are saying the jump in clarity will be like the jump from the ground to Hubble.

Space.com article

If we spend all our money on fighting our "current problems," we wouldn't have any money for the things that really make an enduring mark on the world. The Apollo Program comes to mind.

Zephyr

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: lozina
I say let it rot. We got budget problems so let's act fiscally conservative here. Images of distant galaxies won't help us reduce our dependency on Middle East oil, fight terrorism, find a new clean renewable fuel source, or solve any problem we're currently having!

Ah...what a great attitude! Let's nip scientific exploration in the bud...it's useless. Might as well stop cancer research, genetic research, shut down the USGS, dismantle NASA and use the money to build some oil wells in ANWAR.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106


If we spend all our money on fighting our "current problems," we wouldn't have any money for the things that really make an enduring mark on the world. The Apollo Program comes to mind.

Zephyr

As far as I'm concerned, solving problems does make an enduring mark on the world.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: lozina
I say let it rot. We got budget problems so let's act fiscally conservative here. Images of distant galaxies won't help us reduce our dependency on Middle East oil, fight terrorism, find a new clean renewable fuel source, or solve any problem we're currently having!

Ah...what a great attitude! Let's nip scientific exploration in the bud...it's useless. Might as well stop cancer research, genetic research, shut down the USGS, dismantle NASA and use the money to build some oil wells in ANWAR.

I wonder how do you equate gathering images of galaxies so far away that we can't even imagine travelling to them to researching cancer which is a feasible goal that would affect almost all of us?

 

[conjur]

For starters:
http://cmex-www.arc.nasa.gov/CMEX/data/vse/value.pdf

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: conjur

For starters:
http://cmex-www.arc.nasa.gov/CMEX/data/vse/value.pdf

Well, how about highlighting parts you feel are relevent to this thread, particularly show me how this article supports the connection you make to "cancer research, genetic research, shut down the USGS".

 

[SuperTool]

If it's not broken, don't break it.
I think they should keep Hubble.

 

[SuperTool]

Are we still a spacefaring nation since we have no manned launch vehicle now that shuttle is grounded? China is building one, and we don't have one.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: lozina
I say let it rot. We got budget problems so let's act fiscally conservative here. Images of distant galaxies won't help us reduce our dependency on Middle East oil, fight terrorism, find a new clean renewable fuel source, or solve any problem we're currently having!

Ah...what a great attitude! Let's nip scientific exploration in the bud...it's useless. Might as well stop cancer research, genetic research, shut down the USGS, dismantle NASA and use the money to build some oil wells in ANWAR.

actually money for anwar is going to come from private sources and employ thousands upon thousands for many years.

Hubble is obsolete: it's time for a triple lens array optical telescope.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: lozina
I say let it rot. We got budget problems so let's act fiscally conservative here. Images of distant galaxies won't help us reduce our dependency on Middle East oil, fight terrorism, find a new clean renewable fuel source, or solve any problem we're currently having!

Ah...what a great attitude! Let's nip scientific exploration in the bud...it's useless. Might as well stop cancer research, genetic research, shut down the USGS, dismantle NASA and use the money to build some oil wells in ANWAR.

actually money for anwar is going to come from private sources and employ thousands upon thousands for many years.

Hubble is obsolete: it's time for a triple lens array optical telescope.

Who decides Hubble is obsolete or not? Clearly the scientists still think it's not obsolete, since they are still using it.

 

[rbV5]

1 service mission and the addition of the Wide Field Camera 3 and the Cosmic Origins Spectrometer and Hubble lives until the James Webb Telescope takes over (hopefully). Seems ridiculous to not service our investment.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: lozina
I say let it rot. We got budget problems so let's act fiscally conservative here. Images of distant galaxies won't help us reduce our dependency on Middle East oil, fight terrorism, find a new clean renewable fuel source, or solve any problem we're currently having!

Ah...what a great attitude! Let's nip scientific exploration in the bud...it's useless. Might as well stop cancer research, genetic research, shut down the USGS, dismantle NASA and use the money to build some oil wells in ANWAR.

actually money for anwar is going to come from private sources and employ thousands upon thousands for many years.

Hubble is obsolete: it's time for a triple lens array optical telescope.

It's a hell of a lot better than the ground based ones. Sure it's time for a new telescope but the next one isn't scheduled for completion until 2011. Hubble will go to sh!t by 2007 if we don't service (only one service mission is needed).

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: rbV5
1 service mission and the addition of the Wide Field Camera 3 and the Cosmic Origins Spectrometer and Hubble lives until the James Webb Telescope takes over (hopefully). Seems ridiculous to not service our investment.

The problem is the Shuttle fleet is grounded. And noone is willing to risk flying the shuttle even when necessary. It's a CYA maneuver by NASA.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

a

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Who decides Hubble is obsolete or not? Clearly the scientists still think it's not obsolete, since they are still using it.

isn't that like saying that when you've got a car available to you and you're still using a horse drawn carriage, the carriage isn't obsolete because you're still using it?

it's like a used car: it's time to get a new one instead of investing in the old bucket of rust.

what's the grand-goal that a few years down-time on a deep-space telescope is going to cause.

 

[rbV5]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: rbV5
1 service mission and the addition of the Wide Field Camera 3 and the Cosmic Origins Spectrometer and Hubble lives until the James Webb Telescope takes over (hopefully). Seems ridiculous to not service our investment.

The problem is the Shuttle fleet is grounded. And noone is willing to risk flying the shuttle even when necessary. It's a CYA maneuver by NASA.

Its a political decision to change the focus of NASA. I seriously doubt noone is willing to risk flying the shuttle, there will be shuttle flights long before zero hour for shuttle approaches.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
a

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Who decides Hubble is obsolete or not? Clearly the scientists still think it's not obsolete, since they are still using it.

isn't that like saying that when you've got a car available to you and you're still using a horse drawn carriage, the carriage isn't obsolete because you're still using it?

it's like a used car: it's time to get a new one instead of investing in the old bucket of rust.

what's the grand-goal that a few years down-time on a deep-space telescope is going to cause.

So should we let all land based telescopes rust since we already have space telescopes, so they are "obsolete?"
This is nonsense. We have a telescope that the taxpayers have paid for that has plenty of life left in it and just needs a service. To use your analogy, this would be like buying a new car because the one you bought before needs an oil change.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
a

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Who decides Hubble is obsolete or not? Clearly the scientists still think it's not obsolete, since they are still using it.

isn't that like saying that when you've got a car available to you and you're still using a horse drawn carriage, the carriage isn't obsolete because you're still using it?

it's like a used car: it's time to get a new one instead of investing in the old bucket of rust.

what's the grand-goal that a few years down-time on a deep-space telescope is going to cause.

So should we let all land based telescopes rust since we already have space telescopes, so they are "obsolete?"
This is nonsense. We have a telescope that the taxpayers have paid for that has plenty of life left in it and just needs a service. To use your analogy, this would be like buying a new car because the one you bought before needs an oil change.

could be, or could be dropping the old carriage because it needs a new horse. depends on the price/performance ratio, which is subjective;

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
a

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Who decides Hubble is obsolete or not? Clearly the scientists still think it's not obsolete, since they are still using it.

isn't that like saying that when you've got a car available to you and you're still using a horse drawn carriage, the carriage isn't obsolete because you're still using it?

it's like a used car: it's time to get a new one instead of investing in the old bucket of rust.

what's the grand-goal that a few years down-time on a deep-space telescope is going to cause.

So should we let all land based telescopes rust since we already have space telescopes, so they are "obsolete?"
This is nonsense. We have a telescope that the taxpayers have paid for that has plenty of life left in it and just needs a service. To use your analogy, this would be like buying a new car because the one you bought before needs an oil change.

could be, or could be dropping the old carriage because it needs a new horse. depends on the price/performance ratio, which is subjective;

Well, if it costs 150M to service the Hubble and 4 Billion to put a new one up, I think it's worth it. It's already been decided to operate the hubble and to service it when the taxpayers paid for it. Now we just gotta follow through. I could see if it was damaged in a collision or something, but it's just routine maintainance and upgrades.
We need to at least get the expected service life we paid for.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

We need to at least get the expected service life we paid for.

fair enough, i agree.

i like space exploration anyway, what's a few hundred million to get a few more cool pics of nebula.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106
Don't forget that the Hubble's replacement is already building, to be put up a few years after the Hubble is crashed (by current time tables). This new telescope will be unservicable because it will be positioned on the far side of the moon, without interference from Earth. Scientists are saying the jump in clarity will be like the jump from the ground to Hubble.

Space.com article

If we spend all our money on fighting our "current problems," we wouldn't have any money for the things that really make an enduring mark on the world. The Apollo Program comes to mind.

Zephyr

I was pro saving the Hubble until I read this earlier. I must concur with your conclusion.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
a

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Who decides Hubble is obsolete or not? Clearly the scientists still think it's not obsolete, since they are still using it.

isn't that like saying that when you've got a car available to you and you're still using a horse drawn carriage, the carriage isn't obsolete because you're still using it?

it's like a used car: it's time to get a new one instead of investing in the old bucket of rust.

what's the grand-goal that a few years down-time on a deep-space telescope is going to cause.

So should we let all land based telescopes rust since we already have space telescopes, so they are "obsolete?"
This is nonsense. We have a telescope that the taxpayers have paid for that has plenty of life left in it and just needs a service. To use your analogy, this would be like buying a new car because the one you bought before needs an oil change.

Except in this case, the Hubble has had more than its fair share of problems. I'd classify this as more than just an oil change...

 

[maddogchen]

I love how www.savethehubble.com has a link to www.dontsavethehubble.com where if you go there its just basically a Gotcha! message

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: lozina
I say let it rot. We got budget problems so let's act fiscally conservative here. Images of distant galaxies won't help us reduce our dependency on Middle East oil, fight terrorism, find a new clean renewable fuel source, or solve any problem we're currently having!

Ah...what a great attitude! Let's nip scientific exploration in the bud...it's useless. Might as well stop cancer research, genetic research, shut down the USGS, dismantle NASA and use the money to build some oil wells in ANWAR.

The hubble can probably replaced for less than it would cost to do the needed maintanance. Hubble cost a billion to desegn and build. It cost 500M just to launch the shuttle. Since the RnD is done, it seems it could be replaced cheaper than it could be repaired.