1 posted on
02/10/2004 7:21:35 AM PST by
blam
To: blam
Bummer.
2 posted on
02/10/2004 7:22:57 AM PST by
Huck
(I am voting for Bush, but I will question his performance at my own discretion.)
To: blam
The incredibly stupid decisions of this administration continue to amaze me. I never thought I would seen a Republican administration show such an inability to think. I never thought I would see NASA display such fear at the thought of sending a man into space. NASA needs to get out of the space business, NASA doesn't have the neccessary guts to go into space.
3 posted on
02/10/2004 7:27:51 AM PST by
jpsb
(Nominated 1994 "Worst writer on the net")
To: blam
Regarding a possible shuttle mission to Hubble, Readdy said schedule pressures and logistics would be formidableWell, if it's difficult, might as well not try to do it at all! Somewhere along the line, the "right stuff" became the "timid stuff."
To: blam
which would repair failing gyroscopes and upgrade detectors, the telescope will eventually stop functioning and will need to be nudged out of orbit toward Earth in a controlled descent Why deorbit?... why not give it a bump into a higher orbit, do an orderly shut down and put it in "deep freeze" til we have a way to fix it?
Unless of course Hubble is a little on the obsolete side...and better technology is coming on line soon.... then it's just a matter of some scientists wanting to keep their jobs at the peril of others (Just Idle Thoughts....JIT)
6 posted on
02/10/2004 7:36:09 AM PST by
Robe
(Rome did not create a great empire with meetings, they did it by killing all those who opposed them)
To: blam
Maybe the Administration and NASA ought to try to sell the Hubble to the highest bidder. Then it is out of their hands, and some money in the pocket to boot. I also think that NASA should be put on the market and turned into a private industry.
8 posted on
02/10/2004 7:39:16 AM PST by
Core_Conservative
(ODC-GIRL - the love of my life! - supporting Homeland Defense!)
To: blam
The thing is obsolete; better pictures are available from giant ground scopes with adaptive optics. The shuttle itself is obsolete and should remain grounded. If we lose another one, I
guarantee the last two will never fly.
There's a better replacement for Hubble on the way (Webb); be patient.
--Boris
9 posted on
02/10/2004 7:44:41 AM PST by
boris
(The deadliest Weapon of Mass Destruction in History is a Leftist With a Word Processor)
To: blam
Good thing we spent all that money on a manned shuttle program. After all, would we want to forego all of the benefits of sending people into space, as opposed to less expensive robots? Humans can make repairs on existing satellites, and can solve problems that machines can't.
Oh wait, they can't. It turns out that a hundred billion dollars later it's too dangerous to send men to fix satellites. Oh well.
10 posted on
02/10/2004 7:52:59 AM PST by
Timm
To: blam; Poohbah; section9; veronica; Catspaw; Dog; Howlin; Miss Marple; PhiKapMom
Dumb does not begin to describe this one...
Until the replacement is up and running, kleep the Hubble going. If they have to, re-rig Enterprise to go up to fix Hubble. But this is just mind-boggling.
12 posted on
02/10/2004 8:06:41 AM PST by
hchutch
("I never get involved with my own life. It's too much trouble." - Michael Garibaldi)
To: blam
They just can't win for losing. They get slammed for non-safety and then get slammed for concentrating on safety. They are responding to what the public wants, which is what agencies should do, and the public wants safety at this time.
18 posted on
02/10/2004 8:54:51 AM PST by
Arkinsaw
To: blam
sooooooooooo
LET BILL GATES FUND robotic refurbishing and orbit heightening effort. . . . or some such.
25 posted on
02/10/2004 1:15:55 PM PST by
Quix
(Choose this day whom U will serve: Shrillery & demonic goons or The King of Kings and Lord of Lords)
To: blam
Hubble is old and outdated.
It is a risk assessment that must be made.
New tech might be cheaper in the long run. In other words, it has seen what it can see and perhaps a new platform would be much better and less risky to launch and maintain.
In view of everything else involved, it may be a good decision.
A sad one however.
27 posted on
02/11/2004 11:18:33 AM PST by
Cold Heat
("It is easier for an ass to succeed in that trade than any other." [Samuel Clemens, on lawyers])
To: blam
The question no one is asking is why was it safe to launch 6 Mercury missions, 10 Gemini missions, 12 Apollo missions, and untold Shuttle missions (including all of the HST missions) before February of last year? Suddenly, because of an accident, it's no longer safe to service HST? Huh?
Space travel is a risky business. I know that's easy to say since I'm on the ground, but I don't think any of the astronauts would disagree. I don't want people to needlessly die, but there's risk in everything. Personally, I'd rather risk a trip to keep HST alive than risk a trip for yet another crew rotation on ISS. Maybe that's just me.
28 posted on
02/11/2004 7:14:25 PM PST by
MikeD
(Get out of that Sour Milk Sea...)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson