NASA Rover finds more signs of past water on Mars

There is a valid idea in keeping Hubble on the hot plate as long as there are scientists who need to use it. For the combined goals of research and learning in graduate astronomy, it could continue to be a way to get viewing time. If we drop Hubble, then the lines of researchers queued for observing slots just gets longer.

Yes, other 'scopes will surpass Hubble, but they by no means makes Hubble irrelevant or obsolete.

You now know someone who works on the ISS program. ;-)

No. I used to know a man who was a big deal in astonomy and physics. I don't want to name names or cite places, but he cut some caca. We talked about all this stuff at some length.

His opinion was that manned space flights aren't worth what they cost. The Hubble is.

That is his and my opinion.

He's dead now, but he was never stupid. Not at all.

Ooops. I gotta go, but I'll leave you with this :

I love Hubble, and I will shed a tear when it goes. And it WILL go. But hopefully not before it is serviced again. I'm sure your caca-cutter was quite smart, and would submit that he was right on a great many things. However:

Unmanned vs. Manned space effort is not, repeat, NOT, a zero-sum game.

A human sitting behind a eyepiece orbiting the earth is not ever going to be as good as a Hubble. On the other side of the coin, as outstanding as the Mars rovers have been, people on-site would have done what they've done in a week or less, and made realtime assessments of what they were studying.

And it isn't all science. People want to see space for themselves, and it's not just scientists and engineering geeks like me. The government has truly blazed the trail up there, and industry is finally beginning to take up the banner.

Have a great evening. I mean it.

Well I said that is was past its mission profile, not that it was irrelevant or obsolete. True they have goosed its value with IR add ons, but it is coming very close to being obsolete, at least as a prime instrument. But the point you make about grad students and queues is sort of what I was alluding to by "careerism," which of course is not science and certainly not the original intent of Hubble. With some of the "Astronomy Grids" coming on line soon there is certainly more than enough access to instruments for grad students.

So I stand by my point: As far a core science needs go, particularly at the cutting edge, the HST in not "instrumental," if you will forgive the pun. It is true that there are some good people still using the HST but the real cutting edge of researchers have moved on to other problems. That is why I said that if the HST stays up it is just gravy. The issue gets the public's eye, if you will, because astronomy has become so sophisticated now that it is hard for the public to educate themselves and the media, of course, is even more misinformed than they are. It is, however, a quite important - and expensive - field, and one in which the cooler heads and rationa and sober planning should prevail.

I would also point out the the budget for just one more shuttle flight would build two large new telescopes of the CELT class, or perhaps even could pay for working out the interferometer and adaptive optics problems for 2 paired instruments of that scale. All things being equal, that would seem to be money better spent IMHO.

I still say the the issue has become more a political one - both in the professional and the national sense - than a scientific one.

very little scientific benefit in sending people to Mars. Virtually none at all. Close to zero

That's seems a very narrow definition of scientific benefit, or you and I differ on what's beneficial for science.

The discovery of water and bodies of water on Mars, in my opinion, is benefical to the study of Earth geology. Because it raises the question, why did Mars lose its water, and by extension why did it lose its atmosphere. Could something similar happen here on earth?

Considering what we're learning about the two planets shifting magentic field, I'd say study of Mars is fairly pertinent.

Considering what we're learning about the two planets shifting magentic field, I'd say study of Mars is fairly pertinent.

I'm not arguing about studying Mars or space in general. I am with you that far. Completely.

But what are our priorities? Fight terrorism? Provide Social Security benefits? Put people on the moon? Cut taxes? Redevelop inter-city areas?

Maybe you want to do it all. I see it like a family budget. In that context, the manned space flights go into the garbage bin. We can't do everything. Maybe you can; I cannot.

Re: Careerism - I learned a lot about engineering and manufacturing using some university equipment lovingly kept in good working order for many decades. There was newer and fancier stuff to be had, to be sure, but it wasn't necessary to learn the ropes. Hubble could be of similar value, as long as it does what it CAN do very well. Webb and Keck will run rings around it, but I certainly think that the old diehard Hubble has a lot to discover yet, if it can be serviced. Pragmatically, servicing may not be feasable.

Re: Politics - Naw, really? Politics in academia? Surely you jest! [ sarcasm:off ]

:-)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.