Save the Hubble

[martin griffith]

"Ask not what the Hubble can do for you - ask what you can do for the
Hubble."

http://www.savethehubble.com/introduction.htm


martin


"Facts are stupid things.." -- Reagan, '88

 

[James Beck]

"Ask not what the Hubble can do for you - ask what you can do for the
Hubble."

http://www.savethehubble.com/introduction.htm


martin


"Facts are stupid things.." -- Reagan, '88

So far nobody has touched on the fact that there are now terrestrial
telescopes that can out do the Hubble. So that makes the Hubble just a
nice piece of sentimental valued space junk. So, one must ask
themselves, is it worth it.

Jim

 

[John Larkin]

So far nobody has touched on the fact that there are now terrestrial
telescopes that can out do the Hubble. So that makes the Hubble just a
nice piece of sentimental valued space junk. So, one must ask
themselves, is it worth it.

Jim

Right. You could build a dozen world-class adaptive-optics telescopes
for the cost of one Hubble repair mission.

We should dump the space station, too; that's truly useless.

John

 

[James Beck]

Right. You could build a dozen world-class adaptive-optics telescopes
for the cost of one Hubble repair mission.

We should dump the space station, too; that's truly useless.

John

Not to mention the fact that if the repairman's ride is out of service
(like the Space Shuttle) he can just borrow the neighbors car.

Jim

 

[John O'Flaherty]

Right. You could build a dozen world-class adaptive-optics telescopes
for the cost of one Hubble repair mission.

Could a new design for a space telescope still do better than earthbound
ones, in some spectrum areas?

 

[John Larkin]

Could a new design for a space telescope still do better than earthbound
ones, in some spectrum areas?

Sure. There are some cool new UV and xray and gamma telescopes (or
telescope-like things) in orbit. Hubble can still do better than
anything on the ground at some wavelenghts.

Read "The Hubble Wars" by Chaisson. Cool book.

John

 

[Jim Yanik]

Sure. There are some cool new UV and xray and gamma telescopes (or
telescope-like things) in orbit. Hubble can still do better than
anything on the ground at some wavelenghts.

Read "The Hubble Wars" by Chaisson. Cool book.

John

What irks me is that some want to step backwards instead of moving
forwards.

Two Shuttles fail,and instead of making a better spacecraft,they decide
they don't need to fix Hubble.(and some want to abandon the ISS)

 

[Active8]

"Ask not what the Hubble can do for you - ask what you can do for the
Hubble."

http://www.savethehubble.com/introduction.htm

I thought it sounded like a waste of a good telescope when I heard
that last week or so. I'll read on a bit, though.

"Facts are stupid things.." -- Reagan, '88

Put that in context, please. Sounds like a screamer

 

[Active8]

Sure. There are some cool new UV and xray and gamma telescopes (or
telescope-like things) in orbit. Hubble can still do better than
anything on the ground at some wavelenghts.

Read "The Hubble Wars" by Chaisson. Cool book.

So would a retrofit mission be feasible?

 

[Charles Schuler]

What irks me is that some want to step backwards instead of moving
forwards.

Two Shuttles fail,and instead of making a better spacecraft,they decide
they don't need to fix Hubble.(and some want to abandon the ISS)

Current US policy is a rejection of science and ramping up the latest
version of the crusades.

 

[John Larkin]

Manned spaceflight has nothing to do with science; it's useless
spam-in-a-can. The crews of the ISS do nothing but struggle to
maintain life support for the crews of the ISS. What place in the
universe could be less interesting than low Earth orbit? For the price
of one manned mission, you could launch dozens of robotic probes to
planets and asteroids and the sun itself, learn a lot about remote
sensing, and do some real science.

Current US policy is a rejection of science and ramping up the latest
version of the crusades.

Nonsense. The US still leads the world in science and technology. Not
to mention weapons.

John

 

[John Larkin]

So would a retrofit mission be feasible?

Sure, if NASA had the guts to risk a shuttle mission. They could
replace the gyros, refull the propellants and cryogens, and pop in
some cool new sensors and signal processing.

John

 

[Active8]

Sure, if NASA had the guts to risk a shuttle mission.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Who ever said it was easy?

They could
replace the gyros, refull the propellants and cryogens, and pop in
some cool new sensors and signal processing.

And do a few other missions during the same trip.

 

[Charles Schuler]

Put that in context, please. Sounds like a screamer

Reagan was quoting John Adams' well-known quotation, facts are stubborn
things. He certainly knew the correct words--it was a simple
misstatement--but it makes a funny quote in its own right. [note by Michael
Moncur, November 30, 2004]

 

[Ken Smith]

So far nobody has touched on the fact that there are now terrestrial
telescopes that can out do the Hubble. So that makes the Hubble just a
nice piece of sentimental valued space junk. So, one must ask
themselves, is it worth it.

Isn't it still true that you need a nearby bright star to make the active
optics work? People are still fighting to get Hubble time for some
reason.

 

[Don Pearce]

Isn't it still true that you need a nearby bright star to make the active
optics work? People are still fighting to get Hubble time for some
reason.

--

If there isn't one in the vicinity they can create one in the
ionosphere with a sodium laser.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

 

[Ken Smith]

Two Shuttles fail,and instead of making a better spacecraft,they decide
they don't need to fix Hubble.(and some want to abandon the ISS)

The Russians have already proven that you can put a tin-can in space and
have people live in it for a while. ISS hasn't advanced from that point.
It is a waste of money on a non-science project.

If a space station was spun up to give a gravity effect and was a place to
assemble large missions to the outer planets it may have a purpose. Today
it just exists as a place for the shuttles to go and the shuttles just
exist to go there. Both have become near useless.

 

[Don Pearce]

The Russians have already proven that you can put a tin-can in space and
have people live in it for a while. ISS hasn't advanced from that point.
It is a waste of money on a non-science project.

If a space station was spun up to give a gravity effect and was a place to
assemble large missions to the outer planets it may have a purpose. Today
it just exists as a place for the shuttles to go and the shuttles just
exist to go there. Both have become near useless.

--

Saw an interesting interview with an astronaut/cosmonaut recently. The
interviewer asked him how they spent their time while not actually
working. "Trying not to die" was the answer.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

 

[John Larkin]

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Who ever said it was easy?


And do a few other missions during the same trip.

Missions? Like watching ants mate in zero gravity?

John

 

[keith]

Missions? Like watching ants mate in zero gravity?

Ants? OTOH, maybe... Nah, the FCC wouldn't approve. ;-)