No Money For Hubble Service Mission 401
starexplorer writes "SPACE.com is reporting that the White House has eliminated funding for servicing the Hubble Space Telescope from its 2006 budget request. After many options 1, 2 were explored, is this the death knell for Hubble?"
Hubble on eBay (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hubble on eBay (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hubble on eBay (Score:3, Funny)
any company can start taking ground photos etc from hubble and make things profitable.
would be fun to buy space junk and run linux on their CPUs..... http://hubblecontrol.sf.net...
Re:Hubble on eBay (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hubble on eBay (Score:5, Interesting)
Except, of course, it currently has no de-orbit capability, hence the plan to go there and add it. But, if you already have to go there...
Re:Hubble on eBay (Score:3, Informative)
I know that the gyros only control orientation. On other satellites, the final gyro commands are usually sent to set things up for braking the craft so as to de-orbit the unit. It is that action to which I was referring, although standard practice seems to de-orbit at two good gyros, to allow for one failing during de-orbit procedures.
Re:Hubble on eBay (Score:5, Informative)
Not really unable to move, but unable to be controlled.
Sell it to another space program (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Hubble on eBay (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, and as long as we can end the auction before the next gyro goes out, we can even provide free delivery with a controlled de-orbit...
Re:Hubble on eBay (Score:4, Interesting)
NASA calculated that that servicing mission,whether robotic or shuttle, would cost over one billion dollars US. The only "market" that could pick up that kind of tab (or anything close to it) would be the Japanese or European space agencies. Private companies have a hard time just getting a sattelite into orbit. The Russians might have the technology, but they could not realistically fund the mission.
According to This source [miis.edu], the total annual budget for the ESA is 2.7 billion Euros. The Japanese budget according to This source [slashdot.org] was around 1.3 billion US Dollars in 1998. So we are talking about asking them to take on a project that would cost them between 30% to 80% of their total annual space budget.
The probability of success of a robotics mission is IMHO extremely low. You would be hard pressed to build a robot that could service hubble if it was sitting on the ground, much less orbiting in zero G in the cold of space.
Assuming the Japanese and Europeans decided they wanted to pool resources and take on this relatively huge project, then farm it out to the Russians for the launch platform and manned mission (because they are the only ones that have that technology), what would be the end result? Another 5 years or so of science. (remember, we have a new telescope that will be online 5 years or so after Hubble goes dark.) The rewards just don't seem to be worth the effort.
I love the science as much as anyone, but for the most part, the great view of the universe from space isn't going away. It will still be there in 5 years, or 10 years, or however long it takes us to get the next great telescope into space.
Re:Hubble on eBay (Score:3, Insightful)
A private company might take over Hubble to sell telescope time to scientists who DO want to look at galaxies. The question is can it be done profitably? If we use the estimates from the article it might cost $1B to repair the Hubble which would extend its life by six years. Ignoring the time value of money, this works out to $19000/hour for just the repair mission. I'm not familiar with the finance side of astronomy, so maybe someone else could fill me in on this. How do astronomers pay for telescope time? Is there an hourly rate that's paid out of the research grant? I know most telescopes aren't run by for-profit companies.
Re:Hubble on eBay (Score:2)
Death for Hubble? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, if we count on the government to fund Hubble, yes.
Perhaps a private party will either donate, or advertise.
This cosmic picture was brought to you by Budwiser.
Re:Death for Hubble? (Score:5, Insightful)
Significant research is very risky and rarely profitable--and never reliably profitable in the way that normal business investments are. Yes, there are enormous long-term benefits, but the current CEO will have cashed out all of his stock dividends a long time before major research produces any results. There is a fundamental mismatch between the long-term perspective of pure research and the short-term perspective of a business that will have to show its profit numbers to the SEC at the next quarter--at which time the investors will sell their shares if that company is "wasting too much money" on research.
America is becoming the land of the ignorant. Proud, boastful, even aggressive ignorance.
Death for Science? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's worse than that. From my perspective (I'm in catholic Italy) there was really no need for the church to go back to challenge scientific discoveries. In fact the Pope is fighting for what is seen as unethical research on human cloning and so on, but doesn't challenge Darwinism, for example. On the other hand, IIRC, one minister tried to remove Darwin from teaching programs, but the model for this behaviour stays in US, not in the Vatican (I don't want to try and excuse the Roman Catholics, which should speak out louder against this, as I do)
So, why politicians of us and italian right fight science more than the official Church? I have one dystopic explanation. Science as it existed before big money came in (that is: peer review, published results, quest for personal glory of the scientist...) is no longer desirable for the society we are transforming into. Scientific discovery must be directed by the market, in controlled environments and regulated by patents so that the big players exert their superiority.
Among other strategies, the enemies of science are using religion as a mere weapon of disinformation. They want people to blindly obey faith and negate scientific evidence and couldn't care less for the message itself. Else they would be evangelizing in a totally different way...
Re:Death for Hubble? (Score:2)
It doesn't even matter whether or not it was legit, though in scientific terms it seems mathematically impossible that Dubya actually won. It doesn't matter because Dubya evidently does have roughly half of the roughly 60% of the voters that actually bothered.
On his demerits and incompetence, Dubya should have support from maybe 10% of true morons.
Re:Death for Hubble? (Score:3, Insightful)
>This is another bad generalization. America, assuming you mean the United States, is not an idealogical or even cultural monolith. The United States are a collection of individual states, each with a unique cultural, legal, and educational system.
Judging by your statement, I am quite sure you do not live in the United States. A collection of individual states with unique legal and education systems -- and unique cultures?
The truth is, religion spans wide across state borders. So does ignorance. When I drive from Pennsylvania into Maryland and Washington, D.C., I do not feel as though I am passing some geographical flux of cultures.
Similarly, the public schools in Florida work just like those found in Maine (although in Maine they work better). And if I wind up in court in Missouri, I have the same fundamental rights as I would in California.
You're absolutely wrong. The conservative culture of this country runs deep throughout. Right-wing ideology is sweeping the minds of Americans because it is packaged with better marketing than anything else.
It's the same kind of thinking that says Democrats don't go to church because they are Democrats. These sick perversions of ideology transcend at least a third of the country and the numbers are growing. In Chicago, you can go to a church on Sunday that only admits Republicans - or Democrats who are willing to consider changing parties.
Right-wing politics is in the roots of America now. It's not just another opinion. It's a religion in itself and it is indeed sweeping the United States, which is not so much a collection of states these days as it one giant creature that is currently trying to decide which side of the fork to walk down.
"Aggressive ignorance" is exactly what it is. It's the same thinking that makes it "unpatriotic" to disagree with the war in Iraq. That is aggressive ignorance.
Today in much of America, ignorance is just proof that you can stick to your guns. Being wrong is frowned upon - but STAYING wrong is a virtue somehow. And it is certainly proud and boastful - that's how it sells, because so many people don't think for themselves. They right the coattails of whoever seems to know where they're headed. It's how they win. It's how a blowjob is worth more national debate than the invasion of a sovereign nation. It's how finding no WMDs can be a footnote to the fact that John Kerry once enjoyed windsailing.
And it's why I feel so sad to be an American -- and even sadder that I just said that -- because I do love what this country can be, if not what it always is.
Re:Death for Hubble? (Score:5, Interesting)
Judging by your statement, I am quite sure you do not live in the United States.
As for my credentials, I was born in South Dakota, I've lived in 3 states, I've vistied about 25 of them. I've managed to visit about 5 foreign nations from Europe to Asia. I'd like to think that makes me a pretty good judge of culture shifts.
When I drive from Pennsylvania into Maryland and Washington, D.C., I do not feel as though I am passing some geographical flux of cultures.
Drive from Virginia to North Dakota and listen to the accent of the gas station attendants. Look at the condition of the roads, houses, and the styles of public buildings or churches. The change is amazingly cool.
Similarly, the public schools in Florida work just like those found in Maine
How frequent are the private schools, and if they work the same, but Main's are better, are you saying the people in them are different? That would suggest a local culture.
And if I wind up in court in Missouri, I have the same fundamental rights as I would in California.
Not true. Each state has its own constitution and provides very different fundamental rights. For example, the Massachusents Constitution does not provide an express right to bear arms. The Constitution of South Dakota has always declared such right in detail. Or are you limiting your understanding of "fundamental rights" only to those expressed in the federal consitution?
Right-wing politics is in the roots of America now. It's not just another opinion. It's a religion in itself and it is indeed sweeping the United States, which is not so much a collection of states these days as it one giant creature that is currently trying to decide which side of the fork to walk down.
I live in North Dakota and I don't have cable TV. I haven't noticed much of a change.
Being wrong is frowned upon - but STAYING wrong is a virtue somehow. And it is certainly proud and boastful - that's how it sells, because so many people don't think for themselves.
You're right. I do recall President G.H.W.Bush state that he was signing a law prohibitng flag burning when he knew it to be unconstitutional. I still haven't figured out that one.
I also encounter folks all to often who will say without blinking, "I don't know anything about [Insert issue here], but I'm voting for this guy because he's out to help me."
I think, however, that this just illustrates that people in large groups tend to be stupid... whatever their culture.
Re:Death for Hubble? (Score:3, Insightful)
Science does indeed create models, but the science part is the procedure for creating/justify/verify/refute the models along with the theory This does not imply that the models are the "truth" (by definition, they are at best an approximation of the "object" they model). As usual, this is the part that Creationist always fail.
2. It is equally incorrect, and very unfair, to suggest that any religious fanatic is opposed to what science may generate.
Yes, it's unfair, but understandable, to make this assumption. Not so many are aware of the contribution, that, say, Jesuit priests has made to science. Not to mention muslims that before Christian oppression was far more advanced in science than Christians at that time.
With the very strong influence religious extremists has on the current administration, and in some states, it's easy to take a very dim view on USA's scientific future. The graduates filling up US universities are not US born citizens, and tenure tracks goes to extremely qualified immigrants. When you have Creations deciding curriculum, this is no surprise.
Re:Death for Hubble? (Score:2)
Too late, however. Karl Rove (using Dubya) has already harnessed too much hate power for America to survive.
Re:Death for Hubble? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not too late. The pendulum swings back and forth. The US was stuck in the same if not worse conservative ignorant situation in the late 50's - early 60's. Then the pendulum swung back with a vengeance. I think the same will happen again when people realize where the policies of the current administration are taking this country.
Re:Death for Hubble? (Score:2)
Also, read to learn. He said that basic Scientific Research doesn't work if done by the private sector, if you look the government has been funding it for quite a while. He didn't say that scientific research does not work if there is a free economy for things other than said research.
Re:Death for Hubble? (Score:5, Insightful)
Every single time Hubble images an object more than 5000 light years away, it PROVES that God did not create the universe 5000 years ago. There are arguments to support this, of course, but none of them form any basis in scripture. The most logical argument, of course, presented pretty much unanimously by Biblical Scholars, is that the absolute accuracy in the depiction of time-periods as documented in the Bible, has been lost to translation or antiquity (take your pick - since ancient Hebrew is, effectively a dead language, though it bears a striking resemblence to modern Hebrew - ancient Hebrew, particularly when dealing with numerical concepts that didn't exist in that time-period, is open for interpretation).
Thus proving Scriptural Inerrency false, Humanity benefits by eliminating the Fundamentalist Religious Forces that have held our race back with ignorance, bigotry, and endless conflict.
And the great thing is - we can all, as individuals, still Love God. If we want to. We just won't be compelled by scripture to hate and war with eachother anymore.
1. Name one discovery that Hubble has made that has benefited humanity or has the potential to in the next 300 hundred years.
By imaging worlds around other planets, Humanity may one day be compelled to try visiting one. Could this be beneficial? I dunno, ask the dead spirit of Christopher Columbus.
By gathering the data used to demonstrate universal expansion, we may one day solve the puzzle of so-called "dark matter" and it's relationship to gravity and expansion of the universe, which might lead to the technical mastery of the Gravitational Force itself. Mastery of the Gravitational Force would have astounding implications for all areas of transportation. To say the least.
Re:Death for Hubble? (Score:5, Insightful)
The President only requests money. Congress allocates is. They've overriden this president many times regarding NASA's budget. (The White House has tried to kill the New Horizons mission to Pluto on at least one occasion. Congress put the money back.)
This isn't the end of HST. That doesn't really depend on Bush, that depends on Congress.
Re:Death for Hubble? (Score:5, Informative)
In other words, this could just be a gambit to drum up support and funding from congress.
Too bad...if only NASA had (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Too bad...if only NASA had (Score:3, Insightful)
He was right on the spot.
The current RNC admin spends $150+ billions on a crusade to conduct a democracy-for-oil campaign and caused the death of 1500 young soldiers, but can't spend $10 million on HST?
Come On !!! You, Mr.Moderator, are a f*ckin' Rep.
Re:Too bad...if only NASA had (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Too bad...if only NASA had (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Too bad...if only NASA had (Score:3, Interesting)
It had about the same effect as the CBS faked memo - it completely destroyed the public's ability to care about a valid issue.
Comment removed (Score:2)
Just replace the Hubble (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Just replace the Hubble (Score:5, Informative)
The problem arises from the fact that Hubble will die without servicing before then.
Re:Just replace the Hubble (Score:5, Informative)
Not to mention Hubble and JWST don't see all the same frequencies on the radiation spectrum, so even once JWST goes up, we won't be able to see everything Hubble could.
Re:Just replace the Hubble (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Just replace the Hubble (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep. I guess not being on the CC for every NASA Hubble memo & report might just leave us out of the loop on some parts of NASA internal discussions. Not surprising.
You don't think that perhaps, "Lauch a new one," was their first choice, and the maintenance requests were initiated because it was the cheaper, easier, more reliable, and more likely to get approved option?
would involve zero risk.
You mean, "except for total loss due to [insert unrecoverable failure of lauch system or vital telescopic system or basic design flaw here]", right?
Re:Just replace the Hubble (Score:2)
Meanwhile, as many people have said, the James Webb telescope is the closest to being launched, and it won't show up until well after Hubble is dead. Even so, it is designed to "see" a completely different set of the spectrum than Hubble, so it's not a replacement at all, more of a supplement.
Bush 2004 - Limiting intelligence in any way possible.
Re:Just replace the Hubble (Score:2, Insightful)
Hubble was originally designed in the 1970s and launched in 1990. Thanks to on-orbit service calls by the Space Shuttle astronauts, Hubble continues to be a state-of-the-art space telescope.
I agree that launching a new one is probably the best option. Although a new telescope is probably much more expensive than repairing the hubble, it was designed in the 70's for god's sake and you can only upgrade something so far before you start hitting some pretty hard limits.
Considering how far computers and precision instuments have come in the last 8 years, let alone 30, its time for a new telescope that can fully utilize the technology we have available today.
Re:hubble double (Score:4, Informative)
That abstract begins, "A no-new-technology HST-class observatory with COS and WFC3 as its core instruments
There's also a brief article about this [newscientist.com] at New Scientist.
I'm not crazy about this idea, for a bunch of reasons, but it is under active investigation.
Replacement mission -"HOP" (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.pha.jhu.edu/groups/ astro/Colin%20HOP_final_noBudget.pdf
Re:Replacement mission -"HOP" (Score:3, Insightful)
If you rationally look for the best way to spend a billion dollars to aid astronomical research, HOP is a much better bet - you get a slighly newer and more capable satellite made mostly with proven techology and which has a longer expected life-span than the aging Hubble. And you don't risk human lives by launching a space shuttle to an orbit from which "abort to ISS" is an impossibility.
Or save the billion dollars and just deorbit Hubble whenever it actually fails (could last 4 more years, could last 15 more years, we don't really know.) Between Chandra and James Webb we're already spending billions on new astronomical satellites, and investigating new IR and radio wavelengths is scientifically more valuable than just collecting more visible pictures like those from Hubble.
Cheaper? (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:Cheaper? (Score:3, Interesting)
Cost of Hubble in 1990 dollars: $1.5B
Cost of Hubble in 2004 dollars: $2.2B
That doesn't include launch costs. It would also probably take ~10 years to plan and build.
Wha? (Score:4, Funny)
aaaah Political doublespeak... (Score:4, Interesting)
Now I see this posted... Now admittedly 1 billion is a pretty big price to save Hubble (would probably be more practical just to send up a new one) but is there a newer one in the near Horizon even?
Politics and space mix badly...but then again what else is new...
Re:aaaah Political doublespeak... (Score:2)
Ohh and to try to stay SLIGHTLY on topic, I think the Hubble is obsolete. It may be one of a kind, but it is due to be replaced. Lets just speed up the replacement.
Re:aaaah Political doublespeak... (Score:4, Informative)
wrong on two counts (Score:3, Insightful)
Your memory does not serve. This was the most expensive inauguration ever.
"40 million bucks goes to things like limo drivers, cooks, clean up crew"
No. It buys access for the corporations who wish to bend the ear and favor of those who write the laws.
Re:aaaah Political doublespeak... (Score:5, Informative)
More like a new and different one. If you actually compare the two you'd notice that the JWST doesn't see everything the HST can, not even close to the same wide range of spectrum. It sees primarily in IR.
Re:aaaah Political doublespeak... (Score:3, Insightful)
But this isn't about entitlement programs for pointy headed scientists, it's about the security in the free world. Bush has only 4 years to get us embroiled in a war with Iran*, and he's already feeling a budget pinch.
It should go with out saying (but this is left wing hippy slashdot, so I'll say it anyway) that we can't afford puffery like "basic science" or "free education" or even "saving Social Security" when there are still rogue nations that threaten us with another 9-11. Just be glad that NASA isn't going to be dismantled from within, like they're planning on doing to Social Security. In fact, if scientist weren't helping build more weapons, I'd say to ship you all to gitmo for some re-education. Y'all are getting above yourselves. The President knows what he's doing.
* A Short Play by Bill Ohreally
Commie/hippie/traitor: Invading Iraq was a mistake! They weren't involved in 9-11. Iran is the one that has the history of sponsoring terrorist groups!
Our glorious and wise President: Iran you say? Hold on a second.
--The chief exectutive of the most free and powerful nation on Earth picks up his phone.
Our glorious and wise President: Hello, Dick? Get Condi and come here. I want to know how soon we can invade Iran. What? You two were already working on it? Great! OK, see you in five.
Crash it... (Score:4, Funny)
Module to Hubble needed to safely de-orbit (Score:2)
Anyone know why such a module wasn't installed as part of the original contruction? Wouldn't it have been a wise precautionary measure to put something like this on just in case?
Re:Module to Hubble needed to safely de-orbit (Score:2)
Re:Module to Hubble needed to safely de-orbit (Score:5, Informative)
After the Challenger disaster, plans to bring the Hubble back were dropped. Landing the shuttle with that much weight was found to be too risky.
After the Columbia accident, going to Hubble to repair it or deorbit it with a space shuttle was found to be too risky.
The Hubble was designed back when the shuttles were believed to be far more robust and expected to have a bit more carrying capacity. Going from the drawing board to a flight-worthy vehicle with a design that managed to be both revolutionary and out-of-date resulted in some difficult problems.
Eventually (as the Estes catalogs taught us in the late '60s) reusable is the way to go. But with the current state of engineering and finances, the Russians are doing a lot better with big, dumb, reliable, mass-produced single-use vehicles.
We desperately need a new space vehicle system that's safe, versitile, and cheap in terms of the cost of kg. to orbit. The new system is doable engineering wise, but probably dead politically.
Re:Module to Hubble needed to safely de-orbit (Score:2)
Re:Module to Hubble needed to safely de-orbit (Score:2)
Re:IIRC Hubble was launched by Shuttle (Score:2)
Re:IIRC Hubble was launched by Shuttle (Score:2)
To deorbit it, they would have latched on, executed a burn with the OMS (orbital manuvering system, those big outside pods on either side of the tail fin, not the three main engines), left go of the Hubble, and moved out of the way with the OMS.
There would have been no need for a fueled propulsion vehicle in the cargo bay. They did design a Centaur that could have been carried onboard Discovery. Not after the Challenger disaster, though.
Space needs more popular support (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm an avid supporter of all things space-related (paying member of Planetary Society, etc) but I find most articles written about the Hubble telescope and space in general pretty boring. Until someone inspires the world with a lofty goal that will push technology or knowledge forward significantly, I think you can expect this type of stagnation or actual devolution.
Space needs raison d'etre (Score:2)
Re:Space needs more popular support (Score:3, Informative)
Be careful about generalizing your likes and dislikes to the rest of the world.
When will it end. (Score:3, Funny)
A Gift from the White House (Score:2, Funny)
Priorities (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:Priorities (Score:3, Insightful)
Turn it around and say that the President decided to spend one billion on some program that you don't personally have any interest in, and all of a sudden it would be "Why spend a billion on that when there is a war going on in Iraq?"
Stop using both sides of the same arguement to bitch about the war. You don't support the war -- We get it. This is about the Hubble, not foriegn policy.
Re:Priorities (Score:2)
Re:Priorities (Score:2)
Re:Priorities (Score:2)
Savings (Score:2)
An Excellent point. Let's go a little furhter: why waste a large orbiting mass? Perhaps NASA can arrange to de-orbit it into a terrorist training camp or something. That should save us the cost of a cruse missile or two.
Re:Priorities (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe you were thinking of the cost of the upcoming war with Iran, but I have it on good authority that it's going to be a cake walk, and our soldiers will be greeted as liberators.
Taco Bell's second chance! (Score:3, Funny)
NASA, PLEASE, don't miss the bulls eye now! I want my free burrito!
We ought to sell it before it is salvaged... (Score:5, Interesting)
And, no doubt, if we just leave it up there the Chinese and/or the EU will most certainly claim salvage rights and send up a repair crew.
The Chinese would claim it, if for no other reason than to make clear to the world what is becoming increasingly obvious: the USA lacks the desire (funds?) to maintain its status as a space faring nation and is being replaced by China as the space faring super power.
Money? (Score:2, Interesting)
Large Binocular Telescope (Score:4, Informative)
This is what happens with a change in direction. (Score:2)
As others have said, $1 billion for the repair is an awful lot to spend when it does not further the advance of manned missions beyond earth. Personally I am sad to loose hubble, but generally like the new direction the space program is taking.
Funding (Score:2)
Could this be ... (Score:2, Insightful)
the White House is grandstanding (Score:2)
Eliminate other costs (Score:2, Interesting)
...is this the death knell for Hubble? (Score:3, Insightful)
In the end, the bugetary decisions are up to Congress. They have the power to restore the Hubble funding to the budget.
Supernova 1987A (Score:3, Informative)
De-orbit it into Iran (Score:2)
Pathetic (Score:3, Interesting)
Wasn't Bush proposing a trip to mars? (Score:3, Interesting)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3381531
I lament the end of an era. (Score:2)
This is ideology, not budget (Score:3, Insightful)
Get the inauguration sponsors to pay for it (Score:2)
Talk about ill planning (Score:4, Insightful)
But in the process, lets scrap perhaps the most successful space venture in human history.
Hubble has been the greatest achievement in NASA's history. Far from the high profile Moon Landing. but it's the better achievement:
1. Has made millions interested in space, and sciences through it's absolutely breathtaking images.
2. One of the greatest feats of engineering servicing that thing.
3. It's been reliable and usable for YEARS
IMHO it more than earned a repair, and an upgrade.
It's been NASA's true achievement. The mars rovers have been great, they did a lot. But nothing has outperformed like Hubble.
Paypal button on homepage? (Score:4, Funny)
(just kidding)
Re:Who needs hubble? (Score:2)
Re:Finally! (Score:2)
Re:Finally! (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not a zero-sum game between humanitarian aid and science. Any language that supposes that it is leads you into trouble.
Re:Finally! (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong. I think space exploration is fascinating, but there are enough problems on this planet that money spent finding literal nothingness could be used to help solve. (e.g. tsunami relief, world hunger, etc)
Honestly, I'm glad the white house made this decision. Unfortunately, I'm worried where the money's going to go and be used for because it's hard not to wonder in an age with a government so ignorant such as the US's. Just my 2c.
OK, I know I'm responding to a troll. I know this is stupid but my .02c is this: "Fuck the poor". Fuck 'em. I'm tired of hearing about how we can't do space exploration until every fucking poor person on the planet is fed. Want to help poor people? Sterilize them so they can't breed more poor children and perpetuate their problems. "Can't feed 'em? Don't breed 'em!" should be our new motto. Admittedly this is not PC, but fuck that too. Oh, and for all of the people who are so fucking concerned about the poor, why don't you stop surfing /., turn off your PCs, get off of your fucking asses and actually go help the poor? Work in a soup kitchen or something, sell your kidneys and donate the money you receive to tsunami relief. Think of all the problems on this planet that you could solve if you weren't selfishly sitting on your fat ass and surfing /..
Re:What a negative view (Score:2)
I thought you all said we were just there to steal the oil. Guess you were full of sh*t then too.
Like what, Sunni insurgents making IEDs to kill Iraqis? And, news flash, members of certain minority sects (see Bathist Sunnis) are going to hate us regardless.
Bush can hardly afford to spend a little money on a proven and viable space technology
A little money? Over a BILLION dollars is a little money? The damn thing needs a major repair mission to continue. The shuttle isn't ready to go. There's a NEW telescope in the pipeline, but you think it's okay to keep throwing dollars at this one.
Re:"Insightful"? More like "low standards for righ (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What a negative view (Score:2)
Bar: Many Iraqis have the freedom of a pine box
I doubt it... I don't think pine trees grow in Iraq. I'm still trying to figure out what Iraqis get that we don't have, other than fear and knowledge. The fear: that they'll get blown up by an insurgent's bomb at any time. The knowledge: they've traded random disappearances of individuals under Saddam for random killings of dozens under the US.
Re:What a negative view (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess this lesson here is that it is better to have security under a tyrant that the opportunity to live free. Why are 80% of Iraqis planning to vote? If the situation were truly so terrible, how could that be true?
Re:What a negative view (Score:3, Informative)
where did you get 80%?
Even the Bush whitehouse is downplaying the importance of the elections these days. Things really are "That Horrible", as you say:
The administration continues to say publicly that it expects a significant Sunni turnout, citing an International Republican Institute poll in early December showing 20 percent of Sunnis intend to vote and 35 percent intend "somewhat" to vote. But in light of the insurgents' growing attacks on election and government officials since that survey, U.S. officials fear last-minute attacks on polling stations, candidates and voters will produce a much smaller turnout among the minority group that once dominated Iraq. One unofficial estimate already predicts a vote as low as 10 percent in some areas.
Sunnis represent about 30% of the total population of Iraq, BTW.
source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50
Re:Sell it to the private sector? (Score:2)
No, it couldn't.
You know why? Because the amount of warning Hubble could provide over a ground-based scope would be measured in *seconds*.
Re:I guess it didn't find God... (Score:2)
When I'm feeling particularly conspiratorial, I wonder whether Hubble is just doing too damn much to show how pathetically ridiculous the Creationist notions that are espoused by a number of Bush's really are.