Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space

NASA Gives OK to Fix Hubble Telescope 278

Posted by CmdrTaco from the bazillion-mile-oil-change dept.
Erick writes "NASA has decided to rescue the Hubble. This will come as great news to all of those who have advocated for fixing the ailing 'scopes sensors, gyros, etc. The article states that nine to 12 months of planning will precede a mission to the Hubble Telescope."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA Gives OK to Fix Hubble Telescope More

NASA Gives OK to Fix Hubble Telescope

Comments Filter:

  • Want extra funding? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @09:39AM (#9929207)
    Make it a reality series! I know I'd watch them prepare and fix it.

  • Cool (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The Hubble has served us well, and like the Enterprise, it has at least another spin around the galaxy before its time is up.

    Nothing gives me more pride than to see a project for which I was a team leader for stay in the game against all odds.

  • NASA LIES!!! [partly OT] (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bunburyist ( 664958 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @09:42AM (#9929248)
    Don't beleive that stuff, Be more cynical. Bush is allocating 1 billion a year for the moon and Mars. Impossible. In return, NASA is being asked to give up the Hubble, the Shuttle, the Space Station (eventually). And funding for all other programs will be cut or eliminated as well, "for the Mars mission". The "Mars Mission" is twenty years in the future. It will have to survive five administrations, ten Congresses, and the eventually bankrupting of the Federal kitty by the tax cuts and increased non-discretionary spending. Point is, the "Mars mission" won't survive. I've watched the space program for thirty-five years, and things like this don't maintain momentum, especially in hard financial times. NASA, I hear, initially was jubilant; now they realize what they are being asked to give up: everything. For a pig in a poke. You are being just cynical enough. This is a way of disbanding the manned program while looking like heros, or "spatial pioneers", as Bush called them (I am not making that up). Five years from now, NASA will be all but gone, with a few contractors making a bit of money researching new systems that never make it to reality. I didn't believe it would happen so fast! Hubble already given up? I only wonder if Bush is smart enough to have thought this up himself, or if his Grand Viziers came up with the scheme while telling George about Mars and "Spatial Pioneers"? Does the King actually believe what he is saying? Is he that dumb, or that smart? And these comments are "flamebait" if you are a far-right whacko, kids. I'm not laughing.
    • Absolutely. This whole Mars fiasco has damaged NASA badly.

      Wonder if any of the X prize teams will be in a position to go up and fix the Hubble before NASA get around to it?

    • Um, no (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      1. NASA won't be dead "in five years", you asshole.

      2. Bush isn't trying to kill NASA.

      3. The word "spatial" refers to "space", moron, so while that may not be common use, it does indeed make sense, technically.

      4. You're the "whacko". Sorry. If all you can see is 100% conspiracy, evil, and malevolence in everything Bush or his "cronies" do, then you're the only "whacko" around here.
    • Whoever modded this offtopic needs to be banninated from further moderation.

      Unfortunately, I think the guy's got a point. I don't like what he's saying, but he's got the Bush administration's modus operandi down to a 'T'. We are trading off a lot of valuable science for a Mars mission that will probably not take place. The likely result will be that neither the pure scientists, nor those of us who are Mars-mission advocates, will get what we're after.

  • This is awesome... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by march ( 215947 ) * on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @09:42AM (#9929255) Homepage
    What we need is more science, less politics.

    On a related topic, for which Hubble was sort of a contributor, check out The Perfect Machine (The Building of the Palomar Telescope) [amazon.com].

    • Re:This is awesome... (Score:5, Funny)

      by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @09:49AM (#9929348)
      What we need is more everything, less politics.
    • I don't think so.

      What we need is more politics, and less science. Politics makes the world go around, and politics is what is going to pay for all of the pure research we like so much. We've had too many years of wonderfully smart people trying to sell super-colliders to lawyers -- we should have learned something by now.

      Focus on promoting space travel and lowering cost-to-orbit, and the rest will work itself out.

      • Re:This is awesome... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @09:57AM (#9929440)
        Hi, this is reality and our union would like a word or two.

        Although you may believe that the hot air given off by all the politians in the world is enough to sustain a steady orbit and rotation of our planet it is in fact gravity and momentum which does this, which are scientific principals.

        While valuble in avaiation hot air does not fund research or industry that is economics which is just a fancy branch of mathematics which is .. science again.

        Have a nice day
        • Someone mod parent up please.

          Think of the kittens
        • Blockquoth the poster:

          While valuble in avaiation hot air does not fund research or industry that is economics which is just a fancy branch of mathematics which is .. science again.

          Mathematics is not science. It's an allied field but since the ultimate criterion of truth is different, the disciplines are different.

      • Re:This is awesome... (Score:5, Informative)

        by QEDog ( 610238 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @10:18AM (#9929670)
        We've had too many years of wonderfully smart people trying to sell super-colliders to lawyers -- we should have learned something by now.

        The Superconducting Super Collider was canned for political reasons. The congress wanted to crack down on something for budget reasons, and there were 2 big targets: the International Space Station or the SSC. Remeber how each of these projects are a tiny amount of the goverments budgets. They needed to make an example out of one of them to "show" that they were serious about the budget. They cracked on the SSC because it was less "interesting" to the public, even though it was more important scientifically. They were going to look, among other things, for the Higgs Boson. It would have attracted thousands of scientists from around the world.

        Then the same politicians crippled the Space Station by putting it in an orbit that would let them cooperate with Russia, but made it useless for its original purpose. They broke the Space Station for a public show of how happy things are politically with Russia.

        I disagree, we haven't had years of smart people selling super-colliders.

        Basic science is hard to grasp for the general public. What is its application? Who knows? But, the point is that to build new technologies, a good strating point is to understand nature a bit better. Don't forget the basic science, without it the rest wont work itself out.

        • I know of several physicists that were against the SSC... it was a pork barrel project and the funding would of been more wisely spent on smaller/basic research projects.
        • The Superconducting Super Collider was canned for political reasons. The congress wanted to crack down on something for budget reasons, and there were 2 big targets: the International Space Station or the SSC. Remeber how each of these projects are a tiny amount of the goverments budgets. They needed to make an example out of one of them to "show" that they were serious about the budget. They cracked on the SSC because it was less "interesting" to the public, even though it was more important scientifically

        • Re:This is awesome... (Score:3, Informative)

          by jafac ( 1449 )
          SSC was pork-barrel politics from Bush Sr.

          The scientists who wanted it, thought it should be built in Illinois, so that Fermilab could be used as an injector ring. It would have been merely an expansion of Fermilab, and thus, would have saved taxpayers BILLIONS of dollars in construction of new facilities (and would have allowed scientists who already live there to stay living there). Additionally, there already existed in Illinois, several firms with lots of experience in deep tunnel boring projects (fo
    • And yet, your post is a political one, not a scientific one. So you have contributed solely to politics with your comment. :)

    • Not so fast.... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by global_diffusion ( 540737 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @01:52PM (#9932408) Homepage
      This sounds to me like a stalling tactic, not like NASA is actually going to fix the Hubble. Think about it:

      They have 9-12 months to design a robotic space mission. Then how many years will it take to build it and implement it? By the time this "mission" is underway, Hubble will have been floating dead in space for years and will probably have tons of other problems that will make this mission obselete.

      This sounds more like a way to funnel money to people studying robotics than a way to save the Hubble. An interesting thing to do would be to see which companies are supposed to develop these robotics and what connections they have to the administration.

  • Cost vs Risk (Score:5, Insightful)

    by meganthom ( 259885 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @09:44AM (#9929280)
    I'm sure that at $1-$1.6 billion to repair the Hubble, many who are not directly affected by the Hubble's latest problems will wonder why we're throwing so much money into something that, to them, is just a big, expensive camera. Personally, I'd like to know what kind of research money we're losing because the Hubble isn't working properly.

    I also fail to see how Mr. O'Keefe, who heads NASA, can postpone shuttle missions citing danger to the astronauts' lives. If it seems imminent that another disaster will occur on the next flight, I would understand, but surely we've found ways to resolve the latest problems. Astronauts don't go into the business of space flight thinking they'll have "safe" jobs, and I would think that as long as they're ready to fly again, the administration would be eager to get them back in space.

    • Re:Cost vs Risk (Score:5, Interesting)

      by LMCBoy ( 185365 ) * on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @09:54AM (#9929408) Homepage Journal
      'm sure that at $1-$1.6 billion to repair the Hubble, many who are not directly affected by the Hubble's latest problems will wonder why we're throwing so much money into something that, to them, is just a big, expensive camera.

      I would remind these people that $1 billion souunds like a lot, but it's equal to the cost for 2-3 shuttle launches, and probably not much more than we've spent on previous HST servicing missions. It's certainly far less than has been wasted^W spent on the ISS.
      • The real question is - how much would this mission cost if it was not managed by the gov't but by some private industry who actually is trying to save a buck while getting the best service (while the gov't blows its wad to get the worst service).

        • That Was A Hoot (Score:4, Interesting)

          by crawling_chaos ( 23007 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @11:55AM (#9930905) Homepage
          by some private industry who actually is trying to save a buck while getting the best service

          Yeah, just like Microsoft saves a buck while producing the best software, or Ford saves a buck by producing the best car...

          Private industry is no panacea. Particularly since the main client will continue to be the US Government and nobody has ever accused government contractors of producing the best product. As one astronaut once said "I try not to think about the fact that every part of the rocket underneath me was built by the lowest bidder."

        • When you figure out a way to sell Hubble-scale missions to suits who generally don't think ahead farther than the next couple of quarters, let us know.
    • ...as long as they're ready to fly again, the administration would be eager to get them back in space

      Well, it's not as though we've got a huge stable of shuttles ready to be deployed. We've only got two left Discovery and Atlantis, and there's no way we'll build any more like them, I'd wager. And, I'd also wager that NASA has essentially lost the ability to build any new launch vehicles because of the attrition of layoffs and retirements of skilled people to pull it off. (There haven't been any new des

    • Re:Cost vs Risk (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Maestro4k ( 707634 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @10:05AM (#9929531) Journal
      • I also fail to see how Mr. O'Keefe, who heads NASA, can postpone shuttle missions citing danger to the astronauts' lives. If it seems imminent that another disaster will occur on the next flight, I would understand, but surely we've found ways to resolve the latest problems. Astronauts don't go into the business of space flight thinking they'll have "safe" jobs, and I would think that as long as they're ready to fly again, the administration would be eager to get them back in space.
      Astronauts do indeed know they have unsafe jobs but it's one thing to die from an unavoidable mishap and another to die from something that should have been avoided. Both shuttle disasters have been proven to be the result of a culture (management culture at least) that tried to cut corners and costs even in the face of facts showing doing so could lead to loss of life (which it did, both times.) Frankly I really doubt NASA's culture has changed, if the shuttle goes back up it will be only a matter of time until we lose another one and it will most likely be due to avoidable error(s) (again). I fully support space travel/research but I also support the delays of starting up the shuttle program again. The only thing I'm worried about is if NASA will EVER be able to safely fly the shuttle, or anything else for that matter. I'm afraid that buracracy has taken over and NASA will never be able to avoid the avoidable risks since that might cost a few more dollars. (And yes I know not all risks can be avoided but there are risks that should not be taken when they're fixable -- like the problems in the O rings that caused the Challenger disaster.)
    • There's a good reason why they will do another servicing missing to the Hubble Space Telescope: they can install next-generation sensors that are far more advanced than what is now installed on the HST. This means improved resolution, better color resolution and/or correction, and so on.

      Besides, even after the Shuttle is phased out the HST can still be maintained: a service crew can fly up on a small spaceship and the parts could be brought up on the next generation of unmanned launch vehicles, which means

    • Re:Cost vs Risk (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Epistax ( 544591 ) <epistax @ g m a il.com> on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @10:06AM (#9929546) Journal
      Well personally I'd rather see the money go towards space elevator development. The sooner that is done, that $1-$1.6 billion to repair the Hubble will decrease significantly. Even if it requires a manned crew that must launch separately a lighter craft can be used (once developed) to get people into space.

      On a side note I think that should be a project to go alongside the space elevator: A bare-bones launcher made just to hold astronauts, life-support, and creature comforts. Let the "shuttle" then go Lego style over pieces sent up by the elevator, potentially becoming enormous.
      Oh yes, and I hope we have the best of the best of the best working on this project or else we'll just be throwing money down the drain.

      • Re:Cost vs Risk (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jandrese ( 485 ) * <kensama@vt.edu> on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @11:39AM (#9930668) Homepage Journal
        Isn't this kind of like saying: We should give up all of our road maintence/construction budget and spend it all on the development of flying cars? Most people I talk to don't think a space elevator will be practical for decades (if ever). People need to do science now, not 50 years in the future.

        • Re:Cost vs Risk (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Epistax ( 544591 )
          Not at all. If I said to give up the ISS, then that would hold some weight. However still none of these space explorations are vital in the same manner that you equate to road maintenance and construction. Flying cars? I hardly think that is a fair comparison at all.

          How long a space elevator takes is very much a factor of how much people take it seriously. You don't take it seriously, yes it will take decades. You take it seriously, it might take one.

    • Re:Cost vs Risk (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jridley ( 9305 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @10:08AM (#9929566)
      Personally, I'd like to know what kind of research money we're losing because the Hubble isn't working properly.

      Are you talking about the spectrograph that broke last week? Hubble was working perfectly up to that point.

      Agree with you on the weak-kneed approach to space exploration. If we don't want to risk any more lives, then we should get the hell out of space. And also out of sea exploration, defense, and about 99% of what humans do.

      It's a dangerous world; we must decide whether to face it or crawl into a hole. O'Keefe apparently is more interested in public relations than doing what the agency is chartered to do.

    • I also fail to see how Mr. O'Keefe, who heads NASA, can postpone shuttle missions citing danger to the astronauts' lives. If it seems imminent that another disaster will occur on the next flight, I would understand, but surely we've found ways to resolve the latest problems. Astronauts don't go into the business of space flight thinking they'll have "safe" jobs, and I would think that as long as they're ready to fly again, the administration would be eager to get them back in space.

      You cannot fault Mr.

  • Secret documents reavel the future of Hubble (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @09:44AM (#9929281)
    Google's IPO is actually so they can BUY Hubble from the United States. This will allow them to index the entire UNIVERSE! Imagine being able to search Space!

    Oh, and they'll be renaming Hubble to Huugle.

  • Good for Nasa (Score:5, Insightful)

    by the_crowbar ( 149535 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @09:44AM (#9929289)

    As an armchair astronaut (is there such a thing?) I applaud NASA's decision to keep the Hubble Space telescope operational. I have been fascinated over and over again by the images it produces. I think it may be one of the things that can keep NASA in the public eye and help it to get funding for more space exploration. I just hope that the repairs go well.


    Cheers,
    the_crowbar
    • I agree 100%. Even if its only an 'expensive camera,' it is fascination and inspiration to people (and children who may become astrophysicists and astronomers).

      Science and space should be fun and exciting... that's what Hubble is. It keeps the public interested in science, which makes it easier to get funding for, say, Mars missions.

  • Someone's finally making sense... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by solive1 ( 799249 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @09:45AM (#9929299)
    This is great news. The Hubble is one of our greatest scientific instruments. Without it or a suitable replacement, the effort to learn more about the universe would be left flapping around like a fish out of water.

  • Thank God! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JessLeah ( 625838 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @09:46AM (#9929314)
    This is WONDERFUL news! It's interesting how NASA has kept saying "We'll just let the Hubble de-orbit" while maintaining a "head in the sand" attitude about its replacement. The scientists who rely upon Hubble need it now as much as ever (if not more than ever), but NASA has seemingly ignored them. Oh, I am so happy to hear that they've finally come to the right decision!

    I mean, why should we deorbit Hubble if it doesn't already have a replacement up there?! Doesn't make sense.

    • Re:Thank God! (Score:2, Interesting)

      by bware ( 148533 )
      Because the $1B you use to keep the Hubble up is the $1B that you now don't get to spend on the replacement.

      I expect to hear that in the next few days, since the new fiscal year is coming up, that both of the future space science projects that I work on will have budget cuts, if not be mothballed entirely. This will be directly as a result of this Hubble decision.

  • Great, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ed Burnette ( 691293 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @09:49AM (#9929359) Homepage
    I'm glad that Hubble will be repaired but I fail to comprehend why it has to be by robots. It's in near Earth orbit! If we can't send humans to near Earth orbit then we have no business sending them to, say, Mars.
    • it's getting them back that's the problem.
    • Actually Hubble is just at the upper edge of the orbit that the shuttle can obtain. It is not clear, at least to me yet, that given the safety changes requested to be made to the shuttle (adding new systems, back up capabilities and plans) if the shuttle could still achieve such orbits any longer. For example some of the fall back plans require visiting the ISS which I doubt they could have the fuel for given the large difference between the Hubble and ISS orbits.

      I would love to see humans go up an do it s

  • Even Discovery (Score:5, Insightful)

    by halothane ( 200070 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @09:50AM (#9929376)

    Even Discovery Channel perpetuates the same error.

    Hubble's replacement, the James Webb Space Telescope, isn't scheduled to be launched until at least 2011.

    James Webb can't replace the Hubble. They see at different wavelengths. Webb can't even be reached once launched, let alone be repaired.

    I know people here at /. know these things, but to see even so-called science channels misleading the public is disheartening.

    • Re:Even Discovery (Score:5, Insightful)

      by lildogie ( 54998 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @10:01AM (#9929496)
      > Even Discovery Channel perpetuates the same error.

      Yeah, in between documentaries about the Bermuda Triangle and Area 51.

    • Re:Even Discovery (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Minna Kirai ( 624281 )
      Webb can't even be reached once launched, let alone be repaired.

      Uh... if Webb can get there, then it's position CAN be reached.

      Sure, it's out of range for the plausible human spacewalk profiles, but that doesn't mean a disposable repairbot can't be shot to LaGrange.

      The reasons the Webb is less repairable are multiple: It costs less than half what Hubble did, and only 3x that of a rocket launch, so replacement isn't cost-prohibitive over repair. And since spacewalkers can't reach it, it was built to be

  • Where's our priorities? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by milgr ( 726027 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @09:51AM (#9929385)
    Nasa will send plenty of missions to continue constructing the ISS. But, how much scientific information do we gain from the ISS? As I understand it, most of the work currently done on the ISS is maintaining the ISS.

    The Hubble on the other hand has a proven track record of sending back fascinating images that have advanced the astro-sciences.

    There are no plans to replace Hubble with a space based telescope that takes images in the visible wave lengths.

    So, where are we sending astronauts?

  • Yay! (Score:4, Funny)

    by sunking2 ( 521698 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @09:58AM (#9929454)
    Many more years of neat looking background images. What would we do without Hubble!

  • Must be a Tuesday... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Pendersempai ( 625351 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @10:07AM (#9929559)
    Seems to me they issue this sort of announcement every other Tuesday. How many times now has NASA gone through this "we're gonna get rid of Hubble... we're gonna do it... PSYCH!" dance?

    The cynical side of me says that they're holding it hostage for better funding and popular support, because it's such an icon. The last time they announced that they were junking it I didn't believe them for a second... and now, surprise, looks like it has a new lease on life.

  • Soyuz rocket prepared w/ Windex and screwdriver (Score:5, Funny)

    by IronChefMorimoto ( 691038 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @10:10AM (#9929578)
    In related news, a Russian Soyuz rocket was prepared for the Hubble repair mission. In an effort to cuts costs on the project as much as possible, NASA officials are using the Russian-made space vehicle to facilitate the mission.

    Additionally, NASA will supply the two astronauts assigned the project a bottle of Windex and a roll of Bounty paper towels to clean the Hubble optics. If the budget permits, a Philips head screwdriver and one of those fancy Sears/Craftsman "GRIP" wrenches will also be thrown in to the duffle bag the astronauts are carrying with them for the flight.

    IronChefMorimoto

  • Amazin (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nuttles ( 625038 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @10:11AM (#9929598)
    This is amazing news to hear considering the current political atmosphere of the country. George W. Bush may want to gain favor with the scientific community quickly in order to get some more support for his reelection. Since the project will take 3 years George W. could scrap it after the election to go for more ambitious and prestigious plan that will bolster up his presidency. So, if George W. Bush gets reelected, I think there is a chance that this project gets scrapped. Now if Kerry gets elected, there may be a ?weeding? of all things Bush and it may get scrapped that way too. So, given our current political atmosphere, I do not think that the fixing of the Hubble is a sure thing

    Nuttles

    Christian and proud of it
    • There's something Tolkienish about "The Fixing Of The Hubble", but I just can't put my finger on it.

  • Fix the old, replace with new? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Apollo Jones ( 673555 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @10:16AM (#9929641)
    Great news that NASA will seek to keep the Hubble up and working. Sounds like NASA will be able to schedule a service mission in about 3 years (with one of those years just planning). However, I am a little worried that there is not a lot of press covering its replacement - the James Webb Space Telescope. [nasa.gov] This isn't scheduled to be launched until 2011. The extension of Hubble closes the gap between current and future platforms. Interestingly Webb has a mission life of 5 - 10 years. In contrast Hubble was launched in 1990 and will be in use for at least another 3-4 years. Let's hope NASA is being conservative in their estimate of the duration of the Webb...

  • The real reason (Score:4, Funny)

    by mackman ( 19286 ) * on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @10:18AM (#9929662)
    Secretary of State Rumsfeld insisted NASA "repair" the hubble by turning it around and pointing it at Earth.
  • I think "red-headed stepchild" of NASA and government funding. That poor thing has been broken and talked about so many times that it was tough to decide if they should actually salvage it or just let it burn up. Money and promises of future technology be damned, I think we should keep the thing around. Hubble is one of the few things that keeps the explorers of the "undiscovered country" in the news and connecting with the public (even though so often, the news is that it's busted again). Besides, the fa

  • Great (Score:5, Insightful)

    by condensate ( 739026 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @10:25AM (#9929755)
    Hubble is one of the most fruitful scientific projects ever. Since the nineties, it has continuously shaped our view of the universe, think, e.g. of the Hubble deep field. Besides, it is still the only way astronomers can take a peek into space (in the visible part of the spectrum) without having to accept athmospheric disturbances. That is, it is still our sharpest eye out there and will surely help in bringing us some great science. Thanks a lot, NASA!

    • Re:Great (Score:3, Informative)

      by Christopher Thomas ( 11717 )
      Besides, it is still the only way astronomers can take a peek into space (in the visible part of the spectrum) without having to accept athmospheric disturbances. That is, it is still our sharpest eye out there and will surely help in bringing us some great science. Thanks a lot, NASA!

      Actually, adaptive optics give us better visible-wavelength pictures from the ground now. The Hubble is useful for wavelength bands that the atmosphere absorbs.
  • I for one, welcome our new Hubble fixing overlords....
  • Whether it be repairing the so-called 'failing' ISS, repairing hubble, or sending up new instruments. As we struggle to keep ISS afloat through repairs, budget issues, and tons of setbacks we are obviously learning alot about how to keep that thing up there. I'm sure as stuff breaks or breaks multiple times, new things are developed to replace the faulty parts. After years and years of doing this NASA has built up alot of practical experience of keeping a piece of junk in space that can support life. Obviously hubble is more important scientificically but we shouldnt underestimate the value of excersises in engineering, maintainence, and beerocracy :). NASA has many responsibilities, learning as much as they can about keeping people alive in an old and finicky spacecraft is about as important as they come....

    Everything we do in space is good... barring of course bringing the damn military and weapons into space.. that wont go well for anybody...

Slashdot Top Deals

Sentient plasmoids are a gas.

Close