Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space The Almighty Buck Science

Senator Calls on NASA to Service Hubble 322

Posted by Hemos from the better-use-of-good-money dept.
Avantare writes "Senator Calls on NASA to Service Hubble In a sternly worded letter to acting NASA Administrator Frederick D. Gregory, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) said she expects the U.S. space agency to heed the will of the Congress and keep preparations for a Hubble Space Telescope servicing mission on track. Congress, in passing an omnibus spending bill late last year, directed NASA to set aside $291 million of its 2005 budget to spend planning and preparing for a servicing mission to Hubble by 2008. When NASA informed Congress just weeks later that it intended to spend only $175 million of that amount on the Hubble repair effort, some saw the move as an indication that the agency was preparing to abandon plans to service Hubble robotically and rely instead on a space shuttle crew to fix the telescope."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Senator Calls on NASA to Service Hubble More

Senator Calls on NASA to Service Hubble

Comments Filter:

  • Excellent News! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) * <[moc.liamg] [ta] [namtabmiaka]> on Friday March 11, 2005 @11:56AM (#11910630) Homepage Journal
    Good for Senator Mikulski! As far as I'm concerned, NASA has been putzing around on this issue for no reason WHAT-SO-EVER. The shuttles are no more dangerous now then they were for the earlier two decades they've been in service. If people were allowed to do their jobs, then NASA would have known about the shuttle damage *before* Columbia's reentry.

    These mumblings about robotic repair sound like a whiny way of getting out of doing the job. If you'll pardon my French, "Just launch the damn space shuttle and fix the bloody thing!" It's not that hard, and I'm sure there's no shortage of qualified volunteers. Do I hear an Amen?!?

    • Understanding risk (Score:5, Informative)

      by waynegoode ( 758645 ) * on Friday March 11, 2005 @12:04PM (#11910711) Homepage
      The shuttles are no more dangerous now then they were for the earlier two decades they've been in service

      The problems is not that they are more dangrerous now. They have always been this dangerous. It is just that now the danger is better understood. Ignoring risk does not make it go away.

      That said, I am not against using a manned (sorry, crewed) mission to repair the Hubble if that is the best option. In any case, the risks needed to be understood, reduced as much as possible and accepted or rejected; not just ignored.

      • Re:Understanding risk (Score:5, Insightful)

        by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) * <[moc.liamg] [ta] [namtabmiaka]> on Friday March 11, 2005 @12:12PM (#11910816) Homepage Journal
        Space travel has always been dangerous, PERIOD. Astronauts have always known that everytime they strap themselves in, there's a reasonable chance that they won't be coming back. Apollo 1 made that point real clear, and the Challenger incident further punctuated the point. The only comfort the astronauts have is that we will do everything in our power to get them home if something goes wrong. (e.g. Apollo 13)

        As I said, there's no shortage of volunteers who fully understand the risks they are taking. So fly the damn space shuttle for something USEFUL, and keep our bird in the air.

        You can't take the sky from me...

        • Re:Understanding risk (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Jerk City Troll ( 661616 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @12:25PM (#11910954) Homepage

          The only comfort the astronauts have is that we will do everything in our power to get them home if something goes wrong.

          And if we can't get them home, they carry 150mg doses of KCn to make things easier in the end. No doubt, astronauts fully understand what they are getting into: a personal sacrifice in the name of science.

        • Re:Understanding risk (Score:3, Informative)

          by T-Ranger ( 10520 )
          And, in fact, the safety record of the Shuttle is better then was was expected. Risk assesement was done (or risk was a defined requirement) then the programme started. The shuttle has been safer then what was pre-deteremend to be acceptable.

    • Re:Excellent News! (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You do know that NASA/Goddard is in Senator Mikulski backyard, right? Actually I'm not against her on this point, because it's my backyard too.
      • As a Marylander and a rabid Bush-hater, I am not a big fan of Mikulski's aggressively pork-filled political record, no matter how much it benefits me personally.

        Barb's #1 legislative priority is Maryland jobs. If a proposal has impact on local employment, she will vote accordingly. Only if the bill is relatively job-neutral will she consider other factors (good of the nation, desires of constituents, party philosophy, etc).

        For example, up until a few months ago when GM finally closed the AstroVan factory,
    • Another question: My understanding is that the repair will require a shuttle mission. What mission do you have to give up in order to do this mission?

      It is easy to be for something when you don't consider what you have to give up to make it happen.
    • The main problem with repairing hubble is the fact that ther is no longer any shuttle capable of containing it in it's hold as all the remaining shuttles are equipped for docking with the iss. so in order for the hubble to be repaired they would have to strip a shuttle so they can repair it (and lets not forget about taking along a spare set of solar panels.
    • Good for Senator Mikulski!

      Of course, this has nothing to do with the fact that NASA Goddard Space Flight Center is located in Mikulski's district. I'm sure she'd support a Hubble repair mission even if that wasn't the case...

    • Re:Excellent News! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by quarkscat ( 697644 )
      MD Senator (D) Barbara Mikulski to the rescue!
      She has been in the forefront of defending NASA
      from the pinhead bean-counters in the past. I
      sure hope she is successful once again.

      Regarding the SSTs (Shuttle Space Transports):
      NASA changed the formulation of the insulation
      on the external tanks, which made the ablative
      foam insulation dangerous. The original formula
      was environmentally "unfriendly" since it used
      CFCs. Losing a shuttle and crew during reentry
      was also environmentally "unfriendly". NASA
      management

  • There is a better option (Score:5, Interesting)

    by waynegoode ( 758645 ) * on Friday March 11, 2005 @11:56AM (#11910632) Homepage
    The cost of a mission to repair and service Hubble is estimated at $2 billion. And for that money, it may or may not work. However a new Hubble, Hubble Origins Probe, can be built and launched for $1 billion using the original Hubble designs and new instruments already built as replacements for the current Hubble. It's cheaper, more reliable and less risky.

    From an article in Discover Magazine [discover.com]

    Colin Norman, an astronomer at the Space Telescope Science Institute, notes that NASA has already built two expensive new instruments, the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph and the Wide Field Camera 3, for the cancelled Hubble upgrade. Instead of salvaging the current Hubble, he proposes using the parts to create a replacement, the Hubble Origins Probe.

    Also see the John Hopkins Newsletter [jhunewsletter.com].

    • Re:There is a better option (Score:5, Funny)

      by ThomasFlip ( 669988 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @12:04PM (#11910716)
      yeah but what you're talking about is fiscal sensibility. I don't think that the United States government (Congress, Senate, Whatever) in all of it's infinite wisdom is prepared to partake in such a common sense approach.

    • Re:There is a better option (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bechthros ( 714240 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @12:04PM (#11910717) Homepage Journal
      So these two instuments alone can replace all of the existing functionality of Hubble I's instruments? If that is the case then bravo, go for it. But if it means losing the ability to do deep UV astronomy or anything else that Hubble I has proven to be very adept at, I don't think we should skimp out. Hubble has shown itself to have exceeded expectations time and time again, and I think it's well worth the investment. Not to say we should throw money at the problem, but if we can find untold billions for the sake of running to stand still in Iraq then surely there's gotta be a spare 1 billion somewhere we could use to fix something that's been more useful than we expected.
      • Not those parts alone. At least, I doubt very much those parts alone. If that were all it would take, it'd probably cost less than $1 billion. It'll take more work to build the replacement, but at an ultimate savings over repairing the current. I doubt they'd leave out functionality that Hubble already has. If they do, they'd probably get a good deal of criticism from the scientific community, and right now, they're one of NASAs increasingly few fans.

        Building a new Hubble would also allow for things that w
        • On the other hand, I do agree with you. If they're just going to build a Hubble Lite with castrated capabilities, then I'd rather they let the current one die and wait for a few more years until a completely new space telescope can be built.

          Well, actually a "Hubble Lite", if it could be sent up in the near future is probably a lot better than waiting for NASA to come up with a new telescope. NASA has a history of delaying by amazing lengths of time important projects. For example, even now it doesn't hav

    • Re:There is a better option (Score:5, Informative)

      by kebes ( 861706 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @12:11PM (#11910807) Journal
      I think the "better option" that most astrophysicists are looking forward to is the James Webb Telescope. [nasa.gov] It's a primarily IR-telescope, but in terms of its mission statement it will largely replace what Hubble is doing now. Hubble has already survived longer than originally intended (due to many well-executed repair missions). More years could be squeezed out of Hubble with more repair missions, but if what you want is a brand-new telescope, the James Webb Telescope will keep astronomers busy for many years.

      • Wrong (Score:5, Informative)

        by MattHaffner ( 101554 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @12:44PM (#11911173)
        ...but in terms of its mission statement it will largely replace what Hubble is doing now.

        First of all, NASA almost never builds straight replacement instruments. They are always focused on something new. JWST will not replace Hubble by any means. In fact, if both were up at the same time (sustained, not about-to-be-junk), the amount of additional science able to come from their complementary instrumentation should be reason alone to keep Hubble strong until it launches.

        Astronomy in the ultraviolet is all but mothballed for a decade if one of the instruments (Cosmic Origins Spectrograph, COS) slated for installation in Hubble does not make it to orbit somehow. The only functioning instrument right now is GALEX [caltech.edu], an imaging experiment.

        However, when we obtain spectra, the ultraviolet, more than any other waveband, gives us tremendous direct information about the atomic composition of many astronomical objects. (Molecules are best studied in the radio part of the spectrum. Solid particles [e.g. dust] in the infrared).

        JWST will not fill this gap. It will be a great loss and put a halt to a wealth of knowledge gained from ultraviolet spectroscopy that began [nasa.gov] about three decades ago.

    • Re:There is a better option (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Ohreally_factor ( 593551 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @12:14PM (#11910846) Journal
      The thing is, I don't see the people who want to let Hubble die earmarking the funds for a new and improved replacement. The smoke and mirrors of a manned mission to Mars looks good politically because it's so ambitious, but it's causing other important areas to be underfunded or not funded at all.
    • Bingo.

      Any orbital device is just a platform anyway. They can build it in such a way that any number of devices could be mounted on it.

      Now as far as dumping the Hubble into the ocean. The the ones screaming the loudest in the science community are the ones that either have a guarenteed time slot for the Hubble or are awaiting their turn and haven't gotten it yet. A new probe would potentially disrupt their cozy little situation and force them to compete for the opportunity to use the new probe or loose

  • But I really think we would be better off with a new more powerful telescope.

    • Re:Cool (Score:3, Interesting)

      by lgw ( 121541 )
      There's one in the works, but there will be a few years between Hubbble going dark and the new guy going up. The cost of delaying all work in an entire field for a few years is higher than servicing the Hubble.

  • I want to know why... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Senator's don't usually care this much about what is essentially a technology budgeting decision. Who's got her ear, and why?

    • Re:I want to know why... (Score:2, Informative)

      by Morgon ( 27979 )
      Well, it's because Goddard is in Maryland, and nixing Hubble puts a lot of those workers out of jobs.

      I believe that was summarized in one of the previous stories about Hubble on Slashdot.
    • Well, the Space Telescope Science Intitute is in Baltimore, and IIRC she's the senator from Maryland.

      Granted, it's not like having the old mill shut down and put several thousand workers out on the street, but no doubt a number of high paying jobs will be lost or moved. Also prestige and tourism that comes from it are affected.

      That said, as a Democrat, I have a bit more tolerance for spending taxpayer money on scientific research than most of my Republican friends. Not all of them mind you, but most.
    • Who's got her ear, and why?

      *Gasp* It's her constituents! How dare they!

  • Worth Remembering Mikulski's Motives (Score:5, Interesting)

    by reallocate ( 142797 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @12:08PM (#11910761)
    It's worth remembering the Mikulski's motives aren't driven by pure science. Goddard and other Hubble-related facilities are in Maryland. This is a pork barrel and jobs issue for her.

    And for those who argue that repairing Hubble now is no riskier than in the past, you're missing the point. Every Shuttle flight is risky and Hubble repair missions are even riskier because rendevousing with Hubble means no chance of taking reguge at the ISS and slim to zero chance of rescue by a second Shuttle.

    Loss of a Shuttle during a Hubble repair mission would have political repercussions that woujld likely kill the Shuttle program and, possibly, kill any further crewed spaceflight of any kind. The Hubble is a nice tool, but the purpose of space travel is to put people there, not to do science. Fixing it isn't worth the risk.
    • It's worth remembering the Mikulski's motives aren't driven by pure science. Goddard and other Hubble-related facilities are in Maryland. This is a pork barrel and jobs issue for her.

      Another poster addressed that point here [slashdot.org].

      And for those who argue that repairing Hubble now is no riskier than in the past, you're missing the point. Every Shuttle flight is risky and Hubble repair missions are even riskier because rendevousing with Hubble means no chance of taking reguge at the ISS and slim to zero chance of rescue by a second Shuttle.

      The Shuttles were designed with hot-standby in mind. If the powers that be are THAT worried (which I'm not, we've done this several times before without incident) then get a second, unfueled shuttle on the pad. If something goes wrong, you have a day or two of turnaround. If everything goes fine, then the second shuttle will complete the next mission (probably IIS work). If possible, use the Endevour for servicing the Hubble. Not only is it newer and a bit sturdier, but it carries the extended mission, life support equipment just in case the astronauts have to cool their heels for a week or two while waiting for a rescue.

      Loss of a Shuttle during a Hubble repair mission would have political repercussions that woujld likely kill the Shuttle program and, possibly, kill any further crewed spaceflight of any kind.

      As sad as I am about it, the shuttle is dead. I see little chance that it will be flying for much longer. My only hope is that it hangs on long enough to push for the new launch technologies.

    • Re:Worth Remembering Mikulski's Motives (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bechthros ( 714240 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @12:24PM (#11910942) Homepage Journal
      "This is a pork barrel and jobs issue for her."

      Can you please explain to me why a Senator representing her constituants who, like most of us, want jobs, is a BAD thing? Isn't that why they're elected, to represent their constituants?

      "Every Shuttle flight is risky"

      Sure, just like every airplane landing is risky, just like crossing the street is risky. Most of them are former test pilots, so you'll have a hard time convincing me that the astronauts aren't willing to accept those risks. The fact that it's risky doesn't mean it istn't worth it.

      Not to mention that the safety record of shuttle flights far exceeds what was expected. I remember NASA saying when Challenger blew up that we were very overdue for just such an incident, and it was a fluke that one hadn't happened sooner. Not to say that more shuttles should blow up, but the safety record of shuttle flights is exemplary.

      "but the purpose of space travel is to put people there, not to do science."

      Why must there be only one purpose for space travel? And what exactly do you think these "people" we "put there" are going to do, sit around and play pinochle? No, the people that went to the moon did science once they got there. So will the people we eventually send to Mars. Scientific research is a very valid purpose for space flight.
      • And what exactly do you think these "people" we "put there" are going to do, sit around and play pinochle?

        I propose an ongoing ISS experiment testing the effects of freefall on pinochle games.

      • the safety record of shuttle flights is exemplary.

        Compared to what? So far, the Shuttle has killed 14 people in two crashes. Apollo lost three people in a ground test, of course, but nobody in flight. Mercury and Gemini never lost any. Soyuz had two fatal accidents, killing four people.

        • Two crashes out of 112 flights is not a bad ratio, at least according to NASA, who anticipated something much higher. Of course, I'd love to see it be zero, but then I'd love world peace too... Apollo, Mercury and Gemini all had much much lower numbers of flights. The percentage of exploded shuttles is 1.79%. Apply that to, for example, Apollo's 17 flights (I only remember cuz of the They Might Be Giants album "apollo 18", the one that never happened) and you'll see that Apollo should have had 1/3 of a

      • Not to mention that the safety record of shuttle flights far exceeds what was expected. I remember NASA saying when Challenger blew up that we were very overdue for just such an incident, and it was a fluke that one hadn't happened sooner. Not to say that more shuttles should blow up, but the safety record of shuttle flights is exemplary.

        Your memory is faulty. According to the Rogers Commission Report on the Challenger accident, NASA estimates on shuttle loss of vehicle/loss of life failure rate ranged

  • Local interest: STSI (Score:4, Informative)

    by jfengel ( 409917 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @12:08PM (#11910762) Homepage Journal
    I really like having Ms. Mikulski as senator, and I've voted for her each time she's been elected, but I should point out that the reason that she's pushing this isn't that she cares about getting hi-res pictures of aliens. The Space Telescope Science Institute [stsci.edu] is in Baltimore, MD, her home state, as well as NASA's Goddard facility.

    That's what representatives of any sort do: they fight for their local interests. If they didn't do that, the voters would elect somebody who did. Unfortunately, without a fixed budget cap, that generally means deals of the form "You vote for my thing, so I'll vote for your thing, and the only one who loses is the guy who eventually has to pay off the debt."

    So while I like Ms. Mikulski, and I support the "measly" few dozens of millions of dollars it would take to keep getting great science from Hubble, I thought a bit of disclosure would be appropriate.
    • I would expect a good politician to stand up for cause to support both their constituents and the nation. If he or she does anything else, the person should not be in the senate.

      And as for the servicing...I'm willing to bet $100 that any attempt to a robotic rescue mission would fail. It's really hard to unscrew 100s of bolts in space. And the HST needs a deorbit module anyway.

      So if we are to service the HST, my recommendation is to (1) design and complete a deorbit module right away, (2) complete the dev
      • Despite my support for it in the grandparent post, I'm still extremely torn about Big Science projects. For $100 million you could support a fifty thousand grad students for a year, and grad students are the bedrock of science. Or you could support ten thousand grad students to their PhDs.

        And while I'm a huge fan of the Big Questions that the Hubble helps answer, those are questions we've been pursuing for five thousand years. They're not imperative, the way AIDS and cancer are. You'll learn more about
        • Actually $100M support only about 5,000 graduate students with all the overhead cost.

          And the exit plan for the Hubble was to bring it back on earth with the Columbia. There was a concern that the landing gears may not hold up with all the
          additional weight of the HST, but we were pretty sure that that was what NASA wanted to do.

  • it's not about that (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Yonkeltron ( 720465 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @12:08PM (#11910773) Homepage
    i might get modded down for this but it needs to be said.

    it's not about whether robots or humans are used. it's about the hubble being a piece of crap that needs to be replaced in order for us to move forward. the hubble is obsolete because of the fact that there are cheaper and better telescope projects out there that should be initiated. some of those programs are mentioned here on /. all the time!

    it's a wonder that we haven't listened to the independant experts and just thrownit out to lagrange point to work as long as it can.

    i really feel like NASA needs to let this one die so we can move forward.
    • it's about the hubble being a piece of crap that needs to be replaced in order for us to move forward.

      Well, maybe I'm biased being an astronomer and all, but with Hubble data being used in about 1 out of 2-3 papers I read, mentioned in about a similar number of talks, and proposed to by about 1/2 the astronomers I know at least every other year, I think (well, really I know) a lot of us "non-experts" would be happy to have the money spent to continue the "piece of crap".

      But what do I know. I don't work f

  • Follow the Money (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dosguru ( 218210 )
    Sen Mikulski is the senator from Maryland, where the Hubble is HQ'd. IIRC, it was HQ'd in her old district when she was in the House.

    I support the Hubble and think that we should fix it, but remember to follow the money as well. She has a lot of her voters that depend on Hubble for their paycheck.
    • So you're following the money... to the people who would be employed to keep the Hubble successful. You make it sound like some big business comspiracy, but it's a senator supprting something that would benefit her constituents. I'm not sure I see the problem there. This sounds like some kind of "Bah! This is just a blatant bid for re-election by proposing actions that benefit her constituents. It's like she's just in the Senate to represent them or something! Ridiculous!"

    • Well, (Score:2)

      by hey! ( 33014 )
      I don't live anywhere near Maryland, don't stand to benefit from any Hubble related contracts, but I'm all for a Hubble rescue mission.

      But in the interest of full disclosure, I do have a copy of the Hubble Deep Field as desktop wallpaper, and probably will have other, future Hubble images there, so by your standards I guess i venality accounts for my position.

  • Pork Barrel alert! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by (void*) ( 113680 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @12:10PM (#11910787)
    I'd rather NASA spend the money on maintaining
    contact with the Pioneer spavce probes. It has taken
    30 years for them to get there, and now, when
    they are at the edge of the solar system is where
    the scientifically interesting data can be found.
    Don't drop the ball!
    • The consensus is that the Pioneer probes have run out of power and are not reachable. An interesting mission would be to building something more powerful than the current relays we have on Earth and try to contact at least one of them to confirm this, but I doubt the money is there.

  • Buying time on Hubble (Score:4, Informative)

    by Ford Prefect ( 8777 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @12:13PM (#11910824) Homepage
    Probably been mentioned already, but a work-around for one of the major limiting factors for the Hubble's lifetime has already been found, that being the number of working gyroscopes available.

    After repair, the telescope has six gyroscopes (used for pointing and stabilising the device, without any messy reaction mass involved), and it needed at least three to point accurately. There are currently only four working ones left - they're somewhat unreliable.

    However, a way of pointing the telescope with just two working gyroscopes [newscientist.com] has been tested recently, which should extend the lifespan a little - possibly until 2008. I still doubt that a full-scale repair mission will be launched, but this might help in filling the gap until a replacement is finalised...
  • It's costing the U.S. taxpayers $175 million for NASA to determine it won't do anything to save the Hubble? Why does it take so much money to decide go/nogo? (Don't answer that. I already know: It's the government bureaucracy, stoopid.)

    If they've already decided, what were they planning on spending that $175m on?

  • Why the controversy? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 11, 2005 @12:13PM (#11910830)
    Odd thing about all the controversy of this servicing mission - had Columbia not been lost, the money would have been there, Hubble would have been serviced, and that'd be it. But now, because Columbia went down, killing those aboard, we suddenly are being led to believe that space travel is now much more dangerous that the previous 100+ missions the shuttles have flown? I am positive that there are people out there that are willing to crew the shuttle and repair Hubble, fully knowing the risks involved. Everyone who steps on the shuttle knows there are risks. Alternately, if we can build a good replacement for Hubble in a reasonable time frame, and launch it, cheaper than the cost of repairing Hubble, then that would of course be the reasonable option.
    In the troubled times we live in, we cannot spare the money for this sort of pie-in-the-sky space fantasy. We have a moral obligation to westernize the middle east - the future of the world depends on it. They must live in democracies, and, if possible, worship in Christian churches.
    And if anyone comes here, telling us that they have an even better way of living, and that we worship in accordance with their religion, we'll just quietly and politely oblige, right?
  • They're stopping all funding of the Voyager probes as well:
    http://www.spacedaily.com/news/voyager1-05a .html

    Good. Infinite billions for a war, but 4.2 Million a year is too much for science....really shows the priorities here...
    • We should stick a laser on the things and tell congress that it can shoot down nukes.

      Heck, I do wonder if, before this thing runs out of gyroscopes, we could turn it around the other way and have it take pictures of Earth, permanently.

    • For the record, NASA has not confirmed it is cancelling the Voyager missions. In yesterday's issue of Nature, NASA spokes-woman Gretchen Cook-Anderson is quoted as saying "There's been no final decision at NASA headquarters to terminate any of these missions, despite what budget figures may imply." The missions are uncertain, and physicists are lobying NASA to maintain funding... but nothing is final yet.
    • Ya, trying to protect your country from attack/invasion isn't as important as keeping a probe going. Ya right, moron

      If we get wiped off the face of the earth due to some wacko towelheads because we didn't take steps protect ourselves, its sort of irrelevant if the probe had funding or not.

      Retaining freedom costs lives AND money.

  • Extraordinarily simple solution: (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Here's a wild-and-crazy idea, and it only boils down to two steps:

    1) Build a new Hubble telescope with current technology.
    2) Launch it on an expendable booster.

    This is already done for military imaging satellites every few years.

    Everyone's focus is on 'fixing Hubble' when it should be on 'ensuring the availability of a high-quality astronomical observatory in orbit'.

    Quick dickin' around and do the job right!
  • The Hubble could be replaced by newer technology, and they need to spend the money elsewhere (like on keeping Voyager et al data processing active).

    I think it's hilarious to see the same people here congratulating the politician, and then getting mad at NASA not having the money to keep Voyager data processing going (instead, they spend it on stuff like repairing, or even worse, rescuing the Hubble).

    -Jesse

  • Wait a minute (Score:4, Insightful)

    by washley ( 865407 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @12:38PM (#11911098)
    Wasn't there a Slashdot story a while back saying that we could send up a NEW space telescope for less? What's the sense in fixing Hubble if we can get a better, brand new, space telescope for less money.
    • You're thinking about from a practical standpoint. And you're right. However, the issue is not that NASA came up with a better plan than to service Hubble, the issue is that NASA was given a bunch of money to fund an expensive service trip and instead decided to spend the money on something else.

      While it may make perfect sense to everyone outside D.C. to take the money originally appropriated, do something better with it, and use the remaining funds to do more cool NASA stuff, it doesn't quite click with t
  • Hubble has done great things for orbital astronomy. But there are better designs on the drawing-boards, and for the cost of a rescue mission for a 20-year old design (launched in 1990, designed earlier than that), we could have a superior instrument to use for the next 15 years.

    If there's a need/desire to put it in the Smithsonian or something, perhaps a booster rocket can be built to dock with it, and push it higher into a parking orbit for later retrieval. A pusher-bot would be a lot easier/cheaper to
  • Or be servicable forever! While the Hubble is an amazing device that expanded our knowledge considerably, it's far past what it was actually expected to do.

    It's great that they were able to extend its life and get it to do things that it wasn't really designed to do originally.

    But there is a replacement being designed/built. Let's go with that.

  • Maryland represent! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Ignorant Aardvark ( 632408 ) <cydeweys&gmail,com> on Friday March 11, 2005 @12:43PM (#11911166) Homepage Journal
    Hell yeah! I know I voted for Barbara Mikulski for a reason.

  • It's good to live in third-world nation America (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WillAffleckUW ( 858324 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @12:44PM (#11911183) Homepage Journal
    Where the Japanese and Chinese and Europeans have their acts together while we stop spending on Science.

    Sigh.
    • Did you RTFA? The commonly-portrayed-as-evil politicians in this case actually GAVE NASA MORE MONEY than NASA really needed.

      The problem isn't how much money NASA got. From TFA: "In the meantime, she said, she expects NASA to spend every penny of the $291 million included in the 2005 budget for Hubble servicing."

      The problem is that NASA said they were going to do one thing with the money, then said that they'd do another thing with it instead. While that other thing may be better than the original plan, th

  • Let US decide where to spend the money (Score:3, Funny)

    by sfjoe ( 470510 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @01:18PM (#11911595)
    Wouldn't it be great if on your annual tax returns you could fill out a form to indicate what percentage of your taxes go to which area of government (defense, education, environment, health care) ?

    If that happened, I bet the schools would have enough boooks for all the students and the Pentagon would have to hold bake sales to fund their wars.
    • That would be great. Then when someone decided to launch an attack against the civilian population or threaten sovereignty, we can rely on an underpowered, unprepared military force to not protect us.

      Good one, they should really take that into consideration.


      • So you're saying the people cannot be trusted to make decisions about where and how their money should be spent?

        • Re:Let US decide where to spend the money (Score:4, Interesting)

          by DeathPenguin ( 449875 ) * on Friday March 11, 2005 @02:19PM (#11912396)
          Actually, I missed something important in your original message--the part where you said "[. . .]what percentage of your taxes go to which area[. . . ]" At first I thought you meant taxes in general.

          Being a Libertarian, I believe that we should eliminate income taxes all together. And since most of the government's money comes from other means (taxing corporations and such) anyway, they'll still have plenty left to fund cool things like wars and science (In order to make better weapons for wars).

          If you want to give the government money to spend on non-military things, I don't see a problem with that other than how only a small fraction of what you originally give will likely reach the people it was intended for. I'd prefer to write a check to a local charity or the EFF myself, personally.
    • Wouldn't it be great if on your annual tax returns you could fill out a form to indicate what percentage of your taxes go to which area of government (defense, education, environment, health care) ?

      No. See: tyranny of the majority.

  • The thing is.. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by MasT3quila ( 836268 )
    They already have the robots built to do the mission. They have tested them and CNN has filmed them. To cancel everything would be a huge waste of money. They are proceding with testing like the mission will actually happen. If it's truly canned - a lot of people will at least have work through this year. I'm torn in my feelings though. If they know the mission will be cancelled, it seems a waste to continue burning through the tax dollars allocated for FY05. Keeping people employed on the other hand is a g

Slashdot Top Deals

"The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy." -- Louisiana governor Edwin Edwards

Close