Save the Hubble

M

martin griffith

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

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


martin


"Facts are stupid things.." -- Reagan, '88
 
In article <6u4q01915fv7j1sv79ksd4crf2tnr9qucf@4ax.com>,
martingriffithX@Xyahoo.co.uk says...
"Ask not what the Hubble can do for you - ask what you can do for the
Hubble."

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


martin


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

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

Jim
 
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:43:46 GMT, James Beck
<jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote:

In article <6u4q01915fv7j1sv79ksd4crf2tnr9qucf@4ax.com>,
martingriffithX@Xyahoo.co.uk says...
"Ask not what the Hubble can do for you - ask what you can do for the
Hubble."

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


martin


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

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

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

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

John
 
John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:43:46 GMT, James Beck
jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote:


In article <6u4q01915fv7j1sv79ksd4crf2tnr9qucf@4ax.com>,
martingriffithX@Xyahoo.co.uk says...

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

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


martin


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


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

Jim


Right. You could build a dozen world-class adaptive-optics telescopes
for the cost of one Hubble repair mission.
Click to expand...
Could a new design for a space telescope still do better than earthbound
ones, in some spectrum areas?
--
john
 
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:22:15 +0100, martin griffith wrote:

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

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

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

"Facts are stupid things.." -- Reagan, '88
Click to expand...
Put that in context, please. Sounds like a screamer :)

--
Best Regards,
Mike
 
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:25:10 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:01:16 -0600, John O'Flaherty
quiasmox@yahoo.com> wrote:
snip
Could a new design for a space telescope still do better than earthbound
ones, in some spectrum areas?

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

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

So would a retrofit mission be feasible?
Click to expand...
--
Best Regards,
Mike
 
What irks me is that some want to step backwards instead of moving
forwards.

Two Shuttles fail,and instead of making a better spacecraft,they decide
they don't need to fix Hubble.(and some want to abandon the ISS)
Click to expand...
Current US policy is a rejection of science and ramping up the latest
version of the crusades.
 
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:56:44 -0500, Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net>
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:25:10 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:01:16 -0600, John O'Flaherty
quiasmox@yahoo.com> wrote:
snip
Could a new design for a space telescope still do better than earthbound
ones, in some spectrum areas?

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

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

So would a retrofit mission be feasible?
Click to expand...

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

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

Put that in context, please. Sounds like a screamer :)
Click to expand...
Reagan was quoting John Adams' well-known quotation, facts are stubborn
things. He certainly knew the correct words--it was a simple
misstatement--but it makes a funny quote in its own right. [note by Michael
Moncur, November 30, 2004]
 
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 16:39:01 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <MPG.1c76e3188183b966989abd@news.west.earthlink.net>,
James Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote:
[...]
So far nobody has touched on the fact that there are now terrestrial
telescopes that can out do the Hubble. So that makes the Hubble just a
nice piece of sentimental valued space junk. So, one must ask
themselves, is it worth it.

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

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

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
 
In article <MPG.1c76e3188183b966989abd@news.west.earthlink.net>,
James Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote:
[...]
So far nobody has touched on the fact that there are now terrestrial
telescopes that can out do the Hubble. So that makes the Hubble just a
nice piece of sentimental valued space junk. So, one must ask
themselves, is it worth it.
Click to expand...
Isn't it still true that you need a nearby bright star to make the active
optics work? People are still fighting to get Hubble time for some
reason.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
 
In article <Xns95FAD70382B3Cjyanikkuanet@129.250.170.84>,
Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:
[...]
Two Shuttles fail,and instead of making a better spacecraft,they decide
they don't need to fix Hubble.(and some want to abandon the ISS)
Click to expand...
The Russians have already proven that you can put a tin-can in space and
have people live in it for a while. ISS hasn't advanced from that point.
It is a waste of money on a non-science project.

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

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
 
John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote in
news:ffvq0157fc6ak57ff1aa8i4dtcvfbarm83@4ax.com:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:56:44 -0500, Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:25:10 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:01:16 -0600, John O'Flaherty
quiasmox@yahoo.com> wrote:
snip
Could a new design for a space telescope still do better than
earthbound ones, in some spectrum areas?

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

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

So would a retrofit mission be feasible?


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

John
Click to expand...
They already have the materials ready to go.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
 
"Tom Del Rosso" <ng01@att.net.invalid> wrote in
news:u9sPd.199563$w62.48130@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

"John Larkin" <jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote in
message news:ffvq0157fc6ak57ff1aa8i4dtcvfbarm83@4ax.com...

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

Couldn't they put those sensors on a brand new platform and launch it
in an unmanned rocket for the same money?
Click to expand...
But then they gain no experience in space servicing operations.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
 
If that were true, why would the Abrams M1A1/2 battle tank

http://www.defencejournal.com/jul99/abrams.htm

attack with a gun developed by Rheinmetall GmbH in Germany and for
protection rely on Chobam composite armour developed by the UK Ministry
of Defence?

The only place where the U.S. does seem to have a secure lead is in
parochial conceit, and even there the Chinese are likely to resume
their traditional role, as soon as they can find something to be
conceited about.

-------------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
 
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian <eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net> wrote in
news:pan.2005.02.13.05.38.19.186878@doubleclick.net:



Yes. Weapons. Hmm. I wonder if they'll ever have enough?

Good Luck!
Rich
Click to expand...
It's prudent to have the most modern weapons,and weapons systems do wear
out.

Of course,when enough nations have governments responsible to their
citizens,(armed)warfare will decline.
Free and democratic nations are not any threat to other nations.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
 
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:14:52 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:


The French are so better at aircraft carriers. Theirs is so pretty they
leave it in port.
Click to expand...
They're also better at soft cheeses, which must be a sure indicator of
the imminemt decline of the USA.

John
 
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 19:16:18 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:14:52 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:


The French are so better at aircraft carriers. Theirs is so pretty they
leave it in port.

They're also better at soft cheeses, which must be a sure indicator of
the imminemt decline of the USA.
Click to expand...
France is making Cheese Wiz? Kerry will be happy to hear this! He can
then do a "Philly" with Frog cheese!

--
Keith
 
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> skrev i en
meddelelse news:1k7q011l4cldkfu1ff02a2vtl9kp1cdotg@4ax.com...

We should dump the space station, too; that's truly useless.
Click to expand...
On Mekka !!
 
If you can give $2 billion to NASA, they will save Hubble. Money is the only
reason why they don't do it.

You can try to convice the Congress. Any other attempt (like discussing on
this group) would be useless and pointless.

NASA will go back to the moon and Mars, and this drags all the money into
this new direction (remember Bush's speech last year). Budget is a matter of
decision. Hubble is just too expensive. Bring the money, or convince the US
government.

NASA just want to save Hubble too, but their money come from the US
government, who gives the direction of NASA's research.

Hubble's lost will be a lost to every scientists, and NASA knows it and
would like to save it too.

Regards,

--
---------
Mathieu Fregeau
University of Washington
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Aerospace Research Building - Box 352250
Seattle, WA 98195-2250
Phone (office): 206-543-1070
Phone (lab): 206-616-5557
Fax: 206-543-4719
mfregeau@u.washington.edu
"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote in message
news:Xns95FBDF71A6FF3jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.86...
John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote in
news:ffvq0157fc6ak57ff1aa8i4dtcvfbarm83@4ax.com:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:56:44 -0500, Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:25:10 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:01:16 -0600, John O'Flaherty
quiasmox@yahoo.com> wrote:
snip
Could a new design for a space telescope still do better than
earthbound ones, in some spectrum areas?

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

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

So would a retrofit mission be feasible?


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

John



They already have the materials ready to go.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top