Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spacewriter
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jpax2003
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spacewriter
If all you see is starving astronomers begging for a chance to get work, then I can't help you. The science that will be lost is tremendous...
|
How do you know it will be lost? It will just be postponed. Maybe a supernova will occur that Hubble might otherwise have imaged. That would be a great loss. But that is not predictable. Andromeda Galaxy will still be there when we get the new Telescope up and running. If it's not then we have bigger things to worry about.
Spacewriter, you just joined this board. Do you consider that time spent wondering aimlessly around the net lost? Or did you find something productive to do in the meantime? |
I beg your pardon. Who said I was lost? Not I. |
No, I was paralleling your statement about science being lost. I pointed out that observations are not lost, they are merely postponed. The parallel is that a deep space discovery that Hubble might make is like the discovery you made when you found this board, having known the BA prior, as stated in your introductory post.
Quote:
Quote:
I'm glad you're here now and I hope you are too. Decommisioning the HST is a temporary setback to be sure. I'd love to be able to have my cake and eat it too. Let them [astronomers] eat cake, I say.
Sometimes we have to take a step backwards in order to take a step forwards. What if a low cost launcher could send two or more smaller disposable non-servicable telescopes into Libration orbits for VLBI imaging by 2008. Would that make up for the retirement of Hubble? Let's think of new ideas. Think of the new plan as a challenge, not an obstacle. Necessity is the mother of invention. Let's see some inventiveness, and not invectives.
|
Excuse me. I do have a right to my feelings on this matter and don't care to be upbraided for expressing them. To be sure, I toned down my rhetoric considerably in my posting -- what I said verbally when I heard the news was NOT postable here. I speak as a long-time supporter of both manned and robotic exploration, so do not presume that I am FOR one and against the other.
|
I was not singling you out. I was referring, in general, to many posters in this thread and other threads who have been venting frustration at the person of the president because his initiative has caused NASA to suggest a cutback in HST program. Per the article, it appears that NASA administration made the decision and that it was not a decree from the oval office. In other words I was trying to prevent a political discussion and avoid getting this thread locked and people banned. There is a long list of posters who are banned from this bulletin board for expressing their feelings improperly. I believe that our use of this forum is by the good graces of the BA and a privelage, not a right. I myself, have been reminded of this more than once. If I seemed to pick you out, it was not my intent.
Quote:
|
AS it happens, I think that future telescope developments will be needed. I am solely questioning the timing and political maneuvering behind this particular move. At any other time, we'd be treated to a sober discussion of fiscal responsibility and prudence in spending our space money, but that is not the case this time. We're instead being told to choose between questionable missions for which technologies aren't in place and may never be and told at the same time we'll be sacrificing a working observatory to get these things we don't have and haven't got designed yet. And on top of that we're paying for a questionable war. The tail is wagging the dog here, and aside from the very valid issue of safety (which the NASA people are right to be concerned about) the science justification for these new missions is taking a secondary seat to saving Bush's [bad word deleted] as he contemplates cutting his losses (politically and financially) in Iraq.
|
I don't make the rules about staying away from political discussions. But I have been in threads that, while non-argumentative, were political in nature and were locked for that reason only. But to answer the basic points, yes pure science may have to take a back seat to pure exploration. One has immediate implications for humanity, the other does not. A massive space program may inspire the population to support space science. While the Hubble Deep Field is inspiring to astronomers and many laypeople, it is not particularly inspiring to most common people... and it is their money, after all. A massive boost in the space program could give dividends in jobs and spin-off technology which is directly applicable to the lives of those common people who have already paid for it.
Quote:
|
I am no simple school child contemplating a lost toy, but am quite capable of seeing the big picture. Big steps require big ideas -- but any sensible person will NOT take a big step without considering what's already available and on the table to be used. And I'm not used to squandering working missions in order to salvage a politician's arse. I never will be and I don't have to like it.
|
Getting humanity into space will save everyone's rear, including politicians. Remember, the dinosaurs didn't have a space program. At least this politician is talking science and space. Consider the alternative. I, for one, have not seen anything leading to the assumption that the current administration does NOT have a plan in mind. I don't know what that plan may be and I accept the possibility that they may be full of hot air. Moreover, HST is not a working mission they would be sacrificing. It's a failing mission they could be salvaging. If HST were not expected to fail, it would not need servicing.
We need to take a step back. In military terms it's called regrouping or "soaking-off." In the past we sent men to the moon to plant a flag. This time we need to invade the moon. We need to occupy its landmass and exploit its resources. Maybe in the future they'll write a book called "The Rape of Luna" but it's what's got to be done. Then we need to invade Mars. I think that is bigger than HST and worth more than a few lost years of Hubble Imaging. In the distant future, when we are planning an invasion of a galaxy far, far away, the Hubble Deep Field may prove to be quaintly useful.