Wait a second... Wasn't NASA
ALREADY planning to decommision the Hubble because of the new telescope being sent out? Isn't this old news?
Doesn't that also mean the fate of the Hubble was decided by NASA
before Bush's Mars mission was even a thought since the development of this new telescope didn't just hit the drawing boards?
Quote:
|
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.
|
That was perfect.