[Coco] Re: off-topic, space program

[Brad Grier]

Lawrence Weeks wrote:
> Once upon a time (Sat Jan 17), Neil Morrison wrote:
> 
> 
>>I just heard on the news part of the reason for the announcement.
>>Apparently the idea is to abandon the Hubble telescope now before
>>it's time runs out, but why Bush and his friends want to do this
>>still escapes me.
> 
> 
> Once upon a time (Sat Jan 17), Roger Taylor wrote:
> 
> 
>>I wasn't aware that the Hubble had an expiration date on it... makes
>>no sense at all.
> 
> 
> Hubble has no expiration date. Hubble does, however, have gyroscopes
> which are known to fail. Two of six are now dead, and it must have
> three in order to maintain orientation and operate properly. Odds are,
> two more will die before Hubble's replacement is launched, leaving a
> gap where there will be no operational space-based telescope. However,
> as the new Webb telescope is scheduled to go up around 2010, the gap
> shouldn't be much.
> 
> Now, despite those who would simplistically blame Bush the Evil(tm)
> for this (and much else), the writing has been on the wall, even
> before the Columbia disaster. NASA had committed to this fourth Hubble
> Service Mission (SM4), but resisted pleas from the science community
> to schedule a fifth mission to extend Hubble out beyond 2010. Rather,
> they planned to let it die naturally after SM4. NASA didn't want to
> spend the money (Shuttle launches are rather expensive) to extend
> Hubble's life, when that would likely overlap Webb.
> 
> After Columbia, the Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) strongly
> recommended that for safety reasons, NASA only send the shuttle into
> orbit when the orbit is compatible with docking at the ISS. The Hubble
> is not in such an orbit. Therefore, going to Hubble would require,
> in order to meet CAIB recommendations which are basically requirements
> politically, the means to do extravehicular damage analysis and repair.
> 
> Since Bush has actually given NASA a mission again beyond being a low
> orbit trucking company servicing the ISS, and has directed that the
> Shuttle be used to complete the ISS and then be retired, the new NASA
> director made the decision that we could not justify the possibility of
> losing another shuttle and crew in order to wring some more life out
> of Hubble, when a replacement is scheduled for launch rather soon. My
> understanding is that the director made this decision on his own, and
> considering Bush the Evil(tm)'s hands-off style, I strongly doubt he
> did more than agree with the decision, if he even got involved at all.
> 
> Hopefully the two science instruments scheduled for installation
> during SM4 will be able to fitted to Webb or another orbital platform.
> 
> Larry


I think those that "simplistically" blame Bush of being evil are taking 
a page from the man himself; a president that proudly admits he doesn't 
read the news and has a simplistic habit of seeing the world in 
black-and-white. Just ask any "evil-doer".

As far as the space program, I'd like to see a man on Mars in my 
lifetime but I have serious doubts. We heard similar proposals from Bush 
I and nothing came to pass. Furthermore, Bush and the congress are 
spending money like there's no tomorrow. You can only splurge on the 
credit card for so long. NASA is a favorite chopping block when things 
get tight and with the boomers set to retire, we ain't seen nothin' yet.

On the other hand, if going to Mars means extra money for Cheney and his 
crew, it could actually happen.

Brad