PDA

View Full Version : Petition to Save Hubble and Voyager



Superluminal
2005-Jul-23, 02:15 PM
The Planetary Society has a petition to save these projects.

http://planetary.org/voyager_hubble/index.html

Launch window
2005-Jul-23, 03:14 PM
can they be saved ?

MrClean
2005-Jul-23, 03:57 PM
I thought they can be replaced cheaper than they can be saved. Hubble is OLD and was built flawed. It uses old technology for it's processors. It was put up when 286's were the strong pc, yeouch!

It's been a valuable machine, but maybe we should just bring it home and make a new one, one without a flawed primary.

ranugad
2005-Jul-23, 05:56 PM
I just read this article in my local rag.

By Tamara Lytle
ORLANDO SENTINEL




House wants NASA to repair Hubble

WASHINGTON -- The House told NASA to focus on research programs and repairing the Hubble telescope.

In other blurbs on the same page


Flights to moon, Mars endorsed

The House on Friday voted overwhelmingly to endorse President Bush's vision to send humans back to the moon and eventually on to Mars as it passed a bill to set NASA policy for the next two years. The Bill also directs the space agency to concentrate on research programs and repairing the Hubble space telescope. The vote was 383-15

YEAH!!!!

publiusr
2005-Jul-26, 07:40 PM
Great news. I am really excited about this. Finally we will set up shop outside of LEO.

Be on your guard. There will be enemies. Space Libertarians who talk smack they can't cash--giving Proxmire types a platform. You will get the Air Force/Boeing/RAND lobby on you--and the Pathfinder/Discovery mafia that hates change.

We have not yet begun to fight.

MrClean
2005-Jul-27, 12:14 AM
Kay, guess I haven't been around long enough, what is a Space Libertarian and for that matter, half the other terms you used?

Grey
2005-Jul-27, 01:34 AM
I thought they can be replaced cheaper than they can be saved. Hubble is OLD and was built flawed. It uses old technology for it's processors. It was put up when 286's were the strong pc, yeouch!

It's been a valuable machine, but maybe we should just bring it home and make a new one, one without a flawed primary.
For Hubble, it could be, but would it be? And how long would that take? There are other space telescopes planned, but I don't think there are any other general purpose 'scopes anywhere close to launch. Plus, I think Hubble has captured the public's imagination, which is a good thing for future funding. I'd say keep it working until we've got a replacement.

As for Voyager, anything we could replace it with would take years before it could get as far away as Voyager has reached. Shutting it down would be crazy, especially since it's not like it's got a huge cost to continue monitoring it.

That said, petitions can be effective, but individual letters are much better. If you really want to support this, go ahead and sign the petition, but also write a note to your senators and congressmen, either via e-mail or on paper, or both.

Iris
2005-Jul-27, 03:03 AM
I always get the feeling people are forgetting about the Voyager probes... But they're great! They're so far now, shutting them is crazy. They can go at least for 20 more years!

And like Grey said, it's not much of money I believe.

PatKelley
2005-Jul-27, 03:30 AM
Great news. I am really excited about this. Finally we will set up shop outside of LEO.

Be on your guard. There will be enemies. Space Libertarians who talk smack they can't cash--giving Proxmire types a platform. You will get the Air Force/Boeing/RAND lobby on you--and the Pathfinder/Discovery mafia that hates change.

We have not yet begun to fight.

The conspiracy thing is a joke, right?

Crazieman
2005-Jul-27, 05:35 AM
Not conspiracy, just sizable groups of like-minded people that seem to think we should either 1) cancel space programs altogether, 2) stick to low earth orbit, or 3) cancel all manned programs forever, stay on the planet, and send out the occasional probe.

mickal555
2005-Jul-27, 10:09 AM
I signed :)

publiusr
2005-Jul-27, 08:05 PM
Not conspiracy, just sizable groups of like-minded people that seem to think we should either 1) cancel space programs altogether, 2) stick to low earth orbit, or 3) cancel all manned programs forever, stay on the planet, and send out the occasional probe.

Exactly--and they are as real and as dangerous to budgets as are the moon-hoax believers.

publiusr
2005-Jul-27, 08:11 PM
Kay, guess I haven't been around long enough, what is a Space Libertarian and for that matter, half the other terms you used?

The ones who talk about how Rutan 'proved' private 'space'flight was possible--and how he didn't need Gov't (where he got the GPS data isn't spoken about)--and how no one really needs gov't at committee meetings--and then drive to their suburbs on the public interstate network.

OT --Their idea to solve the public debt is to sell all gov't holdings--including the interstates and roads you have already pid for with taxes--and turn a good deal of them into toll roads.

JimTKirk
2005-Jul-27, 08:28 PM
Not conspiracy, just sizable groups of like-minded people that seem to think we should either 1) cancel space programs altogether, 2) stick to low earth orbit, or 3) cancel all manned programs forever, stay on the planet, and send out the occasional probe.

Exactly--and they are as real and as dangerous to budgets as are the moon-hoax believers.

I've actually run into someone like that! I met a religious type in the Atlanta airport (I was in uniform at the time) that felt the U.S. government should shut down all space travel and military spending to distribute to the poor. :o He figured then he could afford to travel wherever he wanted to. He didn't understand the amount of people that would be out of a job if the government did that. Final note: The guy told me he was a Canadian citizen living in Canada! He wasn't happy when I told him the U.S. wouldn't give him money because he resides outside the states. His answer was the U.S. owes the Canadian people so they should get money too! What a nut case!

publiusr
2005-Jul-27, 08:54 PM
I might have lost it had I been next to him. First I would have said

Got a TV?--guess what--you get pictures from space! Your cable provider has a dish like anyone else--Give it up--let's shut down the weather satellites and the comsats that your religious broadcasts and talk tv hosts bounce their insipid voices off.

Samara
2005-Jul-27, 09:09 PM
Great news. I am really excited about this. Finally we will set up shop outside of LEO.

Be on your guard. There will be enemies. Space Libertarians who talk smack they can't cash--giving Proxmire types a platform. You will get the Air Force/Boeing/RAND lobby on you--and the Pathfinder/Discovery mafia that hates change.

We have not yet begun to fight.

Who are all these people? While I don't think that we should abandon voyager yet (it's still working so far out - Why abandon it?) We definitely need to start looking into a replacement for Hubble. Its been around for what -10-15 years? It's going to break down eventually, and when it does we should be ready to go w/ Hubble 2.0

I think I read somewhere about having a space/ground telescope team - The space telescope would cover all of the heavens, and when it came across anything of interest it would relay it to the ground telescope which would then focus on whatever the space 'scope had wanted it to.

PatKelley
2005-Jul-28, 03:09 AM
Not conspiracy, just sizable groups of like-minded people that seem to think we should either 1) cancel space programs altogether, 2) stick to low earth orbit, or 3) cancel all manned programs forever, stay on the planet, and send out the occasional probe.

Why is it these "groups" are never named, referred to directly, quoted, or the like? If they are so powerful, how is it that no quotes are found, no concrete organizations or plans can be named, and the only reference is by anectdote and abstruse innuendo?

Jpax2003
2005-Jul-28, 04:40 AM
I've heard that the shuttle feet is grounded (I suspect they mean after the current flight lands). If we have no shuttle program then I don't think a Hubble Repair Mission is possible.

Crazieman
2005-Jul-28, 04:49 AM
Not conspiracy, just sizable groups of like-minded people that seem to think we should either 1) cancel space programs altogether, 2) stick to low earth orbit, or 3) cancel all manned programs forever, stay on the planet, and send out the occasional probe.

Why is it these "groups" are never named, referred to directly, quoted, or the like? If they are so powerful, how is it that no quotes are found, no concrete organizations or plans can be named, and the only reference is by anectdote and abstruse innuendo?

Why are you so fixated on creating a conspiracy?

Not group-group, but bunches of people with the same ideology that vote, have scientific credibility, etc.

We have people like that on this forum - quite a few who think all manned programs should be cancelled forever and use a probe once in a while.

This isn't a right-left issue either. Right wing types that seem to think its wrong to travel in space for some religious reason and/or want to go all-private, and left wingers that whine that the money would be better spent on "the poor".

mickal555
2005-Jul-28, 06:51 AM
I've heard that the shuttle feet is grounded (I suspect they mean after the current flight lands). If we have no shuttle program then I don't think a Hubble Repair Mission is possible.

Erm- discovery is up there right now.

PatKelley
2005-Jul-28, 02:25 PM
Not conspiracy, just sizable groups of like-minded people that seem to think we should either 1) cancel space programs altogether, 2) stick to low earth orbit, or 3) cancel all manned programs forever, stay on the planet, and send out the occasional probe.

Why is it these "groups" are never named, referred to directly, quoted, or the like? If they are so powerful, how is it that no quotes are found, no concrete organizations or plans can be named, and the only reference is by anectdote and abstruse innuendo?

Why are you so fixated on creating a conspiracy?

Not group-group, but bunches of people with the same ideology that vote, have scientific credibility, etc.

We have people like that on this forum - quite a few who think all manned programs should be cancelled forever and use a probe once in a while.

This isn't a right-left issue either. Right wing types that seem to think its wrong to travel in space for some religious reason and/or want to go all-private, and left wingers that whine that the money would be better spent on "the poor".

Again, declarations but no names. "Types" and "bunches" but no references. Without specificity this is all empty rhetoric sounding a lot like drumbeating. I have been assailed once as one of these "people like that" - without any evidence other than disagreement with a person's opinion, and questioning, again, this label of "people like that."

All of these appear to be polarizing statements without any backing designed to raise hackles, and I for one am tired of this. I can name instances of these accusations, statements, and innuendos, specifying them in multiple posts - can these "bunches" "types" and "groups" be specified on this board, please, for clarity? Without evidence, it is speculation at best and at worst fantasies of persecution.

publiusr
2005-Jul-28, 05:13 PM
Not conspiracy, just sizable groups of like-minded people that seem to think we should either 1) cancel space programs altogether, 2) stick to low earth orbit, or 3) cancel all manned programs forever, stay on the planet, and send out the occasional probe.

Why is it these "groups" are never named, referred to directly, quoted, or the like? If they are so powerful, how is it that no quotes are found, no concrete organizations or plans can be named, and the only reference is by anectdote and abstruse innuendo?

Now you're just being difficult. I don't see you voice these semantic objections against any who support human spaceflight.

"Just who are these people who support human spacecraft" "if they are so powerful..."

Sounds silly now..doesn't it? But when this started--it was okay to question the human spaceflight people. You just didn't like it when I returned the favor and questioned their critics--and you still haven't acknowledged the fact that were it not for the human-rated R-7--the new Venus mission would have no ride--thus exposing just how short-sighted robotics purists are. And don't ask "who are these robotics purists?'" They know who they are--and I know who they are. And everyone else here seems to know exactly what--and who--I refer to.

I know who they are--and you know who they are--one of the many factions that spaceflight has. The same was true with early evolutionists and other competing fields of research.

You have the EELV vs HLLV factions; The winged vs. capsule factions; The pressure-fed vs. turbopump factions; The top-mount vs. sidemount factions; the human vs. robotics factions; the RLV vs expendable factions, etc.

If Griffin is my Darwin of launch vehicles--I play Thomas "Bulldog" Huxley for him.

If you don't know what EELV and RLV stand for--that's why we have dictionaries and www.astronautix.com


Please. If you don't think the EELV folks are not out to undermine Griffin's heavy-lift mandate (for example)--you simply do not understand the industry.

So don't ask "who are these EELV people--what do you mean by that label?"


"Who are the moon-hoax believers?"

"What do you mean by the word skeptic?"

If we have to question every stinking bit of language before we have a conversation--it's past time to hang it up.

After all--the easiest thing to do when one has lost an arguement is to attack the language used in it.

It's an old evasion tactic used to avoid having to respond to actual points.

PatKelley
2005-Jul-28, 07:09 PM
To answer:

This, your rhetoric, publiusr, and from another thread still, is baseless. My point (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=501536#501536), then as now, was that the original editorial for human spaceflight was weak in points and strong on emotional rhetoric. I supported Griffin's statement to Congress as a better example, and empty of the combative and teary-eyed content of the editorial.

Your misunderstanding may be in the term "the 'Humans' argument", in that context referring specifically to the editorial cited in the original post. That is the only conclusion I can draw, based on the venom in many of your responses to me since.

This misunderstanding on your part has never been acknowledged by you, despite repeated attempts, as in the above paragraph, to clarify this point.

If I am, as painted by you, so anti-spaceflight, why would I support Griffin's statement as exemplary of a better editorial in supporting human spaceflight?

Besides which, how do ad-hominem attacks add to support for your position in not naming people specifically who hold these opinions you quote?

It is baseless and irrelevant to my post and my question to state I am "...just being difficult" when I ask for clarification on stated positions and groups. To avoid providing source material is commonly referred to as "hand waving" on this board.

It is baseless and irrelevant to my post and my question to state "If you don't think the EELV folks are not out to undermine Griffin's heavy-lift mandate (for example)--you simply do not understand the industry."

You do not know my history with NASA, spaceflight, contracting, competing contract bidders, USAF, the military, Lockheed-Martin or the government. The above is an attempt to dismiss my statements by attacking me rather than my statements. Please discontinue such statements and address my points.

Again, these have been presented as stated goals of individuals or groups. I have seen your own and other's arguments for human spaceflight, have read the editorials and Griffin's statement, and now I am asking for counterexamples that have been referenced but so far not supported.

publiusr
2005-Jul-28, 07:29 PM
Your misunderstanding may be in the term "the 'Humans' argument...

What do you mean by the term "humans arguement?" :)

I've not seen any of those who agree with me attack all robotics flight-etc. Just all-robotics flight, that I don't see you making counter-examples to either.

Ad Hom arguements come to "You dolt!" etc that I have not used and therefore aren't ad hom' arguements--an all too easy accusation--and another evasion tactic.

PatKelley
2005-Jul-28, 07:31 PM
Your misunderstanding may be in the term "the 'Humans' argument...

What do you mean by the term "humans arguement?" :)

I've not seen any of those who agree with me attack all robotics flight-etc. Just all-robotics flight, that idon't see you making counter-examples to.


Please continue to read the post.

publiusr
2005-Jul-28, 07:34 PM
I read the whole thing--you evidently did not get the 'lets question language some more" parody. I never said you were anti-human spaceflight in supporting grifin--just this constant questioning of who's this group--who's that group--etc.

The Bad Astronomer
2005-Jul-28, 08:09 PM
publiusr, I agree with Patkelly here. You are making rather fuzzy accusations about groups, but not naming what you mean (except in the initial post, but the names were still rather vague).

So: who do you mean?

Jpax2003
2005-Jul-28, 08:35 PM
I've heard that the shuttle feet is grounded (I suspect they mean after the current flight lands). If we have no shuttle program then I don't think a Hubble Repair Mission is possible.

Erm- discovery is up there right now.

Yes, I do believe you are correct. But, what's your point?

mickal555
2005-Jul-29, 08:58 AM
Gee.. Umm.. I dunno- I guess I forgot!

AK
2005-Jul-30, 07:57 AM
Abandoning Voyager at this point is *insanity*. It would take decades to send something out that far, even if its design and launch were expedited to an absurd level. It's collecting unique and irreplaceable data for a price that is a drop in the ocean of the budget.

Jpax2003
2005-Jul-30, 07:22 PM
Abandoning Voyager at this point is *insanity*. It would take decades to send something out that far, even if its design and launch were expedited to an absurd level. It's collecting unique and irreplaceable data for a price that is a drop in the ocean of the budget.

It would only take that long if we used freefall orbits. If they used a constant boost propulsion system like a lightsail or magnetic-sail then it could be much shorter, less than a decade. If they used an ion type drive it might be even less.

publiusr
2005-Aug-03, 06:54 PM
publiusr, I agree with Patkelly here. You are making rather fuzzy accusations about groups, but not naming what you mean (except in the initial post, but the names were still rather vague).

So: who do you mean?

There are all kinds of groups. As I mentioned before--the winged vs. Ballistic groups, the in-line vs. side mount, etc.

Pat lauded Griffins take on human spaceflight.Fine. But let's remember how the thread got started. I just find it beneath the belt to talk about how human spaceflight folks are starry eyed this, unrealistic that--but when somebody takes on pro-robotics advocates--all of a sudden no one knows what 'pro-robotics/or robots-only groups are. So I guess no one knows who the human-spaceflight people are either. There are folks who want EELV over HLLV. Those are two groups right there.

There are folks who hate human spaceflight just like there are those who love it.