The Hubble Telescope, What's the Secert?

lynngrubbs · Apr 2, 2005

So what is the big secret that NASA and our Government is hiding from all of us about the Hubble? Why would there be a sudden about-face in the planned service mission? There is a reason that is not being discussed to the General Public why they want to get this telescope down and fast...!! I would say that if NASA is afraid to send men to service the Hubble then the whole space program should be shut down, their telling me its safer to send men to Mars than it is to service the Hubble...????....We must realize that the Service Mission that was planned would of given us the eyes to see father into the past Universe, the religious leaders in America are afraid of what will be seen, and they don't want the public to see what they already suspect, there they go again protecting us...!! I suspect after this last meeting when they came back and said that the only course of action was to de-orbit the Hubble, I would suspect that something is awry...something is being kept under heavy wraps for all our experts to do an about-face...If our leaders all agree its too dangers to service the Hubble then they must agree its too dangerous to send men into space and we should halt the Space program altogether...but I don't think that is the reason they want to bring the Hubble down, they want to put blinder's on the publics eyes, protect the old time religion..... I know a lot of you will say I'm just sounding off or even crazy, but give me a better explanation, tell me that its safer to send men to Mars or the Moon than to service the Hubble...that is just not the case, there lies a deeper, hidden reason and we may never find out what it is...I say its time for the public to cry out and demand answers now, its time to stop jacking around and get this space program back in gear and quit acting like a bunch of panty waist moron's. If they are afraid to put the Shuttle into orbit again then stop wasting our money on endless investigations of safety issues, and develop

mattblack · Apr 2, 2005

I have thought and continue to think that if Hubble can't be serviced one more time with instruments already built and paid for, then how can Astronauts go even further out into space? But look; there's no conspiracy here, no hidden agenda. To find the reasons just do a Google and read all the arguments for and against. It seems to me the principal reasons are to do with money. The deficit is high and there is a certain bloody-mindedness towards devoting the approx. $1 billion Hubble dollars, right or wrong, towards finishing the Space Station instead and moving the Space Initiative along. For less than the price of a nuclear sub, a manned Hubble mission combining upgrade/repair with the attachment of a de-orbit module would do wonders for science, operational experience and Nasa's popularity. Also, it would be a rousing penultimate act for the Shuttle program, as a few flights after that we would see the curtain call for Space Shuttle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

mattblack · Apr 2, 2005

You might find this interesting too: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/336/1 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

kdavis007 · Apr 2, 2005

Maybe NASA is doing its job.. Sending humans back the moon, then to Mars and beyond rather fix some stupid telescope.

SpaceKiwi · Apr 2, 2005

You're assuming the proposed human missions to Mars will actually fly. Watch Suits cancel that in the same way we have been led on a merry dance with Hubble. The 'big secret' is that the decision-makers are gutless cowards, as demonstrated by this whole Hubble fiasco. How much precious cash has already been wasted on the pretence of researching a robotic mission, when this latest pronouncement from on high makes it fairly evident that they never intended to do anything other than ditch Hubble in the Pacific. And NASA honestly wonders why they don't enjoy widespread support of their mission? With this sort of glaring example, it's probably hard for the American taxpayer to escape the feeling that NASA doesn't flush a large portion of its budget straight down the toilet each year. If they were never seriously interested in servicing Hubble by any method, when the blowtorch started to go on the y-fronts, they should have had the balls to stand up and stand by that decision. Instead they hid behind the pretence of actually doing something. I am reminded of those early 'duck and cover' nuclear attack films where the children expect to survive by hiding under their desks. Substitute in the beancounters for the children, and Hubble's supporters for the nuclear attack, and you pretty much have the last 12-18 months. If there were any justice in the world, the re-entry motor will malfunction, resulting in a precision-guided-munitions-like landing by Hubble on top of these weasely administrator's building. Man this burns me up. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

mattblack · Apr 2, 2005

Perhaps you're right, Spacekiwi. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

bobw · Apr 19, 2005

some stupid telescope Ouch! Whatever it is, I don't think it's stupid. I am going to miss those new pictures every couple of days. They have become a part of life that everyone will miss when they are gone. Beyond the science, those pictures seem like art, you know? It will be a loss to people of all cultures everywhere. Same-old same-old windows desktops here we come <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

holmec · Apr 19, 2005

This is good. I hope they do fly the Shuttle to Hubble. After all before the Shuttle was first launched one of the major reasons for the Shuttle was to put up and repair the Hubble telescope and this was fed to the public. To say that its too dangerous to send a Shuttle to Hubble is to put the last nail in the Shuttles coffin, so to speak. In the eyes of the public it would show that the Shuttle is indeed under performance. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

davp99 · Apr 20, 2005

We've been over this for seems like years now, i've looked at Both Sides and Agree with many for Go or NoGo.. But at long as we have the Shuttle to do this kind of work, and the Parts are made & paid for, Lets GO.. Hopefully NASA will Finally get Off the Pot, so to speak... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Dave.. </div>

jurgens · Apr 20, 2005

I think O'keefe decided to cancel a hubble servicing mission on purpose so that the new NASA administrator could get a clean slate for a decision to reservice hubble after the Return To Flight of the shuttle fleet.

shuttle_rtf · Apr 20, 2005

>some stupid telescope< Careful. Even whispering anything negative about Lord Hubble on here gets you &%$#@!-slapped for "not getting it" <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

summoner · Apr 20, 2005

I think we need to let the Hubble go. Take the 1+ Billion that is earmarked for Hubble and put it towards JWT or TPF telescopes. Imagine how much better the viewing will be. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width:271px;background-color:#FFF;border:1pxsolid#999"><tr><td colspan="2"><div style="height:35px"><img src="http://banners.wunderground.com/weathersticker/htmlSticker1/language/www/US/MT/Three_Forks.gif" alt="" height="35" width="271" style="border:0px" /></div>

viperzx · Apr 20, 2005

They can make another, bigger, better stronger and faster then its predecessor.

SpaceKiwi · Apr 20, 2005

The expression "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" springs to mind. Regardless of whether these other paper and semi-paper telescopes are 'cheaper, better, faster, newer', the venerable 'Lord' has an unrivalled record of demonstrated performance. Last time I checked the number of telescopes which can offer the kind of viewing that Hubble does could be counted on the hands of a reasonably poorly-skilled lumberjack. And, the list of astronomers with worthy research projects still far out-strips the availability of telescope time. There is still a huge amount of valuable work for Hubble to do, and certainly enough work to engage everybody's pet telescope well into the next decade. If Columbia hadn't been lost, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. And, for O'Keefe to tie Hubble's retirement to the post-Columbia STS operating environment was 'mischevious' in the extreme. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

Search

The Hubble Telescope, What's the Secert?

lynngrubbs

Guest

mattblack

Guest

mattblack

Guest

kdavis007

Guest

SpaceKiwi

Guest

mattblack

Guest

bobw

Guest

holmec

Guest

davp99

Guest

jurgens

Guest

shuttle_rtf

Guest

summoner

Guest

viperzx

Guest

SpaceKiwi

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page