Vafi88 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3116 posts, RR: 18 Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1022 times:
Maybe they should focus on something more important like the safety of the space shuttle... or the whole moon/mars thing... or their "New" space vehicle.
Morons if you ask me...
I'd like to elect a president that has a Higher IQ than a retarted ant.
JBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4459 posts, RR: 22 Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1017 times:
Petertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3231 posts, RR: 13 Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 993 times:
So they want to spend billions of money on a moon/mars project that will most likely be cancelled halfway but keeping the Hubble up there is too expensive?
Also, check this quote: The shuttle craft that maintain Hubble are being retired in 2010 under the new US space goals which focus on voyages to the Moon and Mars. Does that mean the space shuttle? If so, what will replace it? And will it be worthwhile to get the spaceshuttle back in space if it will be retired in 2010 anyway?
NormalSpeed From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 983 times:
It's not as if we are abandoning the entire science of Astronomy. Who's to say we can't build a better telescope? Relax--this is what we call progress.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12715 posts, RR: 80 Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 947 times:
It was far from certain before the Moon/Mars programme was first mooted that Hubble would have a life extension anyway, it's been up since 1990, has already far exceeded expectations in both the science results and the lifespan of the telescope.
A replacement, the Next Generation Space Telescope, is already being designed.
It will launch around 2010 in an orbit much further out than Hubble, and will have the potential to far exceed Hubbles great achievements.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12715 posts, RR: 80 Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 945 times:
Further reading on this has indicated that the new telescope, The James Webb Telescope, will operate from 2012.
Hubble is due a reservicing next year, 4 out of the 6 gyros are working, however it seems like abandoning Hubble is related to the recommendations for safety for Shuttle reflights.
Hubble is in a different orbit to ISS, and any new Shuttle missions will have to either be based at or near ISS, so if anything goes wrong, the crew can use the ISS as a base to either repair Shuttle, or stay until a rescue flight can reach them.
So Hubble's demise has everything to do with Columbia, and nothing to do with any new Manned spaceflight programme.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 9, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 903 times:
Manned exploration (and ultimately colonisation) of space is vital to the survival of the human race as well as a great way to scratch an itch for exploration that intelligent human beings tend to have.
As said, the retirement of Hubble around 2010 was planned a long time ago. She's nearing the end of her designed life and her replacement is already under construction.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29352 posts, RR: 62 Reply 10, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 867 times:
More about free up shuttle missions for the trips that they have missed since the Colombia accident.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Bravo45 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2165 posts, RR: 12 Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 849 times:
All I know is that I felt sad when I came to know about this news. I am sure this is a progress and this had to happen but the contributions of hubble would always be acknowledged.
JBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4459 posts, RR: 22 Reply 14, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 827 times:
The Russians have provided most of the launches, no?
No.
Most all heavy-lift launches for construction were provided by the Shuttle. Zarya is the obvious exception.
Most major crew rotations have been with the Shuttle.
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 15, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 827 times:
Put one similar on the moon....kill two birds with one stone..!
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29352 posts, RR: 62 Reply 16, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 822 times:
There is serious talk about scaling down the size of the ISS.
Most of the modules where designed with the shuttle landing bay in mind.
Converting those over for flight on a different rocket system is probably not practicable.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
JBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4459 posts, RR: 22 Reply 17, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 812 times:
Personally I wish they'd never started ISS...it was the late reaction to a long-running problem.
Over five years into the Shuttle program--Oh Sh!t!! We forgot to send up a space station...the primary mission of our Shuttle! Thus, Freedom was born...and promptly killed off by Congress.
Apparently some years after that debacle, Oh Sh!t!!! We're dragging our feet AGAIN! Answer? Build a mega-million dollar module to connect with Mir. Done. Something like nine dockings took place. Destroyed within two years.
And thus the ISS was born. Everything about it is representative of the Shuttle program as a whole. Bloated and essentially worth very little.
Converting those over for flight on a different rocket system is probably not practicable.
Agreed. It'll never happen. The USA has no heavy-lift launcher capability outside of the Shuttle.
DLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 810 times:
That is because The US lost the focus of the space program. They decided after Skylab that "Okay, I guess we can just sit back on our asses and watch the shuttle go up every 90 days or so."
The shuttle program is sadly one of the biggest wastes of tax dollars in U.S. history. There was real potential to change commercial aviation with the project, but instead, the shuttle became the billion dollar taxicab that ferried people to and from the billion dollar tin can.
What are we gaining out of the space shuttle. Sure, it is cool that we have the technology to blast millions of pounds of stuff into outer space, but what are they doing when they get there?
The hubble was really the only useful thing that the shuttle did, otherwise there was nothing.
We will Endeavor to waste all of our tax dollars in the Discovery of new ways to waste the tax dollars, by naming our rockets names like Atlantis to make people think we are actually thinking, and then we ran out of rational names along with rational ideas, and along came Columbia.
The mars missions and the Idea of the space station on the moon is really where it's at. We are finally remembering the dream of the oringinal astronauts. Discovery.
DLKAPA
Seriously, did Discovery really discover anything?
NormalSpeed From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 791 times:
"...and then we ran out of rational names along with rational ideas, and along came Columbia."
I hate to break this to you, but the orbiter Columbia was the second Shuttle ever built. The first was the Enterprise and it was a prototype that never flew in space.
"Columbia, the oldest orbiter in the Shuttle fleet, is named after the Boston, Massachusetts based sloop captained by American Robert Gray. On May 11, 1792, Gray and his crew maneuvered the Columbia past the dangerous sandbar at the mouth of a river extending more than 1,000 miles through what is today south-eastern British Columbia, Canada, and the Washington-Oregon border. The river was later named after the ship. Gray also led Columbia and its crew on the first American circumnavigation of the globe, carrying a cargo of otter skins to Canton, China, and then returning to Boston.
Other sailing ships have further enhanced the luster of the name Columbia. The first U.S. Navy ship to circle the globe bore that title, as did the command module for Apollo 11, the first lunar landing mission.
On a more directly patriotic note, "Columbia" is considered to be the feminine personification of the United States. The name is derived from that of another famous explorer, Christopher Columbus.
The spaceship Columbia has continued the pioneering legacy of its forebears, becoming the first Space Shuttle to fly into Earth orbit in 1981. Four sister ships joined the fleet over the next 10 years: Challenger, arriving in 1982 but destroyed four years later; Discovery, 1983; Atlantis, 1985; and Endeavour, built as a replacement for Challenger, 1991. A test vehicle, the Enterprise, was used for suborbital approach and landing tests and did not fly in space. The names of Columbia's sister ships each boast their own illustrious pedigree."
Space travel and research is critical for the advancement of society. Most of the modern marvels that we now enjoy are spin-offs from the space program. The Shuttle was not a "waste," nor has any space research been a waste to date.
Aloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4397 posts, RR: 17 Reply 20, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 774 times:
He's also forgetting Challenger, NASA's shuttle of choice. Started out as just another Enterprise, then was converted to be used for actual space flight. It was also more advanced than any of the other shuttles. And incidentally, was the first shuttle to be lost.
As for Hubble, truly a very very sad loss. With a bit of servicing Hubble could stay up there till at least 2010 and continue to send back images before it is replaced. The article I read on yahoo said that Hubble may be pushed out of orbit by 2005. It seems such a waste, that for 7 years we'll only have land-based telescopes.
What bothers me is that NASA doesnt trust their shuttle fleet to fly anywhere but the ISS now. For what was once considered the safest and most efficient manned space vehicle, that's truly depressing.
Despite its safety record the Space Shuttle remains my favourite manned space vehicle. On some levels its appearance almost reminds me of a 757.
Tokolosh From Netherlands, joined Sep 2001, 359 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 752 times:
It seems to be a good point by Aloha717200. It begs the question if NASA is going to abandon the ISS as well. After all, both Shuttle disasters were in the launch and re-entry phases of flight!
Aloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4397 posts, RR: 17 Reply 23, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 752 times:
can you explain that one a bit further?
No need to be rude. What I meant was that NASA doesnt seem to want its shuttle fleet flying missions that don't come near the ISS. That says that the reliability of the rest of the fleet of shuttles is in question (and rightly so), which unfortunately causes the demise of things like Hubble, because NASA wont launch a shuttle mission to go repair it.
Hubble is in a completely different orbit than the ISS and a mission to service Hubble may not bring the shuttle close to the ISS. It appears right now that is a risk NASA does not want to take with its shuttle fleet. Right now the ISS is seen as a place where the shuttle crew could stay if there was a problem with the shuttle.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1797 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3231 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12715 posts, 
From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
