In alt.atheism on Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:12:43 -0700, johac
<jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote:

In article <e1e30450.0404261134.3ee38c6c@posting.google.com>,
budikka1@netscape.net (Budikka) wrote:

johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote in message
news:<jhachm-A73525.22502025042004@news-60.giganews.com>...

In article <e1e30450.0404251130.19e9fd81@posting.google.com>,
budikka1@netscape.net (Budikka) wrote:

Apparently NASA thinks it's still worth looking at saving:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3652627.stm

Budikka

I signed the petition that went around a few months ago. I hope that
they can keep the Hubble going until the James Webb telescope comes on
line.

As long as it's still doing useful work:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3650213.stm
it would seem worth the while to keep it going. The people who're
running the petition make a good case:

"Dear 38,000 Hubble Petitioners,

April 24th is National Astronomy Day, and a good time to make waves on
Hubble's behalf.

No logic can support the notion that while the Space Shuttle is safe
enough
for multiple flights to the Space Station over the next decade, it is
not
safe enough for even one flight to Hubble. It is disingenuous to
announce
bold plans for a risky manned flight to Mars while at the same time
retreating from a flight to Hubble just a few hundred miles away.
NASA's
leadership should either defend the risk of the loss of life as
justifiable
given the overall benefits to mankind, or it should retreat from
manned
missions altogether. We can ill afford to spend another decade funding
manned projects such as the Space Station and the trip to Mars, only
to have
them shelved when NASA realizes it has no appetite for the inherent
risk. If
the shuttle can not be made safe enough at any cost, then abandon it
and the
Space Station, and spend more resource developing a robotic solution
to fix
Hubble, and to launch future scientific missions. The impact of
Hubble on
society and the enlightening new discovery of water on Mars make it
clear
that for the foreseeable future there is much more to be gained, in
terms of
science and political capital, from robotic initiatives (Hubble is an
optical robot after all) than from projects that require NASA to make
the
environment safe enough for a man. Let's get back to manned flights
when
either we as a people have decided to accept the inevitable loss of
life, or
at such time as we have designed a space ship that is capable of
traveling
at near the speed of light. Only then will the benefits outweigh the
risks.

Spread the word,

Michael Paolucci
President
Savethehubble.org
Slooh.com"

I agree. For a fraction of the cost, we could send a fleet of Rovers to
Mars with no human risk. The Space station without the shuttle can at
best only partially fulfill its mission, I think that the money could
be better spent on more interplanetary probes.

Someday, provided we're around long enough, we're going to start
developing space for more large-scale colonization efforts. One
possible scenario I've contemplated is that we'll likely have most of
them around Earth, and once we've developed the technology reliably,
the human population is likely to expand as there would be no more
space constraint. If this happens, and we continue adding layers of
orbiters around the Earth, we may well end up blocking enough sunlight
that we'll end up not only reversing global warming, but perhaps even
produce a more permanent ice age in some parts.
--