| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"SDR" |
| Date: |
12 Apr 2005 02:17:40 PM |
| Object: |
Plan to Abandon Hubble Challenged |
from The New York Times: "NASA engineers have taken
a successful first step in showing they could service
the Hubble Space Telescope using only robots, implicitly
challenging NASA headquarters' insistence that Hubble
will have to be abandoned because the controversial $470
million mission is too expensive and too difficult.
WHAT?!? How dare mere engineers challenge the Great Bush
Administration's brilliant plan to abandon Hubble in favor of
some more future moon walks!
What can Hubble provide to us but a few measly gobs more
of useful/indispensable scientific achievements?
And what's that compared to being able to watch AMERICAN
astronauts playing miniature golf on the Moon--ON THE MOON
FOR GOD'S SAKES!
THANK GOD that we have a president who understands what's
really important/Godly, & what's only so much science clap.
And now you know what price superstition, boys & girls.
S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://democracy.sdrodrian.com
.
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Plan to Abandon Hubble Challenged |
12 Apr 2005 03:35:53 PM |
|
|
(SDR) wrote in
news:58087ec7.0504120617.827a42d@posting.google.com:
from The New York Times: "NASA engineers have taken
a successful first step in showing they could service
the Hubble Space Telescope using only robots, implicitly
challenging NASA headquarters' insistence that Hubble
will have to be abandoned because the controversial $470
million mission is too expensive and too difficult.
WHAT?!? How dare mere engineers challenge the Great Bush
Administration's brilliant plan to abandon Hubble in favor of
some more future moon walks!
Never mind the fact that they could build, and launch, an entirely new
Hubble, with improved instruments, for less money.
What can Hubble provide to us but a few measly gobs more
of useful/indispensable scientific achievements?
A chance to waste even more money?
And what's that compared to being able to watch AMERICAN
astronauts playing miniature golf on the Moon--ON THE MOON
FOR GOD'S SAKES!
Nice strawman you got there.
THANK GOD that we have a president who understands what's
really important/Godly, & what's only so much science clap.
And now you know what price superstition, boys & girls.
S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://democracy.sdrodrian.com
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: Plan to Abandon Hubble Challenged |
13 Apr 2005 01:24:42 AM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:1113320155.35e03a244aaf39f732f407753d1adc9f@teranews...
sdrodrian@sdrodrian.com (SDR) wrote in
news:58087ec7.0504120617.827a42d@posting.google.com:
What can Hubble provide to us but a few measly gobs more
of useful/indispensable scientific achievements?
A chance to waste even more money?
Yeah, what use is scientific knowledge anyway? Heaven forbid we actually
learn more about our universe!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Plan to Abandon Hubble Challenged |
13 Apr 2005 03:35:55 AM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in news:d3hscg$24g$1
@news.seed.net.tw:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:1113320155.35e03a244aaf39f732f407753d1adc9f@teranews...
sdrodrian@sdrodrian.com (SDR) wrote in
news:58087ec7.0504120617.827a42d@posting.google.com:
What can Hubble provide to us but a few measly gobs more
of useful/indispensable scientific achievements?
A chance to waste even more money?
Yeah, what use is scientific knowledge anyway? Heaven forbid we actually
learn more about our universe!
Yeah, heaven forbid that we use the money to build a newer scope with more
advanced technology or something.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Plan to Abandon Hubble Challenged |
12 Apr 2005 03:53:14 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
sdrodrian@sdrodrian.com (SDR) wrote in
news:58087ec7.0504120617.827a42d@posting.google.com:
from The New York Times: "NASA engineers have taken
a successful first step in showing they could service
the Hubble Space Telescope using only robots, implicitly
challenging NASA headquarters' insistence that Hubble
will have to be abandoned because the controversial $470
million mission is too expensive and too difficult.
WHAT?!? How dare mere engineers challenge the Great Bush
Administration's brilliant plan to abandon Hubble in favor of
some more future moon walks!
Never mind the fact that they could build, and launch, an entirely new
Hubble, with improved instruments, for less money.
For $470M? Don't be so bloody daft!
What can Hubble provide to us but a few measly gobs more
of useful/indispensable scientific achievements?
A chance to waste even more money?
ahhh, rather spend it blowing up a few more Iraqi's I suppose
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Plan to Abandon Hubble Challenged |
12 Apr 2005 06:10:42 PM |
|
|
Martin <martin_nospam@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:d3gqta$p20$1@sparta.btinternet.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
sdrodrian@sdrodrian.com (SDR) wrote in
news:58087ec7.0504120617.827a42d@posting.google.com:
from The New York Times: "NASA engineers have taken
a successful first step in showing they could service
the Hubble Space Telescope using only robots, implicitly
challenging NASA headquarters' insistence that Hubble
will have to be abandoned because the controversial $470
million mission is too expensive and too difficult.
WHAT?!? How dare mere engineers challenge the Great Bush
Administration's brilliant plan to abandon Hubble in favor of
some more future moon walks!
Never mind the fact that they could build, and launch, an entirely
new Hubble, with improved instruments, for less money.
For $470M? Don't be so bloody daft!
That $470M is a bit of a low estimate, given that previous missions have
run in the $700M to $1Billion range.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/hubble-03a.html
"The Shuttle is so expensive to fly -- each of its Hubble servicing
missions costs between $700 million and $1 billion -- that, for the cost
of only two such missions (and perhaps less), a complete new duplicate
Hubble could be constructed comparatively cheaply from the blueprints
for the original (with whatever improved equipment and new experiments
seemed appropriate) and launched on a Titan booster without any need to
risk human lives."
I stand corrected. The cost of a new Hubble with all new instruments
would be less than *TWO* servicing missions.
What can Hubble provide to us but a few measly gobs more
of useful/indispensable scientific achievements?
A chance to waste even more money?
ahhh, rather spend it blowing up a few more Iraqi's I suppose
Nah, we're done blowing up Iraqis. They're blowing up each other now.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Plan to Abandon Hubble Challenged |
12 Apr 2005 09:18:31 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Martin <martin_nospam@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:d3gqta$p20$1@sparta.btinternet.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
sdrodrian@sdrodrian.com (SDR) wrote in
news:58087ec7.0504120617.827a42d@posting.google.com:
from The New York Times: "NASA engineers have taken
a successful first step in showing they could service
the Hubble Space Telescope using only robots, implicitly
challenging NASA headquarters' insistence that Hubble
will have to be abandoned because the controversial $470
million mission is too expensive and too difficult.
WHAT?!? How dare mere engineers challenge the Great Bush
Administration's brilliant plan to abandon Hubble in favor of
some more future moon walks!
Never mind the fact that they could build, and launch, an entirely
new Hubble, with improved instruments, for less money.
For $470M? Don't be so bloody daft!
That $470M is a bit of a low estimate, given that previous missions have
run in the $700M to $1Billion range.
EACH MISSION
Geez! (Take a deap breath now - you're dealing with a moron here)
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/hubble-03a.html
Why don't "Free Butt Blaster Loans" pay for it then? Or maybe "Free
Screansavers with Big Arses and Tits"? If that is the best you can do,
then I feel sorry for you.
"The Shuttle is so expensive to fly -- each of its Hubble servicing
missions costs between $700 million and $1 billion -- that, for the cost
of only two such missions (and perhaps less), a complete new duplicate
Hubble could be constructed comparatively cheaply from the blueprints
for the original (with whatever improved equipment and new experiments
seemed appropriate) and launched on a Titan booster without any need to
risk human lives."
I stand corrected. The cost of a new Hubble with all new instruments
would be less than *TWO* servicing missions.
for ***** sake you moron! The Valium just wore off!
Do you really think the entire cost of the HST is just the cost of two
missions to maintain it? God the world is worse than I thought!
A new 'Hubble' would cost between $3G and $5G for a 10 year life span,
and you are wibbling over $750M. By the time of growth estimates to get
an extra 10 years life for 1/10 of the cost of a new one.
That is the cost of a decent bonber or two in the USAF! Get yourself
some perspective.
What can Hubble provide to us but a few measly gobs more
of useful/indispensable scientific achievements?
A chance to waste even more money?
ahhh, rather spend it blowing up a few more Iraqi's I suppose
Nah, we're done blowing up Iraqis. They're blowing up each other now.
read the news
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Plan to Abandon Hubble Challenged |
12 Apr 2005 10:48:19 PM |
|
|
Martin <martin_nospam@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:d3hdv7$p4v$1@titan.btinternet.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Martin <martin_nospam@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:d3gqta$p20$1@sparta.btinternet.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
sdrodrian@sdrodrian.com (SDR) wrote in
news:58087ec7.0504120617.827a42d@posting.google.com:
from The New York Times: "NASA engineers have taken
a successful first step in showing they could service
the Hubble Space Telescope using only robots, implicitly
challenging NASA headquarters' insistence that Hubble
will have to be abandoned because the controversial $470
million mission is too expensive and too difficult.
WHAT?!? How dare mere engineers challenge the Great Bush
Administration's brilliant plan to abandon Hubble in favor of
some more future moon walks!
Never mind the fact that they could build, and launch, an entirely
new Hubble, with improved instruments, for less money.
For $470M? Don't be so bloody daft!
That $470M is a bit of a low estimate, given that previous missions
have run in the $700M to $1Billion range.
EACH MISSION
Geez! (Take a deap breath now - you're dealing with a moron here)
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/hubble-03a.html
Why don't "Free Butt Blaster Loans" pay for it then? Or maybe "Free
Screansavers with Big Arses and Tits"? If that is the best you can do,
then I feel sorry for you.
Save it for your fans in the Morons Club.
"The Shuttle is so expensive to fly -- each of its Hubble servicing
missions costs between $700 million and $1 billion -- that, for the
cost of only two such missions (and perhaps less), a complete new
duplicate Hubble could be constructed comparatively cheaply from the
blueprints for the original (with whatever improved equipment and new
experiments seemed appropriate) and launched on a Titan booster
without any need to risk human lives."
I stand corrected. The cost of a new Hubble with all new instruments
would be less than *TWO* servicing missions.
for ***** sake you moron! The Valium just wore off!
Do you really think the entire cost of the HST is just the cost of two
missions to maintain it? God the world is worse than I thought!
A new 'Hubble' would cost between $3G and $5G for a 10 year life span,
and you are wibbling over $750M. By the time of growth estimates to
get an extra 10 years life for 1/10 of the cost of a new one.
That is the cost of a decent bonber or two in the USAF! Get yourself
some perspective.
The point, besides the one on your head, is that that $750M or so would
be better spent on building a new 'scope.
What can Hubble provide to us but a few measly gobs more
of useful/indispensable scientific achievements?
A chance to waste even more money?
ahhh, rather spend it blowing up a few more Iraqi's I suppose
Nah, we're done blowing up Iraqis. They're blowing up each other now.
read the news
See this mirror?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank J Warner" |
|
| Title: Re: Plan to Abandon Hubble Challenged |
12 Apr 2005 06:27:24 PM |
|
|
In article <1113329446.a9f37b1cbe8c1889b9ea04299c5d2187@teranews>, Fred
Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Martin <martin_nospam@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:d3gqta$p20$1@sparta.btinternet.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
sdrodrian@sdrodrian.com (SDR) wrote in
news:58087ec7.0504120617.827a42d@posting.google.com:
from The New York Times: "NASA engineers have taken
a successful first step in showing they could service
the Hubble Space Telescope using only robots, implicitly
challenging NASA headquarters' insistence that Hubble
will have to be abandoned because the controversial $470
million mission is too expensive and too difficult.
WHAT?!? How dare mere engineers challenge the Great Bush
Administration's brilliant plan to abandon Hubble in favor of
some more future moon walks!
Never mind the fact that they could build, and launch, an entirely
new Hubble, with improved instruments, for less money.
For $470M? Don't be so bloody daft!
That $470M is a bit of a low estimate, given that previous missions have
run in the $700M to $1Billion range.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/hubble-03a.html
"The Shuttle is so expensive to fly -- each of its Hubble servicing
missions costs between $700 million and $1 billion -- that, for the cost
of only two such missions (and perhaps less), a complete new duplicate
Hubble could be constructed comparatively cheaply from the blueprints
for the original (with whatever improved equipment and new experiments
seemed appropriate) and launched on a Titan booster without any need to
risk human lives."
I stand corrected. The cost of a new Hubble with all new instruments
would be less than *TWO* servicing missions.
I would be in favor of that, but only on condition that the existing
craft be maintained in the meantime.
-Frank
--
fwarner1-at-franksknives-dot-com
Here's some of my work:
http://www.franksknives.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Plan to Abandon Hubble Challenged |
12 Apr 2005 06:44:23 PM |
|
|
Frank J Warner <warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote in
news:120420051127243048%warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net:
In article <1113329446.a9f37b1cbe8c1889b9ea04299c5d2187@teranews>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Martin <martin_nospam@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:d3gqta$p20$1@sparta.btinternet.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
sdrodrian@sdrodrian.com (SDR) wrote in
news:58087ec7.0504120617.827a42d@posting.google.com:
from The New York Times: "NASA engineers have taken
a successful first step in showing they could service
the Hubble Space Telescope using only robots, implicitly
challenging NASA headquarters' insistence that Hubble
will have to be abandoned because the controversial $470
million mission is too expensive and too difficult.
WHAT?!? How dare mere engineers challenge the Great Bush
Administration's brilliant plan to abandon Hubble in favor of
some more future moon walks!
Never mind the fact that they could build, and launch, an entirely
new Hubble, with improved instruments, for less money.
For $470M? Don't be so bloody daft!
That $470M is a bit of a low estimate, given that previous missions
have run in the $700M to $1Billion range.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/hubble-03a.html
"The Shuttle is so expensive to fly -- each of its Hubble servicing
missions costs between $700 million and $1 billion -- that, for the
cost of only two such missions (and perhaps less), a complete new
duplicate Hubble could be constructed comparatively cheaply from the
blueprints for the original (with whatever improved equipment and new
experiments seemed appropriate) and launched on a Titan booster
without any need to risk human lives."
I stand corrected. The cost of a new Hubble with all new instruments
would be less than *TWO* servicing missions.
I would be in favor of that, but only on condition that the existing
craft be maintained in the meantime.
But that's the point, servicing the existing instrument eats up the
budget that could go for building a new improved 'scope.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Plan to Abandon Hubble Challenged |
12 Apr 2005 09:21:48 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Frank J Warner <warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote in
news:120420051127243048%warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net:
In article <1113329446.a9f37b1cbe8c1889b9ea04299c5d2187@teranews>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Martin <martin_nospam@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:d3gqta$p20$1@sparta.btinternet.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
sdrodrian@sdrodrian.com (SDR) wrote in
news:58087ec7.0504120617.827a42d@posting.google.com:
from The New York Times: "NASA engineers have taken
a successful first step in showing they could service
the Hubble Space Telescope using only robots, implicitly
challenging NASA headquarters' insistence that Hubble
will have to be abandoned because the controversial $470
million mission is too expensive and too difficult.
WHAT?!? How dare mere engineers challenge the Great Bush
Administration's brilliant plan to abandon Hubble in favor of
some more future moon walks!
Never mind the fact that they could build, and launch, an entirely
new Hubble, with improved instruments, for less money.
For $470M? Don't be so bloody daft!
That $470M is a bit of a low estimate, given that previous missions
have run in the $700M to $1Billion range.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/hubble-03a.html
"The Shuttle is so expensive to fly -- each of its Hubble servicing
missions costs between $700 million and $1 billion -- that, for the
cost of only two such missions (and perhaps less), a complete new
duplicate Hubble could be constructed comparatively cheaply from the
blueprints for the original (with whatever improved equipment and new
experiments seemed appropriate) and launched on a Titan booster
without any need to risk human lives."
I stand corrected. The cost of a new Hubble with all new instruments
would be less than *TWO* servicing missions.
I would be in favor of that, but only on condition that the existing
craft be maintained in the meantime.
But that's the point, servicing the existing instrument eats up the
budget that could go for building a new improved 'scope.
bollocks! and you know it!
Unless you think big tit and bums are going to fund the cost from your
spam-vertised website.
cite some REAL figures about the costs of building and launching a new scope
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dale Houstman" |
|
| Title: Re: Plan to Abandon Hubble Challenged |
12 Apr 2005 03:27:50 PM |
|
|
SDR wrote:
And what's that compared to being able to watch AMERICAN
astronauts playing miniature golf on the Moon--ON THE MOON
FOR GOD'S SAKES!
It would ne nice if they could build a fully-functioning putt-putt
course on the Sea of Tranquility, with both classical obstacles (the
windmill for instance) and lunar-theme items, such as the Lack of Oxygen
100 Yard Dash to the 9th Hole, and Impact Crater Drop.
And then send Bush et al to play just one measly round...
dmh
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
