Very true.
Besides, if I am not mistaken, Hubble is not only for NASA research, they sell the photos to anyone who wants pictures from a specific point in the sky. If the cost to fix it outweights the economical benefits of keeping it in the air, they are obviously going to abandon it.
BTW, does anybody know in what degree did they cover the expense of Hubble by selling these photos? I can’t believe they are actually generating revenue from that, unless they charge dearly for each photo! 
*"The reason for O’Keefe’s decision was twofold, Grunsfeld said.
First, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, which probed last February’s shuttle disaster that killed seven astronauts, said NASA should not fly the remaining shuttles until it figures out how to inspect and repair the spacecraft in orbit.
NASA is working on plans to do that on missions where the shuttle docks at the international space station. But Grunsfeld said a mission to service Hubble would require that a second backup shuttle be sitting on the launchpad in Florida, with astronauts trained in risky shuttle-to-shuttle spacewalks ready to rescue the first crew should anything go wrong. GALLERY
**Second, Bush’s new focus on completing construction on the space station and pushing on to the moon and Mars will require that every precious shuttle flight be focused on the station. The shuttle is to be retired by 2010, leaving no time for an additional Hubble mission. *"
Which is exactly what is making some folks unhappy. Bush isn’t throwing money at NASA so they can land on Mars while continuing other important projects, he’s just shifting money around, effectively telling them which direction to take. He’s giving Nasa $1 Billion, which is the equivalent cost of four F-22 supersonic strike fighters, for the program over 5 years, but telling them to move $11 billion towards his pet project, money that was previously earmarked for other things.
Partisanship isn’t the issue here. I thought Clinton was an ass for not taking advantage of good times and earmarking more for NASA. Does that give me permission to say that Bush is also being an ass by telling NASA what to do with the money they already had in their budget? Heck, drop defense spending by 10%, and give it to NASA and I’d be tickled pink, but since he’s not a rocket scientist by any stretch of the imagination, I’d just as soon he not dictate projects.
No argument from me on the future of the shuttle. As far as I’m concerned, they can ditch the project after servicing the Hubble and finishing the work on the ISS. Too bad that’s not what’s happening.
Perhaps you should take off the partisanship blinders you seem to mistake as really dark sunglasses, and look at what is actually going on. NASA’s budget remains effectively the same as it currently is, but Bush gets to tell them what to spend their money on. If Clinton (or Dean, Kerry, Edwards, Clark, etc., in the future) did it, I’d be equally pissed.
That is precisely what is happening, at least with respect to the ISS. The shuttle program is being kept alive to finish the job. Too bad about Hubble, but it’s near the end of it’s life expectancy anyway.
I wouldn’t worry too much about Webb, either. It fits within the exploration concept, and would make an excellent dry run payload for the heavy lift booster necessary for the shttle replacement.
For all of you who are pissed at W for setting NASA policy, tough shit. It’s his fucking job. NASA is part of the executive branch, and he’s the boss, so he sets policy. Deal with it.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Going to the Moon first is as important to achieving a trip to Mars as the Gemini missions were to Apollo. It’s a testbed for all the technology we’ll have to create for a safe mission. If we tried to go straight to Mars first we’d be in store for a major disaster.
12 people at 6 sites for a grand total of 36 hours if memory serves. That’s hardly enough.
Dead Badger said:
Not at all. I was pointing out that when a Democrat cut space funding, many looked the other way. When a Republican increases it, they whine that it’s all just politics or a bad idea. I’m consistent on space - If someone comes up with a good plan, great. I could care less what party he belongs to. For instance, Dean and Clark seem fairly strong on space issues, and if they propose solid space plans, I’d heartily support those plans. It’s important to look at things objectively.
This is only true if you consider ‘achievement’ to be just scientific knowledge. I see the moon shot as being more of a proving ground for new space suits, the CEV, logistics, etc.
There’s another good reason to go to the moon - to provide an intermediate destination in a timeframe short enough to keep plans moving forward. The biggest problem with proposed Mars missions in the past is that they are invariably 30 or 40 years in the future, which gives politicians plenty of time to kill them or for vested interests to treat them as catch-all programs for every pet project. That’s what happened to Bush I’s Mars plan - NASA turned it into a wish list for everything they wanted to do, and the price ballooned. By putting the moon in the middle, you shorten timeframes and keep people focused. Mars is a BIG step to take all at once. However, I do share your concerns about the white elephant part - the Moon could become ISS writ large. That will have to be avoided.
We must have read different threads. The ones I read were all full of crap like that.
Your’e right. My criticism of partisanship does not belong in this thread. It’s just been at the top of my mind after going through a number of other places that WERE infested with partisanship, only to see another criticism (mostly unfounded) here, assuming that the Servicing Mission had been sacrificed on the altar of the new program. So I jumped to conclusions. My bad, and my apologies.
DMC said:
And even with only 1 Billion, the critics are already going after Bush for spending so much extra money. In the current political environment, this was probably the best they could do.
And this isn’t Bush’s ‘pet project’. This is the result of a bipartisan study that has been in the works for over a year. Bush’s original mandate to O’Keefe was simply that he go through NASA’s dysfunctional culture and make sweeping reforms. The actual recommendation to go back to the Moon did not come from Bush - in fact, as I understand it the original recommendation included ONLY the moon, and Bush sent them back to the drawing boards to make the program more general and capable of going after other celestial targets like Mars or asteroids.
Hey, if I had my way NASA’s budget would be tripled tomorrow. But that’s just not realistic. There was no way NASA was ever going to get funding for new advanced spacecraft out of strictly new funding. Something had to go.
NASA is a federally funded agency. Of COURSE politicians are going to tell them what to do. What you have to hope for is that the politicians do it intelligently, after consulting with industry experts and doing due diligence. Bush did that. This plan has been in the works for a long time.
And NASA NEEDED redirection. It couldn’t make these sweeping changes on its own. Change had to be pushed from the outside to prevent turf wars and inertia from killing it. That’s the President’s job. He sets the vision. The agencies make it happen.