# White House to Hubble..So long..it's been nice. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 24, 2005, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-to-hubble-so-long-its-been-nice/286363 "2005-01-24T03:44:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-to-hubble-so-long-its-been-nice/286363/41 "2005-01-25T00:39:33Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > Lewis’s economics suck (he seems to think that dropping a trillion dollars of pure nickel into the world’s metals markets will make everybody enormously rich, rather than substantially devaluing the nickel), but the science is solid. Well, in a sense he’s right, though, not having read the book, I can’t say whether he speaks in this context or not. By having a virtually inexhaustible supply of some commodity, we do become “wealthy”, in terms of not being restricted by limited access to the material. But people whose wealth is based upon limit future supply versus demand will be impoverished. Ultimately, wealth isn’t cash in hand; it’s the ability to affect a change in your environment. Which, of course, is in itself a justification for scientific research. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-to-hubble-so-long-its-been-nice/286363/42 "2005-01-25T00:45:28Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > Lewis’s economics suck (he seems to think that dropping a trillion dollars of pure nickel into the world’s metals markets will make everybody enormously rich, rather than substantially devaluing the nickel), but the science is solid. Well, in a sense he’s right, though, not having read the book, I can’t say whether he speaks in this context or not. By having a virtually inexhaustible supply of some commodity, we do become “wealthy”, in terms of not being restricted by limited access to the material. But people whose wealth is based upon limit future supply versus demand will be impoverished. Ultimately, wealth isn’t cash in hand; it’s the ability to affect a change in your environment. Which, of course, is in itself a justification for scientific research. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-to-hubble-so-long-its-been-nice/286363/43 "2005-01-25T01:28:12Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Does the White House appropriate money now? Of course not. But they do submit budgets wherein contains money that they wish to spend. They do not wish to spend money on what is perhaps the best eye on the universe we have. But you knew that. Didn’t you. ---
**Author:** ![Podkayne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Podkayne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Podkayne)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-to-hubble-so-long-its-been-nice/286363/44 "2005-01-25T01:31:50Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > Following on other posters, you can read _Mining the Sky_ by John S. Lewis to learn about how many asteroids they are, how easy many of them are to reach, and what sorts of goodies can be found therein. Lewis’s economics suck (he seems to think that dropping a trillion dollars of pure nickel into the world’s metals markets will make everybody enormously rich, rather than substantially devaluing the nickel), but the science is solid. There’s a tremendous resource there, just waiting for (intelligent) exploitation. Plus, then we’ll get to wear cool mohawks and say “Tanj!” a lot! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-to-hubble-so-long-its-been-nice/286363/45 "2005-01-25T05:52:38Z")
Fresh monkeyboy! Prrrrrrrrrr. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 9:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-to-hubble-so-long-its-been-nice/286363/46 "2005-01-25T09:42:26Z")
> [@Reeder](#): > > Of course not. > > But they do submit budgets wherein contains money that they wish to spend. > > They do not wish to spend money on what is perhaps the best eye on the universe we have. > > But you knew that. Didn’t you. No. What I knew is what others have said, namely that Hubble is obsolete, that some earth based telescopes are already better than Hubble, and that it’s time to move on. [New Eyes in Space, Even Sharper Than Hubble’s](http://courses.washington.edu/phys55x/New%20Eyes%20in%20Space,%20Even%20Sharper%20Than%20Hubble's.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-to-hubble-so-long-its-been-nice/286363/47 "2005-01-25T11:28:53Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > No. What I knew is what others have said, namely that Hubble is obsolete, that some earth based telescopes are already better than Hubble, and that it’s time to move on. > > [New Eyes in Space, Even Sharper Than Hubble’s](http://courses.washington.edu/phys55x/New%20Eyes%20in%20Space,%20Even%20Sharper%20Than%20Hubble's.htm) Why is it that I suspect that you knew nothing of the kind, yesterday? Perhaps it’s because you didn’t say anything like that, yesterday, instead choosing to quibble about who decides to spend money on stuff? Your reply to **Reeder** is a non sequitur, and I strongly suspect that you know absolutely nothing about the subject at hand. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-to-hubble-so-long-its-been-nice/286363/48 "2005-01-25T11:38:36Z")
> [@Desmostylus](#): > > Why is it that I suspect that you knew nothing of the kind, yesterday? 'Cause you’re a dumbass. > [@](#): > > Perhaps it’s because you didn’t say anything like that, yesterday, instead choosing to quibble about who decides to spend money on stuff? 'Cause Reeder was quibbling about money in his OP, which I read yesterday. Later, he said Hubble was the “best eye on the universe”, which I read this morning. > [@](#): > > Your reply to **Reeder** is a non sequitur, and I strongly suspect that you know absolutely nothing about the subject at hand. I’m afraid you have me confused with someone who gives a shit about what you suspect. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-to-hubble-so-long-its-been-nice/286363/49 "2005-01-25T11:51:22Z")
OK, so which are the earth based telescopes already in existence that are better than Hubblle? ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-to-hubble-so-long-its-been-nice/286363/50 "2005-01-25T11:56:37Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I’m afraid you have me confused with someone who gives a shit about what you suspect. Then why did you reply? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-to-hubble-so-long-its-been-nice/286363/51 "2005-01-25T11:59:42Z")
> [@Desmostylus](#): > > OK, so which are the earth based telescopes already in existence that are better than Hubblle? Well, the Keck in Hawaii, and the VLT in Chile are both much more sensitive to light and much less expensive. Hubble is 30-year-old technology. Microcomputers in the 1990s brought us technologies like [adaptive optics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_optics). ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-to-hubble-so-long-its-been-nice/286363/52 "2005-01-25T12:00:53Z")
> [@TwistofFate](#): > > Then why did you reply? Why are you replying to me? ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-to-hubble-so-long-its-been-nice/286363/53 "2005-01-25T12:28:45Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Well, the Keck in Hawaii, and the VLT in Chile are both much more sensitive to light and much less expensive. Hubble is 30-year-old technology. Microcomputers in the 1990s brought us technologies like [adaptive optics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_optics). Alright, if we’re going to use Wikipedia as a referee, you should note that it refutes your claim: > [@](#): > > [Hubble Space Telescope > From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope) > > For example, the VLT cost was roughly 1/7 of the HST cost, and gave the astronomic community four 8.2 meters telescopes, with a resolution **almost as high** as the Hubble. And since I’ve gone to the effort of actually looking things up for you, I expect a response more sensible than “It’s 1/7 the cost!”. I’ve got a pair of binoculars that cost maybe a billionth what the Hubble did, but they ain’t better than the Hubble. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-to-hubble-so-long-its-been-nice/286363/54 "2005-01-25T12:35:41Z")
The telescopes themselves are better than (_ie._ more sensitive to light than) the Hubble telescope, but they’re in an atmosphere which makes them marginally worse, overall. The money will be better spent on a telescope as good as the Earth ones, but _in space_. **Lib** said nothing wrong. Your petty harrassment is undignified. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-to-hubble-so-long-its-been-nice/286363/55 "2005-01-25T12:51:36Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > The telescopes themselves are better than (_ie._ more sensitive to light than) the Hubble telescope, but they’re in an atmosphere which makes them marginally worse, overall. The money will be better spent on a telescope as good as the Earth ones, but _in space_. > > **Lib** said nothing wrong. Your petty harrassment is undignified. Um, **Lib** is pretty clueless on the subject, and despite what you say, he is wrong. And I’m not engaged in petty harassment, here. **Lib** started this with a nonsensical attack on **Reeder**. **Lib** is a pretentious, uneducated, reasonably intelligent person, with some strongly held convictions, and a few mental health issues. You see some admirable qualities there, and so do I. But when he acts like a stupid asshole, I tell him. And you do too, I’ve seen you do it. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-to-hubble-so-long-its-been-nice/286363/56 "2005-01-25T12:57:07Z")
> [@Desmostylus](#): > > Alright, if we’re going to use Wikipedia as a referee, you should note that it refutes your claim… If you were quoting that paragraph honestly, you would have included the part where it notes that both the Keck and VLT are considerably _more_ sensitive to light than Hubble, while having almost the same resolution and costing a seventh as much. It takes a pretty unusual interpretation to declare them outright worse, given this extra information. I’m sure that’s not why you elided that particular detail, though. Perhaps you feel that resolution is the sole measure of a telescope’s performance? If so, it strikes me as unusual that you’re accusing others of being clueless… ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-to-hubble-so-long-its-been-nice/286363/57 "2005-01-25T13:08:20Z")
😃 And just for the record, I have no “mental health issues”. The medication that I took (steroids) was for a pinched sciatic nerve, as I explained way back when. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-to-hubble-so-long-its-been-nice/286363/58 "2005-01-25T13:10:38Z")
> [@](#): > > But when he acts like a stupid asshole, I tell him. And you do too, I’ve seen you do it. And he tells me when I’m a stupid asshole, because we are _friends_. You could be his friend too if you wished. Do you? ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-to-hubble-so-long-its-been-nice/286363/59 "2005-01-25T13:15:32Z")
> [@Dead Badger](#): > > Perhaps you feel that resolution is the sole measure of a telescope’s performance? Well, yes, I would regard resolution of distant astronomical objects as a primary measure. That’s pretty much what telescopes are for. Light sensitivity is useful, but it you can’t focus the image, that usefulness kinda evaporates. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-to-hubble-so-long-its-been-nice/286363/60 "2005-01-25T13:18:47Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > And he tells me when I’m a stupid asshole, because we are _friends_. You could be his friend too if you wished. Do you? Been there, done that. Waste of time and effort. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-to-hubble-so-long-its-been-nice/286363.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-to-hubble-so-long-its-been-nice/286363.md?page=4)