Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Read more.
Biggles
<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
in Zocalo v2.0
[url]http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/rutan.html[/url]
[quote]If the agency won't, as a matter of policy, send a manned mission to the Hubble, how is it going to send astronauts to Mars and beyond?[/quote]
[quote]If the agency won't, as a matter of policy, send a manned mission to the Hubble, how is it going to send astronauts to Mars and beyond?[/quote]
Comments
Simple.
Manned mission to the Hubble = Money that is being used to get us to Mars.
Focus on getting a base on the moon, and then build a better orbital telescope.
All I can say is thank you to people like Richard Branson and Burt Ruttan. Its guys like these that will make space travel routine in my lifetime.
Who knows, I may even make my goal of getting to space by the time Im 35 (thats 10 years away). If Ruttan is right and the private space industry grows anywhere near as fast as the privite airline industry did...
We just might be to Jupiter before the funding is approved for NASA's mission to mars.
Blah. gotta run. will continue later
The other difference is that space activity now is "science in orbit" not "exploration of the unknown."
However - I still think it is ludicruous. We have airplane crashes regularly, yet we don't ban air travel to minor airports that don't have a full fire setup do we? Why should one shuttle crash cause NASA to be so scared of flying?
[B]nah, didn't have time. Frankly, and I know this is going to get me alot of heat, but I wish they would let the hubble die.
Focus on getting a base on the moon, and then build a better orbital telescope. [/B][/QUOTE]
I won't light a fire under your ass or anything A2597.... ;)
But the Hubble is still a very viable product. For one thing, it's already there. There should be at least a commitment to fix it until the new one is ready to fly. If Nasa doesn't want to do missions that are not close enough to the IST, that's fine, but for god's sake at least finish the work you started...
Crap send two shuttles up at one time (Within hours or days of each other I mean), that way the probability of at least one coming home with everyone aboard is high.
This is a stick-your-head-in-the-sand mentaility I hate more than anything...
The Hubble is not expendable willy-nilly in my opinion...
Scientific stuff like the Hubble and space probes should be what NASA concentrates on. An angency that is so scared of risk shouldn't be spending money on manned missions to the Moon and Mars if they're scared of going to most of LEO.
And the military is willing to take risks with lives to get things done. Hell its the only buisness that once the reporters leave they think in terms of "light losses" means 10% of your "work force" is dead or seriously disabled.
To put it short, people are damn panzies and whussies. We need to realize people are going to die instead of wetting our pants over it.
Hell we all gotta die sometime.
As far as America's hypersensitivity concerning death--these astronauts know the risks just as well as, if not better than, everyone else, and if they're willing to take them, then why the hell should we say no?
[B]Erm... how is it that no one here has mentioned that there is a repair trip scheduled for the Hubble? The decision was reconsidered after Rutan gave that interview and Congressional pressure was brought to NASA. [/B][/QUOTE]
That's what I thought I had heard... ;)
But you know in this day and age of unbiased news reporting and stuff... :p
[B]Erm... how is it that no one here has mentioned that there is a repair trip scheduled for the Hubble? The decision was reconsidered after Rutan gave that interview and Congressional pressure was brought to NASA. [/B][/QUOTE]
Because that is looking likely to cost as much as putting a new Hubble up there. I'm all for it as it's a great experiment in space robotics.
However, the robot repair mission is beside the point, as what Rutan is saying is that they are too scared to send [i]people[/i] to LEO.