RE: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Hubble humor
I hope you will all forgive me for taking up more bandwidth about this. I certainly have no problem with what Chuck said and I think it was very succinctly covered by what Brent said. Was I offended by what Patrick posted - not in the least. I'm actually one that LOVES a political debate. Therein lies the rub. If something is pure politics - for me, its hard to resist jumping in and "getting into it". I belong to the OAS and consider it to be a great group of fellow amateur astronomers. But, do they all agree with me politically? I really doubt it. I really don't want to destroy friendships because of me trying to get in "equal time". With the limitations of email these types of exchanges tend to quickly devolve into flame wars. So I would just hope that we could stick to discussing issues, ideas (and - methods as Brent said), rather than discussing specific politicians and parties. However, clearly its up to the list administrator to set the boundaries. Now - back to the great stuff coming from Opportunity, etc. Clear skies, Dale.
-----Original Message----- From: Richard Tenney [mailto:retenney@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 10:01 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Hubble humor
I wholly agree with Chuck on this one. Far too many people view politics AS religion (for many, it's even worse than a religious debate). I think we can and should all agree to have some thick skin here and not get our feathers ruffled too easily.
-Rich
--- Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> wrote:
Any administration, regardless of party affiliation, that prematurely shuts-down one of the single most effective observatories in history has made a huge mistake. And I can certainly sympathize with someone who is facing losing their job over such a decision.
Politicians, supposedly through the influence of their constituents, make science policy concerning government dollars, and thus they become a fair topic of discussion in any science or astronomy forum.
I would argue that the success of NASA's "new direction" hinging on ONE measly Hubble servicing mission is ridiculous, and the decision deserves to be reviewed and discussed.
Inevitably, some people will take offense to ANY mention of politics, and especially if it casts a member of "their" party in a poor light. I would offer an olive branch to those of BOTH the left and the right, and make my claim that such political decisions CAN and MUST be discussed in forums such as this. It's OUR money being tossed around out there, folks. We should certainly have a say in how it's spent. Further, I would argue that threads concerning the fate of Hubble & the reasoning behind it has much more to do with the science of astronomy than manned & unmanned lunar and Martian exploration does.
That said, there is such a thing as questionable taste & rude barbs, so it is imperative that any such discussions be kept at a factual & non-emotional level. I can see where Wayne and Dale are coming from in this instance, perhaps Patrick's original joke did cross the line, but the topic remains fair game. In Patrick's defense, he was passing-on insider thoughts from a member of the Hubble team itself- this shows the feelings of those at the very heart of the matter.
If all our topics were without controversy, this list would last about three minutes and be as interesting as dry toast.
Thanks for your time.
C.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
As long as we're debating the space program, I think serious attention needs to be paid to the question of whether manned missions make sense. The romantic in me loves them. I recall Mercury/Gemini/Apollo fondly. But Ames and others raise a serious point that science suffers from all the resources lavished on propelling man to space. Others argue that only man is adaptable enough to respond to the the situation on hand; they also raise shuttle servicing of Hubble. Meanwhile, others rebut the utility of shuttle/hubble by pointing out that a cheaper and shorter term telescope could be placed, and replaced for less than the cost of shuttle servicing. And the subsequent editions would benefit from advances in technology, and, shall we say, adaptations to what has been found already. Maybe the short term solution with no human servicing is the more adaptable approach. No one argues that serious science is now occurring on the space station--undermanned so that housekeeping tasks consume the crew, and this was true before the leak was discovered. Yes, the water bubble were neat--I enjoyed seeing them--but it's not worth $60 billion (or whatever an honest accounting would reveal as the true cost). Some bash Bush, without reflecting that the immediate Hubble crisis arises from the destruction of Columbia, and the frantic demands on the shuttle for the ISS pork in the sky. At this point, I have heard no one put forward a serious argument that the shuttle has advanced science when weighed against its opportunity cost. It has, in fact, been a disaster. Then, the libertarian in me questions whether there should be any government money devoted to these causes, just because I happen to favor them. Can I add that I'm tired of the Saganized NASA that seems to think that the only reason for visiting the planets is the very slim chance of discovering life (my estimate is that buying a lottery ticket represents a better probability, and I've never bought a lottery ticket)? Sure, some are captivated by this. But there is so much more Saganquest that makes the planets and moons interesting... There is much to discuss, even leaving aside politics. But ignorant bashes are soooo tiresome. Cheers, Jim ---- Jim Cobb james@cobb.name
--- James Cobb <james@cobb.name> wrote:
But Ames and others raise a serious point that science suffers from all the resources lavished on propelling man to space.
Yes, but where do you draw the line? Defense (& offense), social programs, they all draw funding away from 'electives' like space exploration. Drawing-down a manned program to fund a robotic one sounds more like cannibalism to me. It's only "either-or" because of politicians. Too, you have to keep engineers employed somehow. The Soviet Union lost hundreds, perhaps thousands of unemployed engineers & scientists due to lack of funds. Some of them now work for rogue nations and terrorists, whomever will give them a paycheck. I would also argue that our survival as a species depends on us one day becomming a multi-world species. I personally think that we are still on the verge of self-destruction, for several reasons, superstition among them.
Some bash Bush, without reflecting that the immediate Hubble crisis arises from the destruction of Columbia, and the frantic demands on the shuttle for the ISS pork in the sky. At this point, I have heard no one put forward a serious argument that the shuttle has advanced science when weighed against its opportunity cost. It has, in fact, been a disaster.
True, if the advancement of science is *the* criterion for success. But I would wager that there are hundreds of thousands of people whom earn their living on the Shuttle program & related sub-contracting programs who would strongly disagree. There are much worse ways to earn a living, and success can be measured against the "happiness standard".
Can I add that I'm tired of the Saganized NASA that seems to think that the only reason for visiting the planets is the very slim chance of discovering life (my estimate is that buying a lottery ticket represents a better probability, and I've never bought a lottery ticket)? Sure, some are captivated by this. But there is so much more Saganquest that makes the planets and moons interesting...
Just to be on the right side ethically, I think we have to eliminate the possibility of life or it's precursors before we start-up the strip mining. Think of it as an EIS for space. Too, someone once told me that Biology always wins. The space budget is peanuts compared to what the country spends on medical research. These numbers even stand up to Dept. of Defense figures! I have said before that we need to stop thinking in terms of 4 year increments, and start planning programs that extend for decades, even a century. We are not going to find all the answers in our lifetime, no matter how much we like Star Trek or NASA TV. Great commentary, James! C. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
Hi Chuck, On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Chuck Hards wrote:
True, if the advancement of science is *the* criterion for success. But I would wager that there are hundreds of thousands of people whom earn their living on the Shuttle program & related sub-contracting programs who would strongly disagree. There are much worse ways to earn a living, and success can be measured against the "happiness standard".
It has never even crossed my (narrow?) mind that NASA could have any purpose other than the advancement of science. I'm not sure exactly what point you were trying to make in the foregoing paragraph, but I sure hope that "providing jobs" is not the primary (or secondary, or tertiary) purpose of NASA or any other government agency. Chris
--- Chris Clark <cpclark@xmission.com> wrote:
Hi Chuck, It has never even crossed my (narrow?) mind that NASA could have any purpose other than the advancement of science. I'm not sure exactly what point you were trying to make in the foregoing paragraph, but I sure hope that "providing jobs" is not the primary (or secondary, or tertiary) purpose of NASA or any other government agency.
Not a purpose at all, but a nice spin-off. My point was that "scientific advancement" by itself really isn't sufficient reason to do anything. Sorry to mislead you. C. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
Hi Chuck, On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Chuck Hards wrote:
Not a purpose at all, but a nice spin-off. My point was that "scientific advancement" by itself really isn't sufficient reason to do anything.
If not scientific advancement, what constitutes "sufficient reason" for the spending of taxpayer dollars on NASA? In other words, what do you (we?) expect to "get" out of our collective spending on NASA's activities? Chris
Chris Clark wrote:
...In other words, what do you (we?) expect to "get" out of our collective spending on NASA's activities?
How's about the laying of the foundation of future (and to some extent, current) private investment in space? IMHO we all owe NASA and the world's other space agencies a big thank you for getting us into space. But while government will always have a place "up there" it's private enterprise that will really push things up there in the future. Patrick
Getting calls at work on my cell phone from my 5yr old son telling me the latest on Spirit last week was worth a big chunk of all the taxes I've paid in the six years I've worked in the US. What an amazing period of history to be born in.... Cheers David ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Wiggins" <paw@trilobyte.net> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 10:14 PM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Re: NASA's purpose?
Chris Clark wrote:
...In other words, what do you (we?) expect to "get" out of our collective spending on NASA's
activities?
How's about the laying of the foundation of future (and to some extent, current) private investment in space?
IMHO we all owe NASA and the world's other space agencies a big thank you for getting us into space. But while government will always have a place "up there" it's private enterprise that will really push things up there in the future.
Patrick
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
--- Chris Clark <cpclark@xmission.com> wrote:
Hi Chuck, If not scientific advancement, what constitutes "sufficient reason" for the spending of taxpayer dollars on NASA? In other words, what do you (we?) expect to "get" out of our collective spending on NASA's activities?
Hi Chris: You know, I don't think I have ever _expected_ any kind of return personally, or felt 'owed'. I've never begrudged any of my taxes spent on most anything constructive, & reasonably ethical, and good grief in terms of sheer entertainment & personal enlightenment NASA has left me with little room for complaint, eh!? Other list members have expressed a cross-section of society's collective answer; perhaps they can tell you more pointedly than I. To each, his/her own, I'm reasonably sure that you will seldom get exactly the same reason(s) from everyone. C. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
participants (6)
-
Chris Clark -
Chuck Hards -
Dale Hooper -
James Cobb -
Naz & David -
Patrick Wiggins