Comments on: Congressional reaction to Hubble report

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Sat, 11 Dec 2004 01:43:46 +0000

The way it’s been done in the past.

http://www.speakeasy.org/~donaldfr/sfmodel.pdf

— Donald

By: Dogsbd

Dogsbd — Sat, 11 Dec 2004 01:35:02 +0000

> I want $50/lb into orbit.

So, how can it be done?

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:13:04 +0000

You can’t get that until there is a market. With the possible exception of tourism, the most likely markets that are large enough are provided by the government. Mr. Bush’s Moon / Mars will provide a market — the lunar base.

— Donald

By: Walter E. Wallis

Walter E. Wallis — Fri, 10 Dec 2004 22:50:49 +0000

I want $50/lb into orbit. Everything else can follow. Take operations away from NASA.

By: Dogsbd

Dogsbd — Fri, 10 Dec 2004 19:33:44 +0000

>>I am arguing that, given that resources are limited, if we have to choose between more knowledge of the Crab Nebula, and more knowledge of Mars, a place we might actually go to in the foreseeable future, the latter should have priority. If we can do both, then, yes, we should.

Agreed, 100%!

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Fri, 10 Dec 2004 17:24:37 +0000

“So you’re advocating a manned mission to the Crab Nebula?”

Not at all (at least not yet!). I am arguing that, given that resources are limited, if we have to choose between more knowledge of the Crab Nebula, and more knowledge of Mars, a place we might actually go to in the foreseeable future, the latter should have priority. If we can do both, then, yes, we should.

Technical question: How do you do the itallic quote? Thanks!

— Donald

By: Neil Halelamien

Neil Halelamien — Fri, 10 Dec 2004 06:11:34 +0000

Secondly, as I argue in an article I am currently writing, we’ve done enough remote observation already. We’re ready to go there and look.

So you’re advocating a manned mission to the Crab Nebula?

By: argon

argon — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 21:37:42 +0000

Thank god all Mars nuts are confined to blogs and don’t actually work in the space business. Then we’d really be in trouble. Logic is not the strong suit here.

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 20:24:35 +0000

I would also add that I agree with those of you who have implied that it is just as ironic that the space scientists have suddenly got religion. From the New York Times article: Dr. John Bahcall, a physicist at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., . . . said of the robotic mission, “Finally, somebody told the king he didn’t have any clothes.”

If that is so, than those who are proposing that we explore Mars with robots also have no clothes.

— Donald

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 20:12:06 +0000

I am opposed to the robot mission, and to a lessor extent to the repair itself.

First, we are supposed to be preparing to send people out into the Solar System, no? If so, we’d damn well better get as much experience as we possibly can doing tasks in LEO with people. Sure, repairing Hubble has been done before, but practice makes perfect and experience is everything, and no repair is going to go the same way the last one went. The lower cost of a human mission is both ironic — there is a lesson there, if anyone cares to look for it — and icing on the cake.

Also, I personally give the robotic mission a very low chance of success. Given the amount of money at risk, this is too high a risk to be prudent. We have astronauts willing to take the physical risk, let’s let them do their jobs.

Secondly, as I argue in an article I am currently writing, we’ve done enough remote observation already. We’re ready to go there and look. If money is tight, then physical exploration should have priority over remote observation — if nothing else, it is better science.

— Donald