[extropy-chat] Soyuz Hubble Repair Mission

[Bret Kulakovich]

On Jan 30, 2005, at 9:50 AM, Dan wrote:

> On Saturday, January 29, 2005 9:26 AM Bret Kulakovich
> bret at bonfireproductions.com wrote:
>>>> I don't mind the expense - we have a pile of
>>>> instruments already built that would have been
>>>> installed by now, that are just sitting Earthside.
>>>
>>> That's typical of many space enthusiasts: no
>>> concern with costs.  I think such an attitude
>>> partly causes so little to get done.
>>
>> Aha!  - but if this was a typical space enthusiast
>> without concern for cost, I would rebuttle with
>> the expense of various other programs that
>> cost far more e.g. war, social security, etc. =)
>
> Specious argument.  Just because waste exists elsewhere does not 
> justify
> waste here.  You're using an argument similar to, "Because my neighbors
> beat their kids, I should be able to beat mine."

Agreed - and spoken with tongue-in-cheek at best.


>> I did not say I was not concerned - but that I
>> didn't mind. Because the hardware upgrades
>> that the taxpayers have already paid for are
>> sitting around on the ground being expensive.
>> It's not like we can take a Hubble component
>> down to Chile and use it in the new telescopes
>> there instead.
>
> While it's true that it's unlikely a Hubble component is going to be
> used for a telescope in Chile, this does not mean that it has no other
> use -- for instance, it could be sold to SpaceDev to make a private
> space telescope -- or that more money should be used on it.  You're
> using the Vietnam argument here -- i.e., we've already wasted resources
> R on project P, so wasting more than R on P is justified.  Actually,
> sometimes it's better to fold than to keep putting money into the pot.
> Also, being one of said taxpayers, I'd rather not have any more money
> taken from me -- even if you want yours taken from you.:)

Although I also agree with your sentiment here, I offer the following:

The plan was expensive when it was originally "the plan" - just in 
adjusted 2001 +/- dollars.

The people who desire the Hubble to remain functioning (at least those 
science minded rather than constituent minded) seem to be betting on 
the "bird-in-hand" mentality.

Rather than expenditure on Hubble, would you be interested in an equal 
amount spent instead the next generation space telescope? A 
ground-based behemoth array? None of the above?

Have a great week,

]3


>
> Cheers!
>
> Dan
>     See "Tackling Tebye Again!" at:
> http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/Tebye2.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>