Comments on: The last fix

By: Brian Mingus

Brian Mingus — Sat, 30 May 2009 15:43:15 +0000

I predict that we will service Hubble again.

By: Dr Fish

Dr Fish — Wed, 27 May 2009 02:04:42 +0000

@GingerYellow: those are indeed pretty pictures *of* the LHC.

They’re just not *by* the LHC…

By: James

James — Tue, 26 May 2009 09:59:17 +0000

Hah!

By: Tszap

Tszap — Tue, 26 May 2009 06:07:49 +0000

“you’ll actually fly a small integer number of times (at best). ”

…and a non-integer number of times at worst.

By: Meredith

Meredith — Tue, 26 May 2009 05:53:41 +0000

I would love nothing more than to be an astronaut who travels to the moon to help establish or refurbish a telescope there!!

@NIM: well said.

By: Anne

Anne — Mon, 25 May 2009 22:43:36 +0000

I’m not sure I agree about even the short-term absence of manned servicing missions: there was at least one scheme to bolt an X-ray telescope to the ISS, and that would have been more or less easy to go out and tinker with. The economics of sending someone up to tinker with a telescope change when that someone is already up there.

Now, if you want to argue that there’s no economic reason to have the ISS, well, I can’t really argue with you, but the fact is that we do have it, and we are committed to having people in it, so why not let some of them go outside and tinker with a telescope? Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s a particularly good place to put an X-ray telescope, and that proposal seems not to have been a success.

By: amphiox

amphiox — Mon, 25 May 2009 22:16:29 +0000

The only worthwhile reason to send humans into space is with the intent of colonizing space.

And the reason to colonize space is to ensure the long term (or at least longer term) survival of the human species.

Any manned mission that does not contribute in some way to the ultimate establishment of a permanent and self-sustaining space colony (one that would survive on its own even if earth were obliterated the next day by an asteroid, say), either by obtaining required experimental observations, or building infrastructure, or actually putting people in place, is a waste of money, as machines can do any and all other goals cheaper and better.

By: mathmanprime

mathmanprime — Mon, 25 May 2009 22:11:01 +0000

Count Ibis: well, as they say, not exactly. The utility of the VLT as an interferometer is a very small part of it’s overall effectiveness (I consider the VLT to be the best of all ground-based observatories in terms of the range of science it does and the productivity of its instruments).
Free-flying interferometers in space, with baselines of 10s of kilometers or far more, will far outclass the VLT interferometer. The aperture of the JWST (has there ever been a WORSE name chosen for a major observatory?) almost matches that of a single VLT ’scope and its location will make it far more productive (for the mostly IR science it’s been designed for).
NIM, have you actually MET any astronauts? I have, and though there are certainly exceptions, I’ve mostly been underwhelmed (I could tell a story about a particularly bad commencement address by a very unfortunate astronaut, but I’ll be good). They’re mostly roughly as interesting as any really good engineer (read into that what you will). They have a dangerous, glamorous, and oh so tedious job. I frankly couldn’t imagine training for YEARS for each and every mission, with the likelihood being that you’ll actually fly a small integer number of times (at best). The recent crew certainly did do a herculean job, and I salute their skill and courage . Better planning in the 70’s and 80’s would have meant that they wouldn’t have had to risk their lives on this mission, however.

By: Count Iblis

Count Iblis — Mon, 25 May 2009 21:33:40 +0000

You can't operatate something similar to the Paranal Observatory from space. It can be operated from the Moon.

By: NIM

NIM — Mon, 25 May 2009 21:31:52 +0000

All these people complaining about the cost of humans in space and how useless the ISS is are just secretly jealous that they don’t get to be astronauts.