NASA budget means no more JIMO?

[Darrrius]

It seems Nasa may have to cancel their JIMO mission.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4244451.stm

Lets hope they come up with something as good or better soon. Europa is screaming out for a visit from a probe... lets hope the new mission will incorporate a lander for each of the moons. I'm sure they could manage 3 probes on the one spacecraft??

[Darrrius]

Another thing, Nasa have $75m (£40m) to bring hubble down into the ocean by means of a robotic mission.

This seems like soooo much money to, in essence, destroy hubble. Surele we could just blast it out of the sky with a sidewinder missile or someting similar?

[Decepticon]

Originally posted by Darrrius@Feb 8 2005, 06:45 AM
Another thing, Nasa have $75m (£40m) to bring hubble down into the ocean by means of a robotic mission.

This seems like soooo much money to, in essence, destroy hubble. Surele we could just blast it out of the sky with a sidewinder missile or someting similar?

How sad is that.

75 Mil to bring down something that will come down anyways.

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by Darrrius@Feb 8 2005, 11:45 AM
Surele we could just blast it out of the sky with a sidewinder missile or someting similar?

You're joking of course. If it were hit with a missile, it would break into millions of pieces all large enough to damage the shuttle or ISS, which would stay in lethal orbits for years to come.

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by Darrrius@Feb 8 2005, 11:09 AM
It seems Nasa may have to cancel their JIMO mission.

I suspect that JIMO is getting the axe in part because there is less of a guarantee that the technology will be ready in time. You can count on project Prometheus [or something like it] eventually happening. BTW, I am disappointed to.

[Darrrius]

Originally posted by antoniseb@Feb 8 2005, 02:01 PM
If it were hit with a missile, it would break into millions of pieces all large enough to damage the shuttle or ISS, which would stay in lethal orbits for years to come.

Ok maybe not such a good idea

It just seems like such a huge amount of money.

[Darrrius]

what would happen to hubble if it were left to orbit, would it eventually fall out of orbit and re-enter?

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by Darrrius@Feb 8 2005, 02:13 PM
what would happen to hubble if it were left to orbit, would it eventually fall out of orbit and re-enter?

A huge chunk of glass and metal would land in an unpredictable location, most likely in the ocean, but potentially hitting a large city and causing some death and injury. $75 million is small compared to the fallout from such an accident.

[Erimus]

If they hadn't cancelled the Europa Orbiter, we could have had a craft orbiting the Jovian system by next year. I don't know what prompted NASA to come up with a "Spruce Goose" idea like JIMO, but the odds against it getting off the ground by 2015 were--and remain--high.

[Decepticon]

I was so upset to hear of the Canceled JIMO.


Europa haunts my dreams quite a bit. I really belive in a sub surface ocean.

[imported_StarStuff]

Originally posted by "antoniseb"
$75 million is small compared to the fallout from such an accident.

First of all, the idea of scraping the Hubble makes me want to retch. Mr. Bush, NASA and anyone else who took part in the decision to burn up a very useful tool to mankind ought to be drug out in the street and publicly flogged.

Why not put it to a vote? Let the people decide; this is a democracy and our taxes paid to put it there. Let the people decide if they wish to use their tax money to keep it there.

As for a 75 million-dollar price tag to de-orbit the Hubble, that is a crock! Granted blowing it up definitely wasn't a "good idea", but I can scarcely believe that it would cost that much of OUR MONEY to bring down, something that most intelligent people would agree should be repaired and allowed to continue its research.

:angry:

[Bobunf]

"Why not put it to a vote? Let the people decide.."

I suspect Hubble would lose. It would be pointed out, ad nauseum (as has happened even on this website), that we have problems here on Earth--the homeless, starving, uneducated, etc. and pollution, global warming, an energy and water crisis.

Besides, the project would cost each person $2. Way too much. I can hear it now, "Who needs to look somewhere nobody will ever go?"

Let's not put it to a vote. Too much disillusionment flows from that direction.

Bob

[imported_StarStuff]

Ok, let’s not look any further than our own human shortsightedness. Let’s not dream of going to the stars. It is of no account that most of the technological advancements that humankind now enjoys are by-products of science gleaned from great minds dreaming of one day stepping off of this rock and onto another celestial body.

No, it’s just not worth it. Might as well just craw back into our caves and forget those twinkling lights in the night sky. Would someone please pass me a piece of wooly mammoth jerky?

:huh:

[Launch window]

NASA chief warns money will be tight for astronomy
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19231
http://today.reuters.com/News/newsAr...SPACE-NASA.xml
Space Science Is No Longer A Safe Bet
Remarks by NASA Administrator Griffin to the American Astronomical Society

"In short, we who run NASA today are doing our very best to preserve a robust science program in the face of, frankly, some daunting fiscal realities that affect all domestic discretionary spending. These realities dictate that we set priorities; NASA simply cannot accomplish everything that was on our plate when I took office last April. In space-based astronomy, and in other areas, we will have to make tough trade-offs between maintaining current missions, of which there are 14 ongoing, and developing new capabilities. The astronomy community has faced this same issue with respect to ground based telescopes as well."


NASA cuts
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=18202

Interstellar Pioneers Facing Termination
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=16828

[Spherical]

I think it likely that Mr. Griffith is deeply worried about whether or not he can keep the shuttles flying with any budget. They have turned into something of an albatross around our necks.

Another problem is that our "private sector" aerospace industry really isn't so private any more. He is dealing with an enormous amount of inertia in all of this and it will take a while to clean up--assuming it can be.

We must also remember that there are huge hidden costs to these programs that never show up on NASA's books. They come in the form of "log rolling" on the floors of the US House and Senate. Those $400M special projects the House added are just the tip of the iceburg.