Congress Gives NASA $260 Million Budget Boost...Including Cash For Hubble Repairs!

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 06:12 AM
link   
Congress has approved changes to NASA's budget that fully funds NASA's requests for both the shuttle and ISS, they have also included enough to cover start-up expenses for new ships to carry us to the Moon and Mars.


Originally From BBC News
The budget, adopted by a 94-5 vote in the Senate, now goes to President Bush for his signature. The measure provides the space agency with $16.5 billion for fiscal year 2006, which began Oct. 1. That's $260 million more than the agency received in fiscal year 2005.

Included in the legislation is $270 million more for a servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope. The mission, nearly called off after the Columbia accident, is a popular goal for Congress, but it still faces technical and safety reviews by NASA Administrator Mike Griffin.

The agency also got more than $3 billion the president requested to continue development of rockets and spaceships needed to return humans to the moon. NASA hopes to land astronauts on the moon again by about 2018.


Link To Full Story!


Great news for NASA...

The new budget covers nearly everything that NASA needs funding for.

The part that interests me though is this...

Included in the legislation is $270 million more for a servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope. The mission, nearly called off after the Columbia accident, is a popular goal for Congress, but it still faces technical and safety reviews by NASA Administrator Mike Griffin.


So NASA are goin to service Hubble after all???

Great news, although i have a feeling many will disagree...


Mic




posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 06:24 AM
link   
I was under the impression that NASA was getting ready to shutdown Hubble. I could be wrong because i'm somewhat behind on NASA news.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Yes, wasn't NASA going to just let the telescope fully degrade and burn up in the atmosphere because they did not have the funds to service it?
I'm behind on NASA news also! lol


[edit on 20-11-2005 by KevinA_B]



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   
That's great news for NASA. I'm glad that Congress seems to want to get space exploration really going again. I'm kinda surprised, too, that Congress has given them nearly all they need for funding. A budget to service the ISS, the shuttle, Hubble, and to start up on the CEV? Sounds almost too good to be true. But great news nonetheless.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 08:48 PM
link   
As I understand it, it's impossible for the shuttle to be equipped for rendevous with both the ISS and the Hubble telescope, therefore any layover at the ISS to await a rescue mission wouldn't be possible if the shuttle was damaged at liftoff. I think after the Columbia disaster they wanted to always have that option open.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 08:52 PM
link   
As much as I like Hubble I don't think it should be serviced, it should be grounded and put in the smithsonian as we are close to getting much better telescopes that are on the ground.(one of them the Binocular Telescope will be 10 times better theoretically)



Here is a first light test of the new telescope
Adaptive Optics techniques has rendered the Hubble Obsolete. That money could be better used to build another one of these things as they cost around 200-300 million I believe.

As for the general boost in NASA funds woopee! Finally this is what NASA needs allthough it is really still a drop in the bucket.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Maybe they can just sell the hubble?

I mean, think of all the research institutions that'd band together to pay for it and its servicing in exchange for control and ownership?


Sure the hubble isn't 'state of the art' anymore, but, really, thats not saying much, its still an incredibly advanced and usable technological tool.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
Adaptive Optics techniques has rendered the Hubble Obsolete. That money could be better used to build another one of these things as they cost around 200-300 million I believe.

Actually, it cost a mere 120 mill.



BBC
Included in the legislation is $270 million more for a servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope. The mission, nearly called off after the Columbia accident, is a popular goal for Congress, but it still faces technical and safety reviews by NASA Administrator Mike Griffin.

It wont happen, Griffen is s smart guy, and knows that hubble its old and not worth that much money, and hopefully he will spend ZERO dollars on it, and let it burn up over the ocean several years from now.

These congressmen all have a lot on their plate, so unfortunatly they dont all look into this in detail...all they know is its a popular widely known telescope, and have seen some of its great pictures...and they dont know that ground telescopes are far better then the hubble on every category, like price tag, and easier to upgrade, and clarity.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
And let it burn up over the ocean several years from now.


I know your not a fan of keeping Hubble alive...but dont you think it would be a shame to see it burn up???

I would love to see Hubble brought back to Earth and stored in a museum for later generations to see!

Its true that telescopes on Earth can do a better job now so i partially agree that Hubble is a drain on funds, but i would hate to see the greatest telescope man has built burn up in the Earths atmosphere!


Mic



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by MickeyDee

Originally posted by Murcielago
And let it burn up over the ocean several years from now.


I know your not a fan of keeping Hubble alive...but don’t you think it would be a shame to see it burn up???

I would love to see Hubble brought back to Earth and stored in a museum for later generations to see!

Its true that telescopes on Earth can do a better job now so i partially agree that Hubble is a drain on funds, but i would hate to see the greatest telescope man has built burn up in the Earths atmosphere!


Mic


I see what you mean...but I don’t know if the museum exhibit would be worth the price tag...since the shuttle mission to go put it back into the orbiters bays and land with it would cost over 500 million.

I wouldn't mind if they did that though...since it was the first of its kind and all.
I would prefer that money be spent either on the CEV...or bringing it back to earth...it would be cool to have the actual Hubble space telescope in a museum...the way that aircraft are today, while all our spacecraft in museums are mock-ups because we cant get them back...but Hubble we could if we wanted to foot the bill.



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by KevinA_B
Yes, wasn't NASA going to just let the telescope fully degrade and burn up in the atmosphere because they did not have the funds to service it?
I'm behind on NASA news also! lol


[edit on 20-11-2005 by KevinA_B]


I believe the initial reason not to service the Hubble was that it is in an orbit that is of a higher risk of the Shuttle being damaged by some sort of collision.

I support the decision to service the Hubble although I don't want it to burn up on re-entry. I'd like to see the space telescope retrieved by the Shuttle and, like it's been mentioned here, put into the Smithsonian for everyone to admire this fine machinery.

I think it shoud be serviced until the James Webb Telescope is deployed nd then brought back to Earth.

It would be a shame to let this telescope be lost.

Besides, $260 million? I laugh at such a pitifully low amount of $ that Congress "so generously" appropriated to NASA! That's an insult in the worst kind of way! If I was in control of NASA, I'd told Congress to keep it it, because it shows that they need it worse that NASA!



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling

I think it shoud be serviced until the James Webb Telescope is deployed and then brought back to Earth.

It would be a shame to let this telescope be lost.

The JWST wont be launched until 2013, and the Shuttle retires in 2010...so theres no way that it could be fixed and brought back to earth.
There are telescopes better then the Hubble.....nuff said.



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago

Originally posted by Intelearthling

I think it shoud be serviced until the James Webb Telescope is deployed and then brought back to Earth.

It would be a shame to let this telescope be lost.

The JWST wont be launched until 2013, and the Shuttle retires in 2010...so theres no way that it could be fixed and brought back to earth.
There are telescopes better then the Hubble.....nuff said.


As much as it pains me(I love the Hubble) I agree it's outdated and if it will really cost half a billion just to put it in the Smithsonian why bother? We can build 3-4 Binocular telescopes for that much dough, or how bout one really really BIG one.

[edit on 24-11-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
, or how bout one really really BIG one.



The size of that SETI dish in Puerto Rico.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWguy83

Originally posted by sardion2000
, or how bout one really really BIG one.



The size of that SETI dish in Puerto Rico.


Ears are good, but eyes are better.

He has probably thinking more on the lines of OWL.





top topics
 
0

log in

join