NASA's Most Dangerous Mission Ever, set for tomorrow 5/11/09- being stranded in space possible

Originally posted by orangetom1999
reply to post by ngchunter
If we have data which can be confirmed by other telescopes on the ground...for what do we need the Hubble??

Also, I never said hubble was a fake satellite or fake space telescope.. I dont know from whence you arrived at that conclusion??

However, to my limited knowledge ...most of the shuttle missions did not have a back up shuttle ready to rescue them. I may be wrong here...but I have not heard of this until now.

Originally posted by googolplex
originally posted byjfj123
Don't worry, it' doesn't exist.

It's just superstition and scare mongering.

Nibiru is a hoax.

It's all good

The Hubble Space Telescope repair mission, STS-125 seemingly gets bad news after more bad news. The mission was already delayed due Hurricane Ike in 2008, and again when a data handling processor on the spacecraft failed. Now, the mission may be too risky for both spacecraft and astronauts following the collision of the Iridium satellite and a defunct Russian communications spacecraft last week. There may be too much debris floating around close to Hubble’s orbit, breaching the safety limits NASA has in place. Without a servicing mission by a space shuttle crew, currently targeted for launch in May, the telescope is not expected to last more than another year or two.

www.universetoday.com...

NASA has been preparing Endeavour for an unprecedented rescue mission to retrieve the seven-astronaut crew of Atlantis in the event that shuttle suffers critical damage and is unable to return to Earth. As designed, the mission would launch Endeavour and a skeleton crew of four astronauts on relatively short notice to rendezvous with Hubble, where Atlantis astronauts would perform a series of spacewalks to leave their stricken ship.

NASA has said the chances of needing the rescue mission is extremely remote, but Atlantis's mission to Hubble is considered more risky than other recent shuttle flights to the International Space Station.

The space agency opted to have a rescue shuttle on standby because - unlike space station-bound shuttle astronauts, which can return to the orbiting laboratory if their spacecraft is damaged - the crew of Atlantis will have no safe haven. The Hubble Space Telescope flies in a higher orbit and in a different inclination than the space station, so Atlantis would be unable to reach the safety of the orbiting lab if it suffered critical damage, NASA officials have said. There is also an increased risk of damage from space debris, they have added.

Originally posted by googolplex
reply to post by jfj123

 

Ok 2u2 bud.
Not trying to derail thread, just what is big deal all of sudden?
Is because of things that have just been discovered on earth base oberservation.
I know they just spotted something way out there, that they are having hard time with using earth base oberservation.
So could be this is what is so important.
And there is anther thread dealing with shuttle, hubble mission.

And my point being no one knows, why yet.

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
You ever wonder why they can't just point it at the moon and get some real good photos of it?

Originally posted by jfj123
Move over Hubble Telescope, the European Space Agency has launched the largest telescope ever sent to space on a mission to study how the Big Bang created the universe. This comes right on the heels of another related and exciting scientific breakthrough: for the first time ever, scientists have successfully showed us how the earliest building blocks for life on the planet probably formed from scratch. Are we on the brink of a more complete understanding of our planet’s evolution?

ecoworldly.com...

Originally posted by orangetom1999

Do any of you know what happens to astronauts who are shot up through the radiation protective ozone layer of the earth?? Do they get radiated? What are the radiation levels in different areas of outer space?? How about around different planets in the solar system?? Is deep space travel even possible using Linear propulsion systems in transiting these areas of radiation??

Does NASA even spend much time talking about this or do they just avoid the topic while feeding you their version of Star Trek, Star Wars..et al.

Something for some of you about which to think and or factor in.

Thanks,
Orangetom

NASA researchers are working hard to find their away around space radiation, a hazard future astronauts can't avoid if they hope to fly on long missions to Mars and eventually set foot on its surface. Much of their focus is on new and better shielding materials to slap on the outer surface of a spacecraft, since the traditional aluminum shells won't cut it during a multi-year mission. But some scientists are also looking at alternative approaches to safeguard astronauts, ranging from the use of electric fields that create a protective shell around a spacecraft to basic ship design, and even new spacesuits for the exploration of the Martian landscape.

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Originally posted by jfj123
Move over Hubble Telescope, the European Space Agency has launched the largest telescope ever sent to space on a mission to study how the Big Bang created the universe. This comes right on the heels of another related and exciting scientific breakthrough: for the first time ever, scientists have successfully showed us how the earliest building blocks for life on the planet probably formed from scratch. Are we on the brink of a more complete understanding of our planet’s evolution?

ecoworldly.com...

In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Then like true scientists..they will go on to build another universe...in duplication..just like they did another earth. They need to spend huge amounts of moneys to show and demonstrate that they have it correct....Yes??

For it is of immense importance to science to know how to use this informations...by building themselves another earth and another universe??

I make these statements in contrast to learning to wisely manage what is already here.

As to the European telescope...LOL LOL LOL..OK..if you say so.

Sooner or later the truth about these telescopes is going to come out. The Europeans will not be getting there into deep space with any kind of Linear propulsion system and neither will we...to know or demonstrate these theories correct.

Do any of you know what happens to astronauts who are shot up through the radiation protective ozone layer of the earth??
Do they get radiated? What are the radiation levels in different areas of outer space?? How about around different planets in the solar system?? Is deep space travel even possible using Linear propulsion systems in transiting these areas of radiation??

Does NASA even spend much time talking about this or do they just avoid the topic while feeding you their version of Star Trek, Star Wars..et al.

Do you honestly think this is how science should/must work??? And if it doesn't, that means we can't prove anything??? Keep in mind that if you're going to use this logic here, you must apply it to everything.