"Robert J. Bradbury" wrote:
> The whole thing has a bad smell. In contrast if you positioned
Right, it's Pigs in Space, primate version. It nicely demonstrates
that in the year 2001 A.D. we're thoroughly incapable of an intelligent
space programme. Uck. Ptui.
Canned and suited monkeys instead of automation and teleoperation.
Low earth orbit instead of Moon surface. Stupid basic research
instead of industrial pioneer R&D. But hey, there's no such thing
as window of opportunity, and we have all the time of the world,
right? Right?
> it as an orbiting observatory platform or an "assembly" operation
> then you would be getting something from it.
>
> Answer this -- why can't one attach a couple of dozen Baby Hubble's
> to the space station? Is there some orbital difference between
> the Hubble and the ISS that makes it unusable as an observatory?
> Is it simply not stable enough? What gives here?
Right, it's microgravity. All the monkeys cavorting about and and the
din and vibration will probably make instrument stabilization
nontrivial. Plus, the damn thing will leak, and contaminate your
optics, and sensors. But it is certainly jolly good entertainment,
and looks so serious, and important on cable. So you can forget how
much money is being blown on entertainment, and self-sustaining
technological bureaucracy.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:41 MDT