As for Pan-Starrs, I honestly have no idea what your gripe is- I have to assume you have not educated yourself on what Pan-Starrs is meant to do... Its primary goal is to look for possible impactors- comets and asteroids - at the same time the images it collects will be be of great use for other area of astronomy and science... I have talked to some of the scientists involved in Pan-Starrs and I can assure you that impactor detection is the pimary goal, but many are also enthusiastic about all the other discoveries it will make... It will be perfect for spotting more large KBO like Xena, It will produce a huge database of star position, color, and brightness and can look for changes...
This seems to me to be something you would support.
Space/Science » in reply to It will take a hammer to pry the grasping fingers of the cosmologists off of the telescope budgets
Does this have ANYTHING to do with my post or this thread?
The whole thread (23 posts)
- I love Hubble, but $900 Million???
- re: I love Hubble, but $900 Million???
- Imagine if all the military money spent in Iraq were spent on telescopes instead (n/t)
- Advances in ground based optics
- probably it wouldn't cost much more to build one from scratch... (n/t)
- $900 million would go a long way in paying for Hubble II
- The Hubble team overhead is $125 million a year?
- Oh, man! You want to cut and run? (n/t)
- re:What matters
- Don't worry about it. NASA is flush with Cash.
