Space/Science » in reply to re: $900 million would go a long way in paying for Hubble II

The whole thread (23 posts)

• I love Hubble, but $900 Million??? - Jeff F - 11/1/2006 8:53:58 PM
  • re: I love Hubble, but $900 Million??? - podrock - 11/4/2006 3:41:56 AM
  • Imagine if all the military money spent in Iraq were spent on telescopes instead (n/t) - SDF - 11/3/2006 2:13:35 PM
  • Advances in ground based optics - Yeti - 11/2/2006 8:46:48 PM
    • What he said... - R.L. - 11/3/2006 1:09:29 AM
    • re: OWL - Raoul - 11/2/2006 9:19:53 PM
      • The TMT (30 meter telescope) will be built first... - R.L. - 11/3/2006 1:35:03 AM
        • It will take a hammer to pry the grasping fingers of the cosmologists off of the telescope budgets - E.P. - 11/3/2006 5:07:07 AM
          • Does this have ANYTHING to do with my post or this thread? - R.L. - 11/4/2006 6:42:06 PM
          • re: So you are now arguing telecommunications satellites don't exist as they are last time I checked still orbiting in "free space"...8-) (n/t) - Chris Vancil - 11/3/2006 4:11:38 PM
        • Imagine what this telescope might do... - ljk - 11/3/2006 4:35:50 AM
          • While I certainly agree that Information Processing - Yetinaut - 11/3/2006 4:17:25 PM
  • probably it wouldn't cost much more to build one from scratch... (n/t) - dd - 11/2/2006 8:01:43 PM
  • $900 million would go a long way in paying for Hubble II - Lee - 11/2/2006 5:30:47 AM
    • re: $900 million would go a long way in paying for Hubble II - Jeff F - 11/2/2006 6:13:14 PM
      • JWT isn't designed for visible light. - Lee - 11/3/2006 12:32:48 AM
  • The Hubble team overhead is $125 million a year? - TB - 11/2/2006 4:25:27 AM
  • Oh, man! You want to cut and run? (n/t) - alcaray - 11/1/2006 10:23:27 PM
  • re:What matters - Raoul - 11/1/2006 9:11:05 PM
    • re: re:What matters - Marcia - 11/2/2006 3:12:49 AM
      • re: Yes, I meant WORTH it. (n/t) - Marcia - 11/2/2006 3:14:25 AM
  • Don't worry about it. NASA is flush with Cash. - Scott Evil - 11/1/2006 9:09:06 PM
    • No, Scott, it isn't - R.L. - 11/3/2006 1:20:37 AM