Good on 'em, I say. Anything that contributes to our understanding of the universe is worth keeping in operation.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
Hubble's replacement should be nearly operational by the time it finally retires now.
quote:
Reynar attempted to be funny by writing:
Hubble's replacement should be nearly operational by the time it finally retires now.
Too bad there's no way to bring it back to Earth once it finally is retired.
And of course those can see better than Hubble, they're using better technology. If they couldn't, they would be an absolute failure.
quote:
This one time, at Maradon! camp:
Hubble's replacements are earth-bound binocular telescopes that see with better clarity than the hubble can, and are already in operation in several places.
That's what you get when you use dozen year old optical technology made at the lowest bidding price. Hubble, that is.
I long for the day when mankind realizes that our future is to the stars and is willing to spend as much money as is needed to get there.
quote:
This one time, at Delphi Aegis camp:
That's what you get when you use dozen year old optical technology made at the lowest bidding price. Hubble, that is.
....
Yup that dozen year old tech is really limpdix shit to be to be on a telescope that was only launched about 14 years ago. Peter fucked around with this message on 10-31-2006 at 10:54 PM.
quote:
Peter had this to say about Punky Brewster:
Yup that dozen year old tech is really limpdix shit to be to be on a telescope that was only launched about 14 years ago.
Forgive me for not knowing the exact second Hubble was launched.
The other good news is that the Hubble will be refitted with a near IR CCD, and some new filters, which means better pictures finally, and better data. Too bad the mission will happen after my current project is done with data collection.
Overall, A++ to NASA on this decision.
quote:
Peanut butter ass Shaq Delphi Aegis booooze lime pole over bench lick:
I long for the day when mankind realizes that our future is to the stars and is willing to spend as much money as is needed to get there.
There's no reason to go there now, and there won't be for a very long time.
When there is a reason to go there, we will go there.
And for the record, the LBT is better than the hubble because it is very, very advanced, not because the hubble "sucks". In terms of efficiency, launching the hubble actually ended up saving astrological science an immense amount of money that would have been spent uselessly bridging the gap between our old optical observatories and the LBT.
Hubble was, in every sense, a staggering success. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 11-01-2006 at 02:16 AM.
STAGGERING.
quote:
Nobody really understood why Blindy. wrote:
Which is why it didn't work when it was initially launched.STAGGERING.
It worked, it was just blurry. It was the most advanced lens of it's time, and the first time they've tried to do something on that order of magnitude...mistakes are going to happen.
Given what they have accomplished with it so far, it is indeed a staggering success.
quote:
Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Blindy. who doth quote:
Which is why it didn't work when it was initially launched.STAGGERING.
You do know that they fixed it, right? Way to make a fool of yourself.
quote:
Check out the big brains on Maradon!:
You do know that they fixed it, right? Way to make a fool of yourself.
I wouldn't call anything that was initially a complete failure and cost 4 times the initial projected cost to get working "a staggering success".
quote:
Blindy. had this to say about pies:
I wouldn't call anything that was initially a complete failure and cost 4 times the initial projected cost to get working "a staggering success".
Given all of the science we have taken from it, I disagree with you completely.
Hubble gave us more insight into the Universe than any other device of its time.
quote:
Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Blindy. who doth quote:
I wouldn't call anything that was initially a complete failure and cost 4 times the initial projected cost to get working "a staggering success".
That's because you're stupid.
It's cost was immense, but even after you figure in it's initial repairs, the sum total cost of the hubble project was still only a tiny fraction of the cost of building or upgrading the earth-bound observatories that would have been needed to replace it.
Hubble was an overwhelming success that saved the astrological science community a tremendous amount of capital that would have otherwise been wasted building or upgrading observatories to merely equal hubble's capabilities, even assuming that would be possible for a non-binocular earth-based observatory.
quote:
We all got dumber when Reynar said:
Given all of the science we have taken from it, I disagree with you completely.Hubble gave us more insight into the Universe than any other device of its time.
So the fact that it did (eventually, 4 years later and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget) exactly what it was initially supposed to do makes it a "Staggering Success?"
It's a success in so far as it works, but next to shuttles and rockets exploding it's one of the worst blunders NASA's ever had.
quote:
Blindy. had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
So the fact that it did (eventually, 4 years later and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget) exactly what it was initially supposed to do makes it a "Staggering Success?"It's a success in so far as it works, but next to shuttles and rockets exploding it's one of the worst blunders NASA's ever had.
Something as sophisticated as hubble had never been attempted before, and they would only know for sure if everything had been done correctly once it was out there.
Do you expect every new technology to work 100% correctly the first time it is tried? If so, then prepare to be dissappointed often. Reynar fucked around with this message on 11-01-2006 at 11:35 AM.
quote:
Reynar needs to learn to type:
Something as sophisticated as hubble had never been attempted before, and they would only know for sure if everything had been done correctly once it was out there.Do you expect every new technology to work 100% correctly the first time it is tried? If so, then prepare to be dissappointed often.
No, but I'm not going to go around calling things staggering (or even overwhelming) successes unless they actually did what they were supposed to do right, at the cost they were supposed to cost, in the time frame they were supposed to do it in, and without the need for a massive and unplanned effort at the 13th hour.
Example-
Hoover Dam: Staggering success. Built ahead of schedule and way way under budget. Did exactly what it was supposed to do, and hasn't had an issue since. Blindy. fucked around with this message on 11-01-2006 at 11:42 AM.
It was also not strapped to a rocket and blasted into space. Greenlit fucked around with this message on 11-01-2006 at 11:43 AM.
quote:
x--Blindy.O-('-'Q) :
No, but I'm not going to go around calling things staggering (or even overwhelming) successes unless they actually did what they were supposed to do right, at the cost they were supposed to cost, in the time frame they were supposed to do it in, and without the need for a massive and unplanned effort at the 13th hour.
So arbitrary projected figures are more important to you than real life performance?
That's a way to go, I suppose.
quote:
Greenlit + Greenlit = 2Greenlit:
The Hoover Dam was not ten times larger and more powerful than any dam built before it.It was also not strapped to a rocket and blasted into space.
If your argument is that the Hoover dam was not a revolutionary project, you are sorely mis-informed, but it's a misguided effort. The point is, projects are "staggeringly" successful when they are carried out according to plan and work exactly as intended, not when they are fumbled, bungled, mis-engineered, and then fixed later at a giant and unforeseen cost to the taxpayer.
quote:
Maradon! enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
So arbitrary projected figures are more important to you than real life performance?That's a way to go, I suppose.
Yeah, he's ready for a management position already.
Results don't matter, only the numbers.
quote:
At least Reynar isn't Somthor:
Yeah, he's ready for a management position already.Results don't matter, only the numbers.
The results are the numbers. But I guess if you want to feel like the Hubble was a great project that couldn't have possibly gone better because it managed to work eventually, you're entitled to your opinion.
quote:
How.... Blindy..... uughhhhhh:
The results are the numbers. But I guess if you want to feel like the Hubble was a great project that couldn't have possibly gone better because it managed to work eventually, you're entitled to your opinion.
No, the results are the science that came out of it.
You're trying to do a cost-benefit analysis of an exploratory science mission. Good luck with that.
quote:
While you read this, I'm gonna go make out with Reynar's mom:
No, the results are the science that came out of it.You're trying to do a cost-benefit analysis of an exploratory science mission. Good luck with that.
"Science" would have "come out of it" 4 years earlier and at significantly less cost if the project had gone according to plan and not been blundered. How is that not a more preferable outcome?
quote:
Blindy.'s account was hax0red to write:
"Science" would have "come out of it" 4 years earlier and at significantly less cost if the project had gone according to plan and not been blundered. How is that not a more preferable outcome?
I didn't say it wasn't a more preferable outcome. Who wouldn't want new technology to work perfectly the first time? That'd be awesome.
What I'm saying is that it is rare, and you shouldn't expect it. Even for Earthbound technology, 1st generation is iffy. For stuff that is designed to work in space, it is even more difficult.
quote:
Blindy.'s account was hax0red to write:
...and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget....
Dude, the danm thing should have been in space in like th e late 80's, but the Challenger crash stopped the orginal launch date. Not to mention that danm thing was originally started in like '79, in the decade between it being started and it going up I would say their were many things out side of NASA that made the cost go up.
And the Engineering was fine on the Hubble, it was the poor management of the contractor that lead to the aberration in the mirror, the only thing I would fault NASA for is not doing the check themselves before it went up, they had a backup mirror made by Kodak to pop in it.
quote:
Reynar needs the precioussses:
I didn't say it wasn't a more preferable outcome. Who wouldn't want new technology to work perfectly the first time? That'd be awesome.What I'm saying is that it is rare, and you shouldn't expect it. Even for Earthbound technology, 1st generation is iffy. For stuff that is designed to work in space, it is even more difficult.
It wasn't the most preferable outcome but you support Maradon's statement that Hubble was "in every way, a staggering success"? I question your reasoning, sir.
Yeah, getting stuff to work in space is harder than on land, but that doesn't mean that space bound projects that go horribly wrong but are able to be salvaged qualify themselves for high praise.
Hubble was a blunder, simple as that. Yes, we're getting images out of it now, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't remember all the fuck ups we had to overcome to get there, much less exult the entire project for simply managing to produce the intended result.
quote:
Peter - Peter = 0:
Dude, the danm thing should have been in space in like th e late 80's, but the Challenger crash stopped the orginal launch date. Not to mention that danm thing was originally started in like '79, in the decade between it being started and it going up I would say their were many things out side of NASA that made the cost go up.And the Engineering was fine on the Hubble, it was the poor management of the contractor that lead to the aberration in the mirror, the only thing I would fault NASA for is not doing the check themselves before it went up, they had a backup mirror made by Kodak to pop in it.
I was actually thinking specifically about the $400,000,000 repair mission in 1994 that actually let the Hubble do what it was supposed to do at launch, but thanks for reminding us about all the other mess ups that went into the project.
quote:
Blindy. stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
I was actually thinking specifically about the $400,000,000 repair mission in 1994 that actually let the Hubble do what it was supposed to do at launch, but thanks for reminding us about all the other mess ups that went into the project.
Because the government never wastes money on anything else. NO! NEVER!
quote:
Blindy. was naked while typing this:
It wasn't the most preferable outcome but you support Maradon's statement that Hubble was "in every way, a staggering success"? I question your reasoning, sir.Yeah, getting stuff to work in space is harder than on land, but that doesn't mean that space bound projects that go horribly wrong but are able to be salvaged qualify themselves for high praise.
Hubble was a blunder, simple as that. Yes, we're getting images out of it now, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't remember all the fuck ups we had to overcome to get there, much less exult the entire project for simply managing to produce the intended result.
You don't think projects can be classified as successes if they have any setbacks whatsoever? I question your reasoning 
I'm not saying we should forget them, learning from our mistakes will make the next generation better, that's how this stuff works.
It was anything but a blunder though...it was brand new technology on a massive scale that had some setbacks which were overcame and produced tons of awesome science. To call the project anything but a success is just silly.
ah yes- here it is
quote:
This one time, at band camp, Blindy. said:
It's a success in so far as it works, but next to shuttles and rockets exploding it's one of the worst blunders NASA's ever had.
Classified as a "Staggering" or "Overwhelming" success? No. Not in the least.
Choose one: "The Hubble project was a (success / failure ).
If you agree it was a success, then you're just upset that the word "staggering" was used? In which case I don't care and it is pointless to continue arguing over the use of one word.
If you think it was a blunder, then all I can say is I hope you never have to work under management who thinks like you do. It'll be mighty frustrating.
quote:
A thousand monkeys at a thousand typewriters couldn't ever match Reynar:
You called it a success then turned right around and called it a blunder, it's one or the other.Choose one: "The Hubble project was a (success / failure ).
If you agree it was a success, then you're just upset that the word "staggering" was used? In which case I don't care and it is pointless to continue arguing over the use of one word.
If you think it was a blunder, then all I can say is I hope you never have to work under management who thinks like you do. It'll be mighty frustrating.
Oh, so blunder means failure now? Last time I checked it just meant mistake.
FYI- you can correct a mistake.
They're not all from hubble, but oh well.
quote:
Blindy. is attacking the darkness!
Oh, so blunder means failure now? Last time I checked it just meant mistake.FYI- you can correct a mistake.
quote:Close enough for government work.
From thesaurus.reference.com
Main Entry: abortion
Part of Speech: noun 2
Definition: failure
Synonyms: blunder, defeat, disappointment, disaster, failure, incompletion, misadventure, monstrosity
Antonyms: success
I'd say that, while certain aspects of the Hubble project were blundered, the project overall was a success. Not a staggering success, but a success nonetheless.
quote:
If `Doc was a glacier, they'd be a fast one:
Close enough for government work.I'd say that, while certain aspects of the Hubble project were blundered, the project overall was a success. Not a staggering success, but a success nonetheless.
Hold on, you're looking up synonyms for abortion to prove that blunder means the same thing as failure?
Do you know what a dictionary is? It's where you get the meaning of a word. You'll notice that not only does the definition of Blunder not mean to fail at something, but also "Failure" is not on the list of synonyms for Blunder (which would be the correct place to look for a relation between two words)
quote:
blun·der (blndr) KEYNOUN:
A usually serious mistake typically caused by ignorance or confusion.
VERB:
blun·dered , blun·der·ing , blun·ders
VERB:
intr.1. To move clumsily or blindly.
2. To make a usually serious mistake.VERB:
tr.1. To make a stupid, usually serious error in; botch.
2. To utter (something) stupidly or thoughtlessly.ETYMOLOGY:
From Middle English blunderen, to go blindly, perhaps from Old Swedish blundra, have one's eyes closed, from Old Norse blundaOTHER FORMS:
blunder·er (Noun), blunder·ing·ly (Adverb)SYNONYMS:
blunder , bumble 1 , flounder 1 , lumber 2 , lurch 1 , stumble
Oh, and here's a complete thesaurus entry for "failure". You can go ahead and look for the word blunder in there, but you aren't going to find it.
quote:
Noun1.failure - an act that fails; "his failure to pass the test"
nonaccomplishment, nonachievement - an act that does not achieve its intended goal
failing - failure to reach a minimum required performance; "his failing the course led to his disqualification"
naught - complete failure; "all my efforts led to naught"
loss - the act of losing; "everyone expected him to win so his loss was a shock"
lapsing, relapse, relapsing, backsliding, reverting, lapse, reversion - a failure to maintain a higher state
misplay, error - (baseball) a failure of a defensive player to make an out when normal play would have sufficed
out - (baseball) a failure by a batter or runner to reach a base safely in baseball; "you only get 3 outs per inning"
nonconformity - failure to conform
nonpayment, nonremittal, default - act of failing to meet a financial obligation
2.failure - an event that does not accomplish its intended purpose; "the surprise party was a complete failure"
happening, natural event, occurrence - an event that happens
downfall, ruination, ruin - failure that results in a loss of position or reputation
flame-out - a complete or conspicuous failure; "the spectacular flame-out of the company's stock cost many people their life savings"
malfunction - a failure to function normally
miscarriage, abortion - failure of a plan
misfire, miss - a failure to hit (or meet or find etc)
bust, flop - a complete failure; "the play was a dismal flop"
miscreation, malformation - something abnormal or anomalous
equipment failure, breakdown - a cessation of normal operation; "there was a power breakdown"
defeat, licking - an unsuccessful ending
success - an event that accomplishes its intended purpose; "let's call heads a success and tails a failure"; "the election was a remarkable success for Republicans"
3.failure - lack of success; "he felt that his entire life had been a failure"; "that year there was a crop failure"
circumstances, luck, lot, destiny, fate, fortune, portion - your overall circumstances or condition in life (including everything that happens to you); "whatever my fortune may be"; "deserved a better fate"; "has a happy lot"; "the luck of the Irish"; "a victim of circumstances"; "success that was her portion"
bankruptcy - a state of complete lack of some abstract property; "spiritual bankruptcy"; "moral bankruptcy"; "intellectual bankruptcy"
bank failure - the inability of a bank to meet its credit obligations
crop failure - the failure of crops to produce a marketable surplus
dead duck - something doomed to failure; "he finally admitted that the legislation was a dead duck"; "the idea of another TV channel is now a dead duck"; "as theories go, that's a dead duck"
success - a state of prosperity or fame; "he is enjoying great success"; "he does not consider wealth synonymous with success"
4.failurefailure - a person with a record of failing; someone who loses consistently
nonstarter, unsuccessful person, loser
unfortunate, unfortunate person - a person who suffers misfortune
bankrupt, insolvent - someone who has insufficient assets to cover their debts
flash in the pan - someone who enjoys transient success but then fails
dud, flop, washout - someone who is unsuccessful
underdog - one at a disadvantage and expected to lose
5.failure - an unexpected omission; "he resented my failure to return his call"; "the mechanic's failure to check the brakes"
dashing hopes, disappointment - an act (or failure to act) that disappoints someone
breach - a failure to perform some promised act or obligation
copout - a failure to face some difficulty squarely
omission, skip - a mistake resulting from neglect
6.failure - inability to discharge all your debts as they come due; "the company had to declare bankruptcy"; "fraudulent loans led to the failure of many banks"
bankruptcy
insolvency - the lack of financial resources
7.failure - loss of ability to function normally; "kidney failure"
disorder, upset - condition in which there is a disturbance of normal functioning; "the doctor prescribed some medicine for the disorder"; "everyone gets stomach upsets from time to time"
coronary failure, heart failure - inability of the heart to pump enough blood to sustain normal bodily functions
kidney failure, renal failure - inability of the kidneys to excrete wastes and to help maintain the electrolyte balance
Blindy. fucked around with this message on 11-02-2006 at 12:30 PM.
quote:No, I looked up a thesaurus entry for Blunder. The quoted entry was, iirc, the third one down. As for why I quoted a thesaurus, the point is that a blunder and a failure are similar, this being the nature of synonyms.
Blindy. needs to hitch a ride with a Vogon constructor fleet.
Hold on, you're looking up synonyms for abortion to prove that blunder means the same thing as failure?
As for your own source, you provide no reference, so it obviously came from wikipedia.
To say that something was a successful blunder is to say that it succeeded at being a blunder. The telescope succeeded at being a tool for scientific advancement, thus it failed at being a blunder (though it wasn't supposed to be a blunder in the first place, so that's fine). As I already stated, blunders did occur during the course of the project, but that doesn't make the whole project a blunder.
Buying Alaska wasn't a blunder either, though people called it one until someone found crude oil there.
