Yes but there would only be a few actual fish.
People aren't going to go fishing when there are only 6 fish in the lake
There needs to be lots of fish to attract lots of fisherpersons - to feed the bears
21279 publicly visible posts • joined 31 Dec 2009
You don't like being face-scanned at High St store X = don't shop on High St at store X !
Hey High St Store X - you know how the high street is fscked and everyone is shopping online and you are going bust?
You know how you are now driving your few remaining customers to boycott you ?
Yeah, perhaps don't do that !
>can't they just make a new Hubble and launch it?
Hubble was super-compromised by it's need to work with Shuttle, and be built from a KH-11 spy satelite. It's not what you would build today.
Arguably neither is JWST, if you assume launches are now relatively cheap and regular you might go for a production line of 2-3 year launch cycle with new instrument technology on a common bus.
For all it's whizzy space technology - the best thing Hubble did in terms of research/$ was the whole Space Telescope Science Institute, the IRAF software infrastructure, the data archive and the funding for post-docs.
It led to a much more efficient processing and publishing than typical astronomy of the time - although ground based has learned a lot from it.
In case people didn't get the joke: city_of_london_police_sci_hub_warning
>Either there was a mole high up in German Intelligence, or Bletchley Park etc tipped them off to trap them when they landed, or find them if they were native, either way then taking control of them.
Generally they were just totally incompetent.
German high command wasn't really into spying - except on each other. The nice thing about paranoid personality cult dictatorships is that they don't really encourage secretive plots among their underlings.
No it isn't stunning.
SpaceX is stunning -landing on legs on a barge to reuse the 1st stage is stunning.
The NZ company that is trying to use electric motors to run the turbo pumps to simplify the insanely complex engineering in a rocket engine is stunning.
Doing little more than a 1950s X15 rocket plane just to claim you have "been to space" is not stunning because it doesn't lead anywhere. If you want a highly supersonic trans pacific aeroplane you don't start with a suborbital not-really-spaceflight.
>That could have been said about Yuri Gagarins first flight, or that of Alan Shepherd.
You can definitely say that about Shepherd's.
The Rooskies have put a man into orbit - can we do that?
No Mr President, but we can shoot a man up and come back down - that's much easier
Do the voters understand the difference?
No Mr President, we made sure our public education really sucks - that's the problem with building our own rockets
Especially since their rocket is a similarly pointless project: get to an arbitrary height and fall back and hope the people reading the press release don't realise the difference between getting to space and getting to orbit.
Musk would have more right to smirk, but understands how to do PR effectively
All the space shuttle next-generation crew would need to do is to press a button to launch a satelite and you could have the button on the ground.
The purpose of the astronauts is mostly to justify having a manned space program cos that's some Buck Rogers shit for men while launching space telescopes on Ariane is like nerd science stuff
And breed tiny astronauts.
The problem with the Space shuttle was the need to have 7 massively heavy squared jawed test pilots to unload each satelite.
If you started with eg. jockeys and gymnasts and started breeding ever smaller astronauts then you could substantially reduce the mass of the crew and associated life support systems.
So long as you used the same Peter Jackson + Hobbits camera trickery to make them look like 6ft6 Space Marines for the publicity shots they would be just as effective while saving a massive amount of launch mass
Except with color film you got the results of what could be achieved by the chemistry after passing through the previous 2 layers of chemistry.
Digital imagers have much better color gamut than film and much better control of the result - when done right. Movies aren't just shot on digital now because the millennials like iPhones