<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Hubble NICMOS Instrument Experiences Anomaly</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.universetoday.com/2008/09/16/hubble-nicmos-instrument-experiences-anomaly/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/09/16/hubble-nicmos-instrument-experiences-anomaly/</link>
	<description>Space and astronomy news</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun,  8 Nov 2009 10:14:11 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ayti</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/09/16/hubble-nicmos-instrument-experiences-anomaly/comment-page-1/#comment-33249</link>
		<dc:creator>Ayti</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2008 05:44:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=18253#comment-33249</guid>
		<description>@Don Alexander:

Take note, I asked two questions - neither one rhetorical. 

A shuttle launch costs more than $500 million. A servicing mission adds significant money to that.

Two shuttles are ready for this mission adding $100 million - assuming they don&#039;t need the second for a rescue mission.

My cost-benefit analysis is just fine - it raises questions and draws no rash conclusions.

You&#039;ve ignored my serious questions and placed idiotic words in my mouth - that&#039;s an ad hominem.

You conclude that the a serviced Hubble will obviate the loss of NICMOS - You assume a great deal. Like a gambler playing with house money.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Don Alexander:</p>
<p>Take note, I asked two questions &#8211; neither one rhetorical. </p>
<p>A shuttle launch costs more than $500 million. A servicing mission adds significant money to that.</p>
<p>Two shuttles are ready for this mission adding $100 million &#8211; assuming they don&#039;t need the second for a rescue mission.</p>
<p>My cost-benefit analysis is just fine &#8211; it raises questions and draws no rash conclusions.</p>
<p>You&#039;ve ignored my serious questions and placed idiotic words in my mouth &#8211; that&#039;s an ad hominem.</p>
<p>You conclude that the a serviced Hubble will obviate the loss of NICMOS &#8211; You assume a great deal. Like a gambler playing with house money.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DrNecropolis</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/09/16/hubble-nicmos-instrument-experiences-anomaly/comment-page-1/#comment-33196</link>
		<dc:creator>DrNecropolis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:28:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=18253#comment-33196</guid>
		<description>Had to wait for the cooling unit to heat up?  It&#039;s not everyday I hear that one.  I know what it means, it just sounds pretty funny</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Had to wait for the cooling unit to heat up?  It&#039;s not everyday I hear that one.  I know what it means, it just sounds pretty funny</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Don Alexander</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/09/16/hubble-nicmos-instrument-experiences-anomaly/comment-page-1/#comment-33124</link>
		<dc:creator>Don Alexander</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2008 21:56:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=18253#comment-33124</guid>
		<description>@Ayti: Your cost-benefit analysis seems slightly out of balance here. &quot;Oh, NICMOS may be broken - let&#039;s leave the shuttle on the ground and build a new space telescope from scratch instead!&quot; Actually, WFC3, a new instrument that the Servicing Mission 4 will install, will be much more powerful than NICMOS in the NIR.

@Leon, Jon Hanford: &quot;We told them to use Linux, but nooo, they wanted Goggle Chrome...&quot;

Finally, I will not that this comes at an extremely inopportune time, seeing that NICMOS could have been used to observe GRB 080913, the new most distant ever GRB...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Ayti: Your cost-benefit analysis seems slightly out of balance here. &#034;Oh, NICMOS may be broken &#8211; let&#039;s leave the shuttle on the ground and build a new space telescope from scratch instead!&#034; Actually, WFC3, a new instrument that the Servicing Mission 4 will install, will be much more powerful than NICMOS in the NIR.</p>
<p>@Leon, Jon Hanford: &#034;We told them to use Linux, but nooo, they wanted Goggle Chrome&#8230;&#034;</p>
<p>Finally, I will not that this comes at an extremely inopportune time, seeing that NICMOS could have been used to observe GRB 080913, the new most distant ever GRB&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon Hanford</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/09/16/hubble-nicmos-instrument-experiences-anomaly/comment-page-1/#comment-33114</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon Hanford</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:36:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=18253#comment-33114</guid>
		<description>Yeah, sounds like a problem with SP1.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, sounds like a problem with SP1.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Leon</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/09/16/hubble-nicmos-instrument-experiences-anomaly/comment-page-1/#comment-33109</link>
		<dc:creator>Leon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:57:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=18253#comment-33109</guid>
		<description>Did they try and uninstall Vista?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Did they try and uninstall Vista?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ayti</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/09/16/hubble-nicmos-instrument-experiences-anomaly/comment-page-1/#comment-33092</link>
		<dc:creator>Ayti</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:05:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=18253#comment-33092</guid>
		<description>Obvious question: Does it make sense to service the Hubble if NICMOS is not operational?

Considering the costs and risks, would it make more sense to build a new, better telescope - perhaps one designed for regular robotic servicing  missions?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Obvious question: Does it make sense to service the Hubble if NICMOS is not operational?</p>
<p>Considering the costs and risks, would it make more sense to build a new, better telescope &#8211; perhaps one designed for regular robotic servicing  missions?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
