Technology has advanced and the time has come to put up a successor to the Hubble Space Telescope.  NASA is well on the way to a next generation space telescope but to my horror, they've chosen to call it the James Webb Space Telescope!

"Who the hell is James Webb?" you might ask.  Well, he was a lawyer and a bureaucrat. He happened to be the top administrator of NASA through the glory years of Gemini and Apollo, but he was not a scientist.

Is anyone else offended by having a piece of advanced technology named after a bureaucrat?  I'm fine with putting his name on a government building, but I think the next generation space telescope should be named after a scientist - perhaps Carl Sagan.

Should we protest?

Views: 564

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think Sagan is the perfect choice. If you'd like to start a petition, I could possibly help with that.

The Orgasmatron, Blaine?

Wasn't that the device used in the early Jane Fonda movie, "Barbarella"? As I recall, she burned out its circuits --

Especially Lee Marvin and his horse!

Ahhh, the comforting sound of whispering bones creaking with antiquity fills my imagination as you venerable historical giants reminisce...

Yo Mama wears Army  boots --

Yes, Arch - let's start a petition, however that is done.

I completely agree with designating it the Sagan Space Telescope.

It does not seem that we are at the stage of a signature collection, but I would be willing sign the petition, when it appears. Actually I would be willing to consider a petition to fund a Mars habitat project, or asteroid mining. I would rather listen to a space, heavy breathing scandal any day.

 

For all you space freaks out there the latest issue (Dec) of the Smithsonian mag has an interesting article on the founder of SpaceX, Elon Musk. It is astounding what this South African has accomplished thus far! And he does it on a shoestring budget that makes the US government and NASA look extremely inefficient when it comes to getting metal into space .

According to Wikipedia (which is never wrong):

Einstein and others considered (quantum entanglement) to be impossible, as it violated the local realist view of causality (Einstein referring to it as "spooky action at a distance")[4] and argued that the accepted formulation of quantum mechanics must therefore be incomplete.

 

That's arguing the way the creationists do, referring to initial impressions or quotes, and ignoring later changes and discoveries.

:D

In his later years, a different Einstein emerged. The mainstream of physics followed the course of the quantum theory of the mid 1920's. Einstein recognized that this new quantum theory enjoyed remarkable empirical successes, so that it clearly had something very right. However he did not believe that future fundamental physics should be to build upon it. Rather he thought the way ahead was to develop the geometrical approach of general relativity into an all encompassing "unified field theory" within which the results of the new quantum theory would be derived. While he had contributed to its development, Einstein became the most prominent critic of the new quantum theory. (source)

RSS

Forum

Atheist undercover

Started by proudAthiest in Small Talk. Last reply by TJ 2 hours ago. 5 Replies

Prayer and hymns at Hallsville High Graduation

Started by Eric Andrist in Church & State. Last reply by Reg The Fronkey Farmer on Friday. 1 Reply

Pattern recognition

Started by Katherine A Flowers in Small Talk. Last reply by Andrew Brown on Friday. 9 Replies

Own It

Started by David Boots in Religion and the Religious, Atheism and Atheists. Last reply by Davis Goodman 11 hours ago. 40 Replies

Blog Posts

Horologium - the clock

Posted by Brad Snowder on May 28, 2017 at 10:46am 2 Comments

Hydra - the water snake

Posted by Brad Snowder on May 21, 2017 at 11:22am 2 Comments

© 2017   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service