Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hubble is back

nasa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 128 posts

Re: Hubble is back

#61

Post by InclinedPlane »

jldugger wrote: post #54

Didn't the NSA gift NASA two hubble class telescopes with a note along the lines 'bought a ton on bulk discount and never ending up using these two before the new model was released'?

Not really. They gave NASA two "telescopes" that have mirrors and a chassis and basically not much else. It will still require billions of dollars and years of work to turn them into space based observatories. One of them is actually being built (WFIRST) but isn't expected to be launched until the 2020s.

Also, overall there isn't a huge advantage to this hardware. It doesn't save much money as most of the cost of the telescopes is in the other components: the spacecraft parts (including the attitude control system which as we've seen with Hubble is quite important) and the instruments. The biggest advantage to the NRO gifts (the NSA doesn't have telescopes, that we know of) is not that they make building space telescopes cheaper but that they mainly just make those missions more likely to be funded.

Re: Hubble is back

#62

Post by mentalhealth »

wildmusings wrote: post #45
epmaybe wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The AMA doesn't directly govern the number of medical schools in this country. That would be the LCME (Liaison Committee on Medical Education), which is sponsored by the AMA and American Association for Medical Colleges. It's also important to note that the number of medical schools isn't really artificially limited by the LCME, as they will accredit most any medical school that meets the accreditation standards. On…

The AMA controls enough seats on that board to prevent new schools/seats from being created. And the idea that an industry as profitable as medicine needs the taxpayer to fund its training is preposterous. This is just a deflection from the AMA's role.

a profession as wealthy as medicine needs the taxpayer to fund its training is preposterous

Most doctors already come from wealthy families (specifically, they have doctor parents) because in addition to the tuition of medical school, there are a variety of other expenses (board examination fees, the undergraduate requirement, interview expenses for both medical school and residency) that are difficult to fund without assistance. Also, compensation for physicians is not what you seem to think it is outside of subspecialized fields, and the expense of medical school (and the opportunity cost of residency) means that physician shortages in the general disciplines will only continue to get worse as medical students realize the only way they can pay back their loans is to subspecialize.

Also, medical schools are primarily limited by number of faculty, and it's difficult to find doctors for med school faculty roles... because they're so poorly compensated in comparison to other opportunities.

If you want more doctors, first provide incentives for doctors to teach, then provide funding for those who normally don't see medical school as an available opportunity, then incentivize people to go into general disciplines, then properly compensate residents so they're not throwing away ten years of potential income, then complain about how "doctors are overpaid but there's also a big shortage of them".

Re: Hubble is back

#63

Post by monocasa »

jldugger wrote: post #54

Didn't the NSA gift NASA two hubble class telescopes with a note along the lines 'bought a ton on bulk discount and never ending up using these two before the new model was released'?

Wasn't hubble itself a refit of a Keyhole 11 beta?

Re: Hubble is back

#64

Post by wildmusings »

mentalhealth wrote: post #62
wildmusings wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The AMA controls enough seats on that board to prevent new schools/seats from being created. And the idea that an industry as profitable as medicine needs the taxpayer to fund its training is preposterous. This is just a deflection from the AMA's role.

a profession as wealthy as medicine needs the taxpayer to fund its training is preposterous Most doctors already come from wealthy families (specifically, they have doctor parents) because in addition to the tuition of medical school, there are a variety of other expenses (board examination fees, the undergraduate requirement, interview expenses for both medical school and residency) that are difficult to fund withou…

The rest of us have to compete in a free market for our skills. Why not doctors?

I agree that the undergrad requirement is absurd. But it is also just another part of the system that increases entry-barriers and leads to all of these problems, but makes the field more lucrative for a big segment of those who get through it.

Re: Hubble is back

#65

Post by mentalhealth »

wildmusings wrote: post #64
mentalhealth wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a profession as wealthy as medicine needs the taxpayer to fund its training is preposterous Most doctors already come from wealthy families (specifically, they have doctor parents) because in addition to the tuition of medical school, there are a variety of other expenses (board examination fees, the undergraduate requirement, interview expenses for both medical school and residency) that are difficult to fund withou…

The rest of us have to compete in a free market for our skills. Why not doctors? I agree that the undergrad requirement is absurd. But it is also just another part of the system that increases entry-barriers and leads to all of these problems, but makes the field more lucrative for a big segment of those who get through it.

What an utterly contentless response (and no, you're not in a free market). Based on your other comments on this post, I would recommend you spend some time learning about the system you're attempting to criticize.

Re: Hubble is back

#67

Post by [deleted] »

mentalhealth wrote: post #65
wildmusings wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rest of us have to compete in a free market for our skills. Why not doctors? I agree that the undergrad requirement is absurd. But it is also just another part of the system that increases entry-barriers and leads to all of these problems, but makes the field more lucrative for a big segment of those who get through it.

What an utterly contentless response (and no, you're not in a free market). Based on your other comments on this post, I would recommend you spend some time learning about the system you're attempting to criticize.

[deleted]

Re: Hubble is back

#68

Post by antognini »

ambicapter wrote: post #51
ourmandave wrote: post #35

From this link... http://hubblesite.org/the_telescope/team_hubble/#hubbletime Each year astronomers from dozens of countries vie for precious minutes of Hubble's unrivaled view of the cosmos. A review committee made up of experts from the astronomical community determines which proposed observations address pressing scientific questions and make the best use of the telescope's capabilities. Each year more than 1,000…

Some of them might not actually need Hubble specifically. There are a fair amount of observation platforms, maybe they can get their work done on another satellite.

Perhaps, but given the competition for Hubble time, if you can get the data you need from another observatory you're generally better off doing so. For these competitive observatories you usually need to explain why your project actually requires those facilities.

Re: Hubble is back

#70

Post by amatecha »

Entalpi wrote: post #34
pmorici wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can achieve impressive results and still be "wasting money" if there were more cost efficient ways to achieve an equivalent result. I don't have an opinion on NASA but that could be the point of view those people are coming from.

The problem with having non-science people run an organisation of science people is self explanatory. In the Netherlands they have outsourced the organisation and managment of health care to the doctors themselves (roughly speaking). It is often cited as one of the main reasons the Netherlands rank #1 in health care ratings over the years.

Huh, coincidentally I just heard a couple hospitals in Netherlands are closing on short notice due to bankruptcy[0]... I'm sure there's a lot more backstory there, but it doesn't sound like #1-tier healthcare when that's happening. hehe ;)

[0] https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2018/10/slotervaart-hospital-s...

Post reply on HN