Tomahawks Over Telescopes: Congress Moves To Scrap Hubble Successor To Save Money

We have often marveled at the extraordinary discoveries and pictures from the Hubble Space Telescope. However, a panel of the House Appropriations Committee Science has moved to cut the successor to Hubble — the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). It is part of a $1.6 billion cut into NASA — an agency already slashed deeply in prior budgets.

The Webb telescope is designed look deeper into space than the Hubble. Its launch is now delayed. It is 75 percent complete, but could now be scrapped.

House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) said “given this time of fiscal crisis, it is also important that Congress make tough decisions to cut programs where necessary to give priority to programs with broad national reach that have the most benefit to the American people.”

I understand that sentiment but why not make the tough decision to cut funding for our three wars? The Obama Administration has just burned over $1 billion on our latest war. We are literally burning away our scientific and educational foundations to pay for these wars.

Source: The Hill

133 thoughts on “Tomahawks Over Telescopes: Congress Moves To Scrap Hubble Successor To Save Money”

  1. Aside from these two, I have received a warm welcome and find the table and talk much to my liking.

    Welcome Gene H. Hope you enjoy your time here. What ever you do, don’t get on Buddha is Lauhging’s bad side.

  2. Mespo727272:

    ” All the great stallions attract horse flies;”

    And so do Jack Asses.

  3. I know how to get the appropriation for the James Webb Space Telescope. First , put it in the Military Budget. Then, simply change the name to something the Congressmen and Senators can easily understand and support: The “Death Dealing Space Magnifier”. After all, most of them spent their childhood out in the back yard burning ants with a magnifying glass.

  4. I like a good party. Had more that a few where Cat was playing. As an ex-girlfriend used to say, “He writes good music to take your pants off to.” She was a fun girl. 🙂

  5. Hey Gene, mespo, Elaine and everybody else. I just got back from out of town and find our time still being wasted by the manic trolls who do not seem to sleep and have nothing to say.

    Its Saturday Night. Lets party.

  6. kderosa,

    I’m sorry, but “I don’t take anything you say seriously” includes any assessment you may have of the intelligence of others.

  7. Mespo, not ready for varsity yet?


    The point is, oh dense one, I don’t have to be to handle you. Matter of fact, my pet schauzer would be a pretty even intellectual match with you.

  8. @Mespo, not ready for varsity yet? Also, I don’t think you’re the one responsible for those hits.

    @GeneH, that’s it, jump up on Mespo’s lap, little doggie. BTW, it’s compliment. I’d assume a typo but your history of stupidity mitigates against it. Now I see why you argue the way you do.

  9. mespo,

    I see. So it’s a bit like dining al fresco. Thanks for the complement as well. You and the other Regulars really make this an attractive destination for good conversation, irregardless of a few bugs. Aside from these two, I have received a warm welcome and find the table and talk much to my liking.

  10. caderosa:

    “@Mespo, you did see that your fellow nitwit in arms has abandoned you for greener pastures?”


    He let’s me handle the JV games sometimes.

  11. Roco:

    By my count — and the counter — I think this blog has about 6 million hits, two national awards, and folks writing in from other English speaking nations. The range of viewpoints is quite incredible. That all of this is lost upon you certainly proves my point above that there really is none so blind as he who will not see. When might we be punching your exit ticket since your considerable intellectual talents deserve a forum as wide as Antarctica? We shall await news of your glorious victories in the blogsphere. Don’t worry about me, there is longevity in my family and a few decades waiting for you to convince the rest of us of your foolishness won’t bother me. Salyy forth there, Alexander! And don’t stop at the Himalays. Your hot air should easliy carry you up and over.

  12. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a group so insecure that they have to remind and congratulate themselves every other post of how intelligent and learned they are. I guess you’d have to do that to compensate for the poor quality of their actual opinions. Haven’t seen a fully formed argument yet. Kind of undermines the whole intelligence claim.

  13. @GeneH, you’re not helping the perception that you are incredibly stupid with these posts of yours.

    @Mespo, you did see that your fellow nitwit in arms has abandoned you for greener pastures?

  14. Well, like most families, we have the wonderful, warm, intelligent majority who welcome kindred spirits in with open arms. Being open to all, we get our share of Cretins (as in idiots) too who horn in at the table, take the meal, then proceed to burp and belch out their uncouth sentiments to the consternation of all. Most of the time they just fade off into the night after dinner, but some stay around to serve as minor, and usually amusing, irritants. I like to shoo them off as I would any barking dog, but I realize It’s the price we pay for inclusion in such a wonderful salon. All the great stallions attract horse flies; it’s the way of the world. By and large, it’s worth it though as the philosophy also brings in wonderful new additions like you.

  15. Gene H:

    “the reactions they illicit from a broad spectrum of posters.”

    what broad spectrum? You have a bunch of hard left people and one guy posing as a conservative.

    So much for your broad spectrum. That is like saying there is a broad spectrum of purple.

    This is definitely not the rainbow coalition, various shades of red but not much else.

  16. kderosa:

    please, for the sake of decorum I must ask you to quit calling Mespo a nitwit.

    Posting quotes from old dead guys and lame videos is a talent. One has to know how to do a search on quotable quotes which means he has to figure out what you are talking about. for example Mespo is an adversary, not a very competent one but still an adversary so I did a search on adversaries and found this one:

    “The truth may not set you free, but used carefully, it can confuse the hell out of your adversaries.”
    — Laurell K. Hamilton (Micah)

  17. kderosa,

    Have you ever head of the story “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”? The moral of that story isn’t that liars sometimes tell the truth. The moral of that story is that nobody believes a perpetual liar. You have no more credibility than any other repeat liar. All the proof anyone needs that you’re a liar can be found in your posts over the last week where you regularly make up definitions and history. Any time you have been challenged to prove something, the Regulars here have crushed your weak attempts like a bug. That people, other than your trolling buddy, don’t find you credible is based upon your very own posts and the reactions they illicit from a broad spectrum of posters. You want to talk about argument validity? An attack on your credibility is a valid argument if it goes to your behavior and character but especially truthfulness. That you don’t like it is irrelevant. The confusion here is entirely yours as an ad hominem attack is a valid argument if it goes to the speakers personal conduct, character and/or motive. Impeaching a witnesses character happens in court every day. Based on your history as I’ve read it, I question your character based on your personal conduct. You are an invalid witness. Because those questions all revolve around your veracity, I choose to not take you seriously when you cry wolf.

    If you want to try to bully me or cry and whine “that’s not fair, he’s talking about me, you’ll find that I’m completely indifferent to your bluster. Making up definitions and history are impeachable actions directly related to character. As long as your behavior and character are impeachable, I’ll impeach them. You’ll find that you are going to get a consistent reaction from me. I’ll point out where you are wrong if and how I deem it necessary to do so which is rebuttal how I see fit not how you see fit. If it requires substantive rebuttal in my judgement, I’ll use substantive rebuttal. If it requires formal rebuttal. I’ll use formal rebuttal. If it requires a combination – as this does – I’ll use both. In addition, I’ll still not take anything else you seriously in the slightest. If you don’t like how I deal with people of questionable character? I’m sorry but you have no say in that matter.

    It is, however. quite refreshing that we can agree on something. When you said above “Not that I care what I think”? I’ll have to say I agree with you on that point. I don’t care what you think either. Because of your posting history. I’ve heard “Wolf!’ way too many times. That is why I don’t take you seriously.



    That Ray Stevens is a wise fellow. I am feeling a bit like the one-eyed man in the Kingdom of the Blind. Do all new comers get this kind of welcome from your more disagreeable posters? I certainly hope not.

  18. caderosa:

    You too are beautiful and in your own way — just not to me. I never promised decorum. Those are rules for civlized debate, not the blather coming from you. I refuse to suffer fools gladly as does Buddha. Tee it up there little guy ’cause the fun never ends either.

  19. @Mespo, you remain a talentless moron. You’re right, that was fun.

    BTW, nice job maintaining decorum, regular nitwit boy. It never gets old.

  20. Gene H:

    In regards to your valiant attempts to counsel caderosa on the subtleties of ad hominem fallacies versus just plain fun insults, I offer the wisdom of Ray Stevens. I especially commend to you the wonderful second verse that begins:”There is none so blind as he who will not see….”

Comments are closed.