4 ms·

> that's $8 billion down the drain Not really. The amount of scientific and technological developments that we get even from failed missions is substantial. Wh

by yiyus 9y ago

> that's $8 billion down the drain Not really. The amount of scientific and technological developments that we get even from failed missions is substantial. When starting a new project, all the findings from previous projects are not ignored. What you are proposing is not necessarily a bad idea but, if that was the case, I would expect some comment saying: why do they construct three equal telescopes when we could use all that money and man-power to build three different ones that would help us much more?

dingaling 9y ago
That's a fair point regarding progress regardless of outcome. But starting a new project to build on that basis is going to be a lot tougher if there's no "look at the pretty pictures" Hubble-effect to sway budgeteers. To extend it ab absurdium, it does remind me of the joke about the theoretical physicist going back to bed when he finds his house aflame, because he invested in a fire extinguisher so a solution exists.
jonhendry18 9y ago
Perhaps it could be designed so that, if the first telescope reaches orbit and works, the extras could be partially dismantled and large subsystems repurposed in a new satellite. Take out the optics package and replace it with something else. Keep the power distribution, solar panels, and other things. If nothing else the intelligence agencies could probably come up with a use for it.
- ehsankia 9y ago
  With space being so vast, and the telescope looking at such a tiny fraction of the sky, I'm sure scientists wouldn't mind having more than one. I'm not super familiar with this, but I remember hearing that getting time on Hubble for your experiment definitely wasn't easy. Getting three times the available time surely has to be a huge positive for research, no? Not only that, having a second source of data will be critical in making sure measurements aren't flukes.
- zaarn 9y ago
  Outside of cubesats and mass deployed sats like GPS and the European variant, almost every satellite is somewhat of a unique build. Even cubesats and GPS sats are special, you can't simply take a GPS sat and repurpose it for a TV station. The requirements can be vastly different (geostationary vs LEO, precise orientation vs simple attitude control). The same goes for space telescope. You can't just take a ST sat body, ram in a LEO weather satellites electronics and expect that to stay in orbit or work reasonably.

by yiyus 9y ago

dingaling 9y ago

That's a fair point regarding progress regardless of outcome. But starting a new project to build on that basis is going to be a lot tougher if there's no "look at the pretty pictures" Hubble-effect to sway budgeteers. To extend it ab absurdium, it does remind me of the joke about the theoretical physicist going back to bed when he finds his house aflame, because he invested in a fire extinguisher so a solution exists.

jonhendry18 9y ago

Perhaps it could be designed so that, if the first telescope reaches orbit and works, the extras could be partially dismantled and large subsystems repurposed in a new satellite. Take out the optics package and replace it with something else. Keep the power distribution, solar panels, and other things. If nothing else the intelligence agencies could probably come up with a use for it.

ehsankia 9y ago
With space being so vast, and the telescope looking at such a tiny fraction of the sky, I'm sure scientists wouldn't mind having more than one. I'm not super familiar with this, but I remember hearing that getting time on Hubble for your experiment definitely wasn't easy. Getting three times the available time surely has to be a huge positive for research, no? Not only that, having a second source of data will be critical in making sure measurements aren't flukes.
zaarn 9y ago
Outside of cubesats and mass deployed sats like GPS and the European variant, almost every satellite is somewhat of a unique build. Even cubesats and GPS sats are special, you can't simply take a GPS sat and repurpose it for a TV station. The requirements can be vastly different (geostationary vs LEO, precise orientation vs simple attitude control). The same goes for space telescope. You can't just take a ST sat body, ram in a LEO weather satellites electronics and expect that to stay in orbit or work reasonably.