3 ms·
I defer to your knowledge, i'm not trying to be a jerk. But Hubble took like 30 years? or so to develop and build? How long would a second Hubble take? I'd have
by mbfg 5y ago
I defer to your knowledge, i'm not trying to be a jerk. But Hubble took like 30 years? or so to develop and build? How long would a second Hubble take? I'd have to imagine it's less than 5 years, no? That has to be a huge cost savings. The testing process would have to be more streamlined or efficient, i would think. You have a much better understanding of failure modes.
- giantrobot 5y agoThe Hubble took a little over ten years to build and develop. It's launch was postponed to 1990 because of the Challenger disaster. > The testing process would have to be more streamlined or efficient, i would think. Why do you automatically assume testing for a complicated and delicate machine is inefficient or not streamlined? That's a pretty bold assumption with zero evidence. Understanding failure modes doesn't help test and validate something any faster. There's a finite number of hours in a day and components need some proscribed amount of testing.
- Hextinium 5y agoHubble took ~12 years from initial funding to launch with the challenger disaster postponing it 4 years out of that. Additionally if the decision was made to use traditional mirror techniques the Hubble was predicted to launch in 5 years already, instead of the difficulty they found with the alternative method but they didn't know that at the outset.