3 ms·

This is helped a lot by the fact that's it's quite hard [EDIT: = expensive] to place an upgraded telescope somewhere. Hubble is still used despite it's tech bei

This is helped a lot by the fact that's it's quite hard [EDIT: = expensive] to place an upgraded telescope somewhere. Hubble is still used despite it's tech being a few decades old.

wolfram74 5y ago
I'm trying to parse those sentences, are you saying there are space constraints with hubble? it's orbit isn't at a particularly special elevation or inclination, I'm pretty sure we could have several telescopes in the same exact orbit but half an hour behind with no discernible consequences. Even out at the lagrange points, you don't have to be /exactly/ there, many cubic kilometers of space have roughly the same properties that make it appealing for JWST.
- Sebb767 5y ago
  It's really expensive to get telescopes up in space. We have a lot of astronomers that could use some time on a space telescope, but launching enough to supply all of them is not economically viable in any way. Sure, the stuff hubble is currently used for is not as groundbreaking as when it was launch, but we still have use for it. My point it is, we have so few space telescopes that even having time on an "outdated" one is still pretty valuable. EDIT: Maybe a better example, it's not much use for a first-world person to use a ten year old smartphone, since current smartphones are much more capable and they're comparatively cheap. Planes, on the other hand, are used for decades, since simply buying a new one is very expensive. This is despite it's tech being far superior.
defaultname 5y ago
Putting a device into space is relatively cheap for a project like this, and is only dropping with each year. Say $100M - $200M, on a $10B project, puts the launch at just 1-2% of the price tag. I believe the Hubble total project cost is pushing past $16B in adjusted dollars. It's the massive capital expenditure on the telescope and its infrastructure that is the significant limiting factor on the pace of putting newer and better telescopes in place.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Apparently for the cost of all the Shuttle trips to Hubble, they could have just put up another Hubble without its problems. Same thing in this case: instead of visiting Webb, they could build a new Webb without all the origami, and assemble it by hand in orbit for a tiny fraction of the cost, and end up with two of them. Then, maybe put different instruments on the second one.

This is helped a lot by the fact that's it's quite hard [EDIT: = expensive] to place an upgraded telescope somewhere. Hubble is still used despite it's tech being a few decades old.

wolfram74 5y ago

I'm trying to parse those sentences, are you saying there are space constraints with hubble? it's orbit isn't at a particularly special elevation or inclination, I'm pretty sure we could have several telescopes in the same exact orbit but half an hour behind with no discernible consequences. Even out at the lagrange points, you don't have to be /exactly/ there, many cubic kilometers of space have roughly the same properties that make it appealing for JWST.

Sebb767 5y ago
It's really expensive to get telescopes up in space. We have a lot of astronomers that could use some time on a space telescope, but launching enough to supply all of them is not economically viable in any way. Sure, the stuff hubble is currently used for is not as groundbreaking as when it was launch, but we still have use for it. My point it is, we have so few space telescopes that even having time on an "outdated" one is still pretty valuable. EDIT: Maybe a better example, it's not much use for a first-world person to use a ten year old smartphone, since current smartphones are much more capable and they're comparatively cheap. Planes, on the other hand, are used for decades, since simply buying a new one is very expensive. This is despite it's tech being far superior.

defaultname 5y ago

Putting a device into space is relatively cheap for a project like this, and is only dropping with each year. Say $100M - $200M, on a $10B project, puts the launch at just 1-2% of the price tag. I believe the Hubble total project cost is pushing past $16B in adjusted dollars. It's the massive capital expenditure on the telescope and its infrastructure that is the significant limiting factor on the pace of putting newer and better telescopes in place.

ncmncm 5y ago
Apparently for the cost of all the Shuttle trips to Hubble, they could have just put up another Hubble without its problems. Same thing in this case: instead of visiting Webb, they could build a new Webb without all the origami, and assemble it by hand in orbit for a tiny fraction of the cost, and end up with two of them. Then, maybe put different instruments on the second one.