4 ms·

Eh. I visited Arecibo almost 20 years ago, and even back then it was more historical monument pickled in time (I still recall some exhibits celebrating the Spac

Eh. I visited Arecibo almost 20 years ago, and even back then it was more historical monument pickled in time (I still recall some exhibits celebrating the Space Shuttle as the greatest thing since sliced bread) than anything scientifically inspirational, much less "cool". It very much felt neglected and the subsequent collapse, while sad, was entirely par for course.

rtkwe 4y ago
The Shuttle is IMO still really cool and there are missions it could do like repairing Hubble or the initial stages of the ISS construction that would be really hard to do with the tiny little capsules we've reverted to. It's size and separate airlock alone give it abilities you can't get in any capsule flying today.
- dale_glass 4y ago
  But at this point, why not build a new one instead? It's old tech at any rate. Also, why not try an iterative approach? What would be the cost to build an extra copy? In fact, doesn't the Hubble share parts with spy satellites?
  - dotnet00 4y ago
    The reason to not iterate on the Shuttle is that it was a fundamentally dangerous design, fixing the issues would be comparable to just making a new ground-up design. It would also be really expensive because the companies that made it have gotten used to the government teat. Modern American spacecraft are the 'new' Shuttle in that they incorporate all the safety lessons learned. The closest functionality-wise Shuttle successor would be crewed Starship. Hubble shares a chassis with old spy satellites but IIRC all the optics have been replaced. There is a study ongoing for the potential of docking a Dragon capsule to it to boost its orbit and possibly service it via EVA.
    - dale_glass 4y ago
      I meant why not iterate on the Hubble. Yeah, it was expensive, but probably building a few more of them would be significantly cheaper than N times the cost of making one.
      - dotnet00 4y ago
        Iterating on Hubble would certainly be a bit more realistic, the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope - due to go up later this decade - can be considered somewhat of an iteration on Hubble in that it is also based on the same chassis with modernized optics, although IIRC it focuses on a different part of the spectrum. Similarly, many proposed successors to JWST also iterate on the basic design and technology for JWST to include more mirror segments. However, I suppose you're referring more to a silicon valley style iteration, which I think isn't worthwhile yet since ground based telescopes are already close to parity with Hubble and are cheaper to iterate on.
        rtkwe 4y ago
        Ground based telescopes are still fundamentally limited by Earth's rotation and having to look through the atmosphere and increasingly having interference due to constellations like Starlink. Some spectra you just can't see with a ground based telescope because the light can't make it through our atmosphere.
  - rtkwe 4y ago
    There's a lot invested already in just getting the main mass up there and the core development of the system so building and installing small improvements can keep the investment useful for lower cost than replacing it. Documentation on the spy satellite connection is sketchy but it seems to be designed similarly to an NRO satellite KH11 iirc but I think it was modified a lot and the more modern spy satellites might not be as readily convertible to deep space observation. So you have that work and the cost to loft it vs the cost to install some upgrades to and existing satellite.
- dotnet00 4y ago
  To be fair, we reverted to capsules because the Shuttle was so expensive that there was no additional will to spend the necessary amount (when accounting for defense contractor bloat) on an effective successor that wasn't a flying death trap. Even those capsules (especially the one actually flying people right now) only barely got the funding they needed.
nullc 4y ago
I think that's at least equally the fault of the visitors center as anything about the instrument itself. The visitors center gave a very much working instrument a "historical monument pickled in time" feel. I think there is a reasonable case to be made that the ultimate cause of the collapse was that not enough was spent on the visitors center, leaving guests with the impression that it wasn't a valuable instrument, leading to sustained absolutely minimal funding, leading to deferred maintenance (since they preferred to spend the money they got on actually operating!), leading to collapse. So perhaps think of this in the future if you're about to criticize a scientific instrument for frivolous spending on visitor center upgrades.

rtkwe 4y ago

The Shuttle is IMO still really cool and there are missions it could do like repairing Hubble or the initial stages of the ISS construction that would be really hard to do with the tiny little capsules we've reverted to. It's size and separate airlock alone give it abilities you can't get in any capsule flying today.

dale_glass 4y ago
But at this point, why not build a new one instead? It's old tech at any rate. Also, why not try an iterative approach? What would be the cost to build an extra copy? In fact, doesn't the Hubble share parts with spy satellites?
- dotnet00 4y ago
  The reason to not iterate on the Shuttle is that it was a fundamentally dangerous design, fixing the issues would be comparable to just making a new ground-up design. It would also be really expensive because the companies that made it have gotten used to the government teat. Modern American spacecraft are the 'new' Shuttle in that they incorporate all the safety lessons learned. The closest functionality-wise Shuttle successor would be crewed Starship. Hubble shares a chassis with old spy satellites but IIRC all the optics have been replaced. There is a study ongoing for the potential of docking a Dragon capsule to it to boost its orbit and possibly service it via EVA.
  - dale_glass 4y ago
    I meant why not iterate on the Hubble. Yeah, it was expensive, but probably building a few more of them would be significantly cheaper than N times the cost of making one.
    - dotnet00 4y ago
      Iterating on Hubble would certainly be a bit more realistic, the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope - due to go up later this decade - can be considered somewhat of an iteration on Hubble in that it is also based on the same chassis with modernized optics, although IIRC it focuses on a different part of the spectrum. Similarly, many proposed successors to JWST also iterate on the basic design and technology for JWST to include more mirror segments. However, I suppose you're referring more to a silicon valley style iteration, which I think isn't worthwhile yet since ground based telescopes are already close to parity with Hubble and are cheaper to iterate on.
      - rtkwe 4y ago
        Ground based telescopes are still fundamentally limited by Earth's rotation and having to look through the atmosphere and increasingly having interference due to constellations like Starlink. Some spectra you just can't see with a ground based telescope because the light can't make it through our atmosphere.
- rtkwe 4y ago
  There's a lot invested already in just getting the main mass up there and the core development of the system so building and installing small improvements can keep the investment useful for lower cost than replacing it. Documentation on the spy satellite connection is sketchy but it seems to be designed similarly to an NRO satellite KH11 iirc but I think it was modified a lot and the more modern spy satellites might not be as readily convertible to deep space observation. So you have that work and the cost to loft it vs the cost to install some upgrades to and existing satellite.
dotnet00 4y ago
To be fair, we reverted to capsules because the Shuttle was so expensive that there was no additional will to spend the necessary amount (when accounting for defense contractor bloat) on an effective successor that wasn't a flying death trap. Even those capsules (especially the one actually flying people right now) only barely got the funding they needed.

nullc 4y ago

I think that's at least equally the fault of the visitors center as anything about the instrument itself. The visitors center gave a very much working instrument a "historical monument pickled in time" feel. I think there is a reasonable case to be made that the ultimate cause of the collapse was that not enough was spent on the visitors center, leaving guests with the impression that it wasn't a valuable instrument, leading to sustained absolutely minimal funding, leading to deferred maintenance (since they preferred to spend the money they got on actually operating!), leading to collapse. So perhaps think of this in the future if you're about to criticize a scientific instrument for frivolous spending on visitor center upgrades.