3 ms·

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 extr

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

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.