3 ms·

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 d

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.

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.