3 ms·

Wouldn't it make sense to allow it to decay and spend the money on something more modern? Optical sensors have had great advances in the meantime, the original

Wouldn't it make sense to allow it to decay and spend the money on something more modern? Optical sensors have had great advances in the meantime, the original Hubble lenses were wrong and a correction had to be installed, and the cost to put something in low orbit went down a lot. Also we have better understanding of the failure modes of gyro bearings so we can build them to be less failure-prone (someone more knowledgeable please correct me if I didn't get this right). The original solar panels must have degraded quite a bit by now, so you'd eventually have to replace those too - overall it doesn't feel cost effective to keep fixing the thing.

Dalewyn 3y ago
>Wouldn't it make sense to allow it to decay and spend the money on something more modern? Objectively speaking? Yes, money would be better spent developing and launching a newer and better Hubble 2.0. But remember: This is the Hubble Space Telescope we're talking about here, Hubble has acted as the de facto ambassador of space for many generations of people today. The Hubble Space Telescope is a cultural icon of space exploration, it isn't just a space telescope anymore. Consider that when the Space Shuttle program was on its final legs, NASA was convinced to fly one last reboost and maintenance mission to the Hubble because it is the one and only Hubble Space Telescope. I personally think it's worth spending money to preserve and use Hubble as long and far as we can.
- gruturo 3y ago
  Valid point but the solution is right in your own post: Just call it Hubble 2.0 and preserve its symbolic value. Spend a little telescope time to repeat a few of its most iconic shots (Ultra Deep Field for example), post them side to side, people will love it and it'll still be Hubble.
light_hue_1 3y ago
> Wouldn't it make sense to allow it to decay and spend the money on something more modern? It wouldn't. The cost to boost Hubble and keep it around is small. About the cost of an ISS resupply, less than $150M. The cost to build a replacement? Unbounded. JWST was supposed to be completed in ~5 years and cost $1B. It took over 20 years and $10B. The cost of boosting Hubble won't impact any replacement we might design.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  Yeah and Hubble was based on the keyhole spy satellites of the time and those cost like a billion each. Of course JWST was a completely fresh design with many inherent difficulties.

Dalewyn 3y ago

>Wouldn't it make sense to allow it to decay and spend the money on something more modern? Objectively speaking? Yes, money would be better spent developing and launching a newer and better Hubble 2.0. But remember: This is the Hubble Space Telescope we're talking about here, Hubble has acted as the de facto ambassador of space for many generations of people today. The Hubble Space Telescope is a cultural icon of space exploration, it isn't just a space telescope anymore. Consider that when the Space Shuttle program was on its final legs, NASA was convinced to fly one last reboost and maintenance mission to the Hubble because it is the one and only Hubble Space Telescope. I personally think it's worth spending money to preserve and use Hubble as long and far as we can.

gruturo 3y ago
Valid point but the solution is right in your own post: Just call it Hubble 2.0 and preserve its symbolic value. Spend a little telescope time to repeat a few of its most iconic shots (Ultra Deep Field for example), post them side to side, people will love it and it'll still be Hubble.

light_hue_1 3y ago

> Wouldn't it make sense to allow it to decay and spend the money on something more modern? It wouldn't. The cost to boost Hubble and keep it around is small. About the cost of an ISS resupply, less than $150M. The cost to build a replacement? Unbounded. JWST was supposed to be completed in ~5 years and cost $1B. It took over 20 years and $10B. The cost of boosting Hubble won't impact any replacement we might design.

wkat4242 3y ago
Yeah and Hubble was based on the keyhole spy satellites of the time and those cost like a billion each. Of course JWST was a completely fresh design with many inherent difficulties.