3 ms·

Hubble is such a productive piece of an equipment. What a shame there has been only one pointing outwards all these years.

LeifCarrotson 2y ago
It's a sad state of affairs that we as a society have only been able to prioritize sending up one single Hubble, while the US alone has sent up several dozen equivalent KH-9 and superior KH-11 satellites to look at Earth for classified military purposes. I know there are other space-based telescopes (James Webb being larger and superior, others being much smaller and more specialized than Hubble) and lots of ground-based telescopes. I don't dispute that keeping an eye on Soviet missile development and other spy satellite tasks was and is an important mission that has significant, immediate consequences for our species than the informative and gorgeous photos of space that the Hubble mission produces. I'm just disappointed that the combination of human nature and politics makes this a reasonable outcome.
mturmon 2y ago
It's not quite that bad. Hubble is primarily optical wavelengths. The other Great [space-based] Observatories are in IR, X-rays, and gamma rays: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Observatories_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Observatories_program The notion of grouping them as "Great Observatories", AFAIK, came circa the mid-1980s, after Hubble was already getting underway in earnest.
- aaronblohowiak 2y ago
  *were, for spitzer and Compton
system2 2y ago
JWST took 20 years to build. Could be many more but still not bad at all.
1970-01-01 2y ago
>What a shame there has been only one pointing outwards all these years. Let's not forget that initially it was considered a massive failure. There simply was no way for NASA to build another in the 90s. What's truly remarkable is how the ROI went from unknown, to negative, and then was a massive long-term success.
- solarkraft 2y ago
  > Let's not forget that initially it was considered a massive failure Why was that? Were fewer discoveries made than hoped?
  - xnorswap 2y ago
    https://science.nasa.gov/mission/hubble/observatory/design/optics/hubbles-mirror-flaw/ https://science.nasa.gov/mission/hubble/observatory/design/o...
  - munchler 2y ago
    Spherical aberration in its primary mirror (and other issues) discovered shortly after launch. https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-missions/what-was-wrong-with-hubble-mirror-how-was-it-fixed https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-missions/what-was-w...
- jessriedel 2y ago
  It initially was a massive failure? They made a preventable mistake that cost ~$1B.
- dylan604 2y ago
  Let's not forget that NRO donated multiple Hubble level satellites. NASA had no budget to utilize them, so they were not used. Of course there were other logistics involved that made the "gifts" not so practical. However, the thing that gets me is that if the NRO was willing to donate these satellites tells me that they have better than Hubble quality imaging looking inwards and absolutely have multiple of them.

LeifCarrotson 2y ago

It's a sad state of affairs that we as a society have only been able to prioritize sending up one single Hubble, while the US alone has sent up several dozen equivalent KH-9 and superior KH-11 satellites to look at Earth for classified military purposes. I know there are other space-based telescopes (James Webb being larger and superior, others being much smaller and more specialized than Hubble) and lots of ground-based telescopes. I don't dispute that keeping an eye on Soviet missile development and other spy satellite tasks was and is an important mission that has significant, immediate consequences for our species than the informative and gorgeous photos of space that the Hubble mission produces. I'm just disappointed that the combination of human nature and politics makes this a reasonable outcome.

mturmon 2y ago

It's not quite that bad. Hubble is primarily optical wavelengths. The other Great [space-based] Observatories are in IR, X-rays, and gamma rays: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Observatories_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Observatories_program The notion of grouping them as "Great Observatories", AFAIK, came circa the mid-1980s, after Hubble was already getting underway in earnest.

aaronblohowiak 2y ago
*were, for spitzer and Compton

system2 2y ago

JWST took 20 years to build. Could be many more but still not bad at all.

1970-01-01 2y ago

>What a shame there has been only one pointing outwards all these years. Let's not forget that initially it was considered a massive failure. There simply was no way for NASA to build another in the 90s. What's truly remarkable is how the ROI went from unknown, to negative, and then was a massive long-term success.

solarkraft 2y ago
> Let's not forget that initially it was considered a massive failure Why was that? Were fewer discoveries made than hoped?
- xnorswap 2y ago
  https://science.nasa.gov/mission/hubble/observatory/design/optics/hubbles-mirror-flaw/ https://science.nasa.gov/mission/hubble/observatory/design/o...
- munchler 2y ago
  Spherical aberration in its primary mirror (and other issues) discovered shortly after launch. https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-missions/what-was-wrong-with-hubble-mirror-how-was-it-fixed https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-missions/what-was-w...
jessriedel 2y ago
It initially was a massive failure? They made a preventable mistake that cost ~$1B.
dylan604 2y ago
Let's not forget that NRO donated multiple Hubble level satellites. NASA had no budget to utilize them, so they were not used. Of course there were other logistics involved that made the "gifts" not so practical. However, the thing that gets me is that if the NRO was willing to donate these satellites tells me that they have better than Hubble quality imaging looking inwards and absolutely have multiple of them.