Scientists Debate Robotic Hubble Mission

Posted by timothy on Sunday November 28, 2004 @06:48PM from the world-wars-lead-to-medical-breakthroughs dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Some scientists are questioning whether the robotic mission to repair the Hubble Space Telescope is worth the risk and cost. After the Columbia disaster, NASA cancelled its shuttle mission to Hubble, and replaced it with a robotic mission. However, the price tag of the robotic mission is between $1 billion and $2 billion, almost the cost of a new space telescope. Optics expert Duncan Moore is unsure whether the mission will bring the most scientific return per dollar spent. Hubble director Steven Beckwith says the mission will lead to breakthroughs in space robotics."

1 of 172 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:Critical problem with this argument by Bootsy+Collins · 2004-11-28 19:14 · Score: 4, Informative

The current state of the scope is that there is NO money for new telescopes other then the Webb telescope, but it's a radio scope and not an optical one (even though it's being sold as a Hubble replacement).
This was modded insightful? The Webb/NGST will be a near-IR telescope, not a radio telescope. As such, it is a partial replacement for the Hubble, as there is significant overlap in the wavelengths for which each were/will be used. If you consider perhaps the main purpose of the Webb/NGST to be high-z observations, then it's even more clearly a replacement for the Hubble.