Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Debate Robotic Hubble Mission
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."
When they argue that the price of the repair mission is almost that of a replacement telescope, implicent in the assumption is "If we don't do this repair mission, then we can spend the money on a replacement".
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).
Either the money is spent on repairing the Hubble or.... it gets spent on paying interest on the national debt, stays in general fund, etc etc etc.
Pick your battles. Either the money goes to astronomy in the form of repair, or it goes where all the rest of the money goes.
Why not spend the monies on a robotic mission to build a new 'scope.
C'mon people...we don't always have to choose between lowering the water or raising the bridge.
That said, I'm puzzled why the Hubble guy is pushing robotics. That's like a popsicle sales manager suggesting the company start selling hotdogs, instead of finding a way to improve sales of raspberry 'sicles.