Slashdot Mirror
Repair Costs for Hubble Are Vexing to Scientists
wallstreetprodigy23 writes "Some scientists questioned whether a repair mission for the aging Hubble Space Telescope was worth a projected cost of $1 billion to $2 billion at a hearing of the House Science Committee on Wednesday.
Both scientists and legislators praised the orbiting observatory for the many contributions it had made to science since it was launched in 1990. But the telescope needs servicing to continue working...
"
The John Hopkins folks proposed a 'Son of Hubble' for that same cost. It would give the same or better scientific data gathering and also be designed to be fixed in an easier fashion, made with more modern tech, etc.
Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
It always seems that whenever something needs to be maintained, suddenly, congress is all scared to give them money. Like they never expected a 15yr old telescope dealing with the harshness of space would need lots of money to keep it going. The problem is, they make the initial investment saying "Oh, this will be great", but as soon as it becomes less than popular, they drop support, and thus waste billions of dollars worth of equipment and achievements, just so in the public eye they aren't wasting money. The problem is, the public doesn't realize they are wasting money by NOT spending the money for it. All I can say is "people are dumb" (well, on average, at any rate)
I came, I saw, She conquered.
We have Hubble now though, and there really isn't anything wrong with it. A new space telescope would take years to design, build, and then launch. There is one in the works, but it doesn't catch the visible light spectrum as well as Hubble can. It's for different purposes. Plus I'm pretty sure they both costed more than a billion.
Bugs are just features that have been fixed.
I suspect the Chinese could get it fixed for a lot less than $1 billion. It's called trickle down economics, I think.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
If we allow for a 0.5% probability of the loss of austronauts, the costs would drop dramatically. For example, they don't want to send the mission without another shuttle on "stand-by", because, if something is wrong, this mission will not be able to repair itself (unlike those, that are sent to ISS).
If lives can be and are lost for a good cause in Afghanistan, Iraq, in fighting domestic crime, and in firefighting, I say, we are overly protective of the space crews.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Err, I think you mean it will be at the second Lagrange point (L2)..
Actually, it'll be in orbit round the L2 point, but now I'm just getting picky.
I think you'll find that the French physicist Lissajous had very little to do with orbital dynamics, and much more to do with fascinating sqiggly loop patterns that provide endless entertainment for thost supposed to be learning how to use an oscilloscope.
Bush's rhetoric toward Iran, considering Iran is a democracy.
Before you start accusing Iran of being *cough* *cough* a democracy, you need to consider the particularities of their political system:
a) The Guardian Councils can veto any elected candidates, prevent their candidacy, and any legislature they passes.
b) Half of the Guardian Councils are appointed by the Ayatollah directly, the other half by the head of judicial, who is also selected by the Ayatollah.
c) The Ayatollah is selected by the assembly of experts, and by convention, holds office for life, though they can be deposed by the same assembly.
d) The public elects the assembly of experts, but selection can vetoed by the Guardian Councils.
So while there is universal suffrage in electing the president and their representatives, the system is skewed towards concentrating lots of power in the Ayatollah and making him hard to dislodge. The elected President and legislative councils are powerless under the thumbs of the Ayatollah and his powerful Guardian Councils.