Let Hubble die gracefully

Both Keck telescopes put together cost less than half the projected
repair cost of Hubble (adjusted for inflation). There are places in
Antarctica with seeing better than the theoretical resolution of HST.
IMHO it would make more sense to use the money to place a pair of 10
meter+ class telescopes on Dome C rather than repair Hubble.

Henrietta

wrote:
Both Keck telescopes put together cost less than half the projected
repair cost of Hubble (adjusted for inflation).

But the Hubble doesn't have to look through the earth's troposphere
and has advantages over *any* ground based observations for some
tasks. And it's not like there is idle time on the other telescopes.

See: http://www.cv.nrao.edu/fits/www/yp_schedule.html
http://www.seds.org/billa/bigeyes.html
http://www.edu-observatory.org/eo/telescopes.html

wrote:
Both Keck telescopes put together cost less than half the projected
repair cost of Hubble (adjusted for inflation). There are places in
Antarctica with seeing better than the theoretical resolution of HST.
IMHO it would make more sense to use the money to place a pair of 10
meter+ class telescopes on Dome C rather than repair Hubble.

Henrietta

The seeing in Antarctica only applies to the visual spectrum. Hubble
works from the infrared to the ultraviolet. 350nm-1000nm would be
reasonably accessible from Antarctica but anything beyond and Hubble
has the advantage.
That aside, a telescope in Antarctica would be money well spent.
Considering how long these repairs are likely to keep Hubble running it
is debatable which will produce more science. Considering Hubble's
track record it is the safer option.
Ian Anderson
www.customopticalsystems.com

You make some valid points, but it appears nothing will ever convince
the Hubble lobby that their tin god has seen better days. The cost to
salvage (remember the faulty main mirror?) and maintain Hubble has
exceeded its original cost by 2-3X.

The $1-$2 billion it will cost to maintain Hubble through another four
years is enough to design and launch several replacement instruments,
AND fund some worthwhile ground based systems.

wrote:

Both Keck telescopes put together cost less than half the projected
repair cost of Hubble (adjusted for inflation). There are places in
Antarctica with seeing better than the theoretical resolution of HST.
IMHO it would make more sense to use the money to place a pair of 10
meter+ class telescopes on Dome C rather than repair Hubble.

Henrietta

Tim Killian wrote in message ...
You make some valid points, but it appears nothing will ever convince
the Hubble lobby that their tin god has seen better days. The cost to
salvage (remember the faulty main mirror?) and maintain Hubble has
exceeded its original cost by 2-3X.

The $1-$2 billion it will cost to maintain Hubble through another four
years is enough to design and launch several replacement instruments,
AND fund some worthwhile ground based systems.


in an ideal world, where decisions followed logic and not politics, you
would be correct.
Unfortunately, in today's world, there is no option on the table to use
funding for either repairing Hubble or building better replacements. The
options are :
1-fix it , and
2-let it die , with no replacement.
Either take the money and fix Hubble, or take no money and build no
replacement.
If we had a choice, I'd vote for building a better replacement. We don't
have that choice. The choice we almost have is let it die now or fix it . I
said almost because it's not certain we even have that choice. We may have a
single choice, witness Hubble's demise .

best regards,
matt tudor

Tim Killian wrote:
You make some valid points, but it appears nothing will ever convince
the Hubble lobby that their tin god has seen better days. The cost to
salvage (remember the faulty main mirror?) and maintain Hubble has
exceeded its original cost by 2-3X.

The $1-$2 billion it will cost to maintain Hubble through another four
years is enough to design and launch several replacement instruments,
AND fund some worthwhile ground based systems.

Some of these are obviously true (although we are still, AFAICT, a long
way from visibile-light AO systems approaching the tight and stable
space-based PSF). _However_, none of these other options is on
the table - what we see is "push for one more HST servicing mission"
or "see that funding vanish onto non-astronomical, and possibly
non-space, programs". [Caveat - one relevant item is sort of on the
table. The Hubble Origins Probe, essentially a modernized HST
based around COS and WFC3, has been funded for initial study, and
even at its cost, twice as high as I can understand, would still
undercut either STS or robotic HST servicing by a factor 2-3. I'd
go with that if anyone were tallying my vote...]

I don't have time at the moment to go into the Byzantine processes
by which mission decisions get made at NASA (despite having been
a small part of that process on occasion) - suffice it to say that only
in limited arenas (best model being recent Mars exploration) is
there the sort of grand strategy in which these kinds of decisions
are most sensibly made.

Bill Keel

wrote in message
oups.com...
Both Keck telescopes put together cost less than half the projected
repair cost of Hubble (adjusted for inflation). There are places in
Antarctica with seeing better than the theoretical resolution of HST.
IMHO it would make more sense to use the money to place a pair of 10
meter+ class telescopes on Dome C rather than repair Hubble.

Henrietta

Yes, time to let it expire. After all, everything has an expiration date.

In article .com,
wrote:

Both Keck telescopes put together cost less than half the projected
repair cost of Hubble (adjusted for inflation). There are places in
Antarctica with seeing better than the theoretical resolution of HST.
IMHO it would make more sense to use the money to place a pair of 10
meter+ class telescopes on Dome C rather than repair Hubble.


What would you do for UV astronomy?

Bill Waterston wrote:

Yes, time to let it expire. After all, everything has an expiration date.

It's still not clear if the universe does.

There will be a replacement. Nature abhores a vacuum. People abhore
loss of media time! Im sure Buish has in mind a replacement and is
already
discussing it with the ............ military. Besides, scripture requires
one!






wrote:

Both Keck telescopes put together cost less than half the projected
repair cost of Hubble (adjusted for inflation). There are places in
Antarctica with seeing better than the theoretical resolution of HST.
IMHO it would make more sense to use the money to place a pair of 10
meter+ class telescopes on Dome C rather than repair Hubble.

Henrietta