Rather than let it de-orbit and mostly burn up. This scope is arguably more important than many of the vintage ground based scopes, it's history so it should be preserved. Better yet, upgraded and fixed, as they proposed in 2017.
On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 02:46:18 -0700 (PDT), RichA <[email protected]>
wrote:
Rather than let it de-orbit and mostly burn up. This scope is arguably more important than many of the vintage ground based scopes, it's history so it should be preserved. Better yet, upgraded and fixed, as they proposed in 2017.Well, considering all of the real science that could be done with the billions that would cost, I'd opt for letting it burn up.
On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 09:27:25 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 02:46:18 -0700 (PDT), RichA <[email protected]>
wrote:
Rather than let it de-orbit and mostly burn up. This scope is arguably more important than many of the vintage ground based scopes, it's history so it should be preserved. Better yet, upgraded and fixed, as they proposed in 2017.Well, considering all of the real science that could be done with the
billions that would cost, I'd opt for letting it burn up.
"Billions?" Why? To fix it, or bring it back? Besides; they squandered $200B on the ISS to see...if mice would mate in zero G!!!! What's a couple billion more?
On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 09:27:25 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 02:46:18 -0700 (PDT), RichA <[email protected]>
wrote:
Rather than let it de-orbit and mostly burn up. This scope is arguably more important than many of the vintage ground based scopes, it's history so it should be preserved. Better yet, upgraded and fixed, as they proposed in 2017.Well, considering all of the real science that could be done with the
billions that would cost, I'd opt for letting it burn up.
"Billions?" Why? To fix it, or bring it back? Besides; they squandered $200B on the ISS to see...if mice would mate in zero G!!!! What's a couple billion more?
On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 12:15:46 -0700 (PDT), RichA <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 09:27:25 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 02:46:18 -0700 (PDT), RichA <[email protected]>
wrote:
Rather than let it de-orbit and mostly burn up. This scope is arguably more important than many of the vintage ground based scopes, it's history so it should be preserved. Better yet, upgraded and fixed, as they proposed in 2017.Well, considering all of the real science that could be done with the
billions that would cost, I'd opt for letting it burn up.
"Billions?" Why? To fix it, or bring it back? Besides; they squandered $200B on the ISS to see...if mice would mate in zero G!!!! What's a couple billion more?The real boondoggle was the Space Shuttle. Every HST repair mission
cost more than launching a new telescope would have cost.
Yes, a billion or more, at the very least.
On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 12:15:46 -0700 (PDT), RichA <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 09:27:25 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 02:46:18 -0700 (PDT), RichA <[email protected]>
wrote:
Rather than let it de-orbit and mostly burn up. This scope is arguably more important than many of the vintage ground based scopes, it's history so it should be preserved. Better yet, upgraded and fixed, as they proposed in 2017.Well, considering all of the real science that could be done with the
billions that would cost, I'd opt for letting it burn up.
"Billions?" Why? To fix it, or bring it back? Besides; they squandered $200B on the ISS to see...if mice would mate in zero G!!!! What's a couple billion more?
The real boondoggle was the Space Shuttle. Every HST repair mission
cost more than launching a new telescope would have cost.
Yes, a billion or more, at the very least.
On 25/03/2022 03:47, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 12:15:46 -0700 (PDT), RichA <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 09:27:25 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 02:46:18 -0700 (PDT), RichA <[email protected]>
wrote:
Rather than let it de-orbit and mostly burn up. This scope is arguably more important than many of the vintage ground based scopes, it's history so it should be preserved. Better yet, upgraded and fixed, as they proposed in 2017.Well, considering all of the real science that could be done with the
billions that would cost, I'd opt for letting it burn up.
"Billions?" Why? To fix it, or bring it back? Besides; they squandered $200B on the ISS to see...if mice would mate in zero G!!!! What's a couple billion more?
The real boondoggle was the Space Shuttle. Every HST repair mission
cost more than launching a new telescope would have cost.
The space shuttle was an impressive piece of technology for the day and >reusable. It had a few too many single point failure modes though.
Yes, a billion or more, at the very least.
I don't think there are any re-entry vehicles at present that could >accommodate the HST and bring it down in one piece so you would have to >factor in that additional development cost as well as launching it.
The unflown spare is entirely adequate for museum display purposes.
The least expensive option I've seen is to utilize a robotic mission
to boost the HST into a much higher orbit, where it could be retrieved decades from now by much less expensive technology. But that's still
an expensive mission that seems very hard to justify.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 11:27:49 |
| Calls: | 12,100 |
| Files: | 15,003 |
| Messages: | 6,517,994 |