In your opinion perhaps - but servicing our brand new $8 Billion telescope may someday become a necessity and a true test.
Quote from: llanitedave on 12/09/2014 02:13 amQuote from: Danderman on 12/08/2014 11:32 pmQuote from: Prober on 12/08/2014 10:22 pmHubble is done when it fails, the replacement is the JWST. Actually, it isn't, due to different wavelengths.Once HST batteries and gyros start to fail, you will hear more about this as the scientists demand that Hubble be serviced.More likely the demand will be for a new and larger instrument.knew this was coming.....NASA has those two old spy sats they could rework and launch. A lot cheaper than another Hubble servicing. However in light of JWST costs its going to be a hard sell.
Quote from: Danderman on 12/08/2014 11:32 pmQuote from: Prober on 12/08/2014 10:22 pmHubble is done when it fails, the replacement is the JWST. Actually, it isn't, due to different wavelengths.Once HST batteries and gyros start to fail, you will hear more about this as the scientists demand that Hubble be serviced.More likely the demand will be for a new and larger instrument.
Quote from: Prober on 12/08/2014 10:22 pmHubble is done when it fails, the replacement is the JWST. Actually, it isn't, due to different wavelengths.Once HST batteries and gyros start to fail, you will hear more about this as the scientists demand that Hubble be serviced.
Hubble is done when it fails, the replacement is the JWST.
I'd guess an 8m spin-cast monolithic mirror
There is a separate thread for JWST servicing. Please keep this thread to the wonderful idea of servicing Hubble using Orion.
Quote from: llanitedave on 12/09/2014 03:35 pm I'd guess an 8m spin-cast monolithic mirror where would such a mirror be built and how would it get to the spacecraft manufacture and then to the launch site?
Quote from: newpylong on 12/09/2014 02:04 pmIn your opinion perhaps - but servicing our brand new $8 Billion telescope may someday become a necessity and a true test.Not an opinion. Both are truly bad ideas, wastes of money. JWST is not designed for servicing. That would be throwing good money at bad.Aside from HST and ISS, science missions (like Cassini) are not designed for repair.
Then why is there a docking ring on it?
Quote from: newpylong on 12/10/2014 02:12 pmThen why is there a docking ring on it? Are you sure it is still on the spacecraft?
Quote from: Jim on 12/10/2014 02:33 pmQuote from: newpylong on 12/10/2014 02:12 pmThen why is there a docking ring on it? Are you sure it is still on the spacecraft?I haven't seen anything that that particular feature has been removed in the design. Have you?
Quote from: newpylong on 12/10/2014 03:03 pmQuote from: Jim on 12/10/2014 02:33 pmQuote from: newpylong on 12/10/2014 02:12 pmThen why is there a docking ring on it? Are you sure it is still on the spacecraft?I haven't seen anything that that particular feature has been removed in the design. Have you?I don't see much evidence that this feature actually made it into the final design, either. I can't find any recent references to any kind of docking or grapple fixture.
If something is known come right out and say it. We don't get gold stars for guessing hints.That's an interesting change nonetheless. What is the evidence for the omission?
JWST has a grapple fixture. It was forced onto the spacecraft at the last minute, but will be there. It's for, er, *grappling*. Which implies...
All the HST servicing support stood down after the last servicing mission. People reassigned, hardware disposed of, etc.The large ground-based telescopes with adaptive optics will be routinely giving better imaging than Hubble, or are doing that already. The main loss is the high resolution UV that only a space telescope can give. There was a proposal by Johns Hopkins to fly a UV telescope with the UV instruments that went up on the last servicing mission, back when that flight didn't look likely to happen. (IIRC, the proposal was called HOP, the Hubble Origins Probe.) A 1.5-m UV-optimized with an imager and spectrometer could recover most of the unique science that will be lost when HST finally goes.
Depends what your goal is "better" is subjective in this case.Even before Hubble was launched, there were techniques that allowed for better resolution from ground bases telescopes, though back in the 90's HST could look at MUCH dimmer objects(edit: 8 magnitudes dimmer than 90's ground based using aperture masking inferiometry).Its not all about resolution."The usefulness of adaptive optics versus HST observations depends strongly on the particular details of the research questions being asked. In the visible bands, adaptive optics can only correct a relatively small field of view, whereas HST can conduct high-resolution optical imaging over a wide field. Only a small fraction of astronomical objects are accessible to high-resolution ground-based imaging; in contrast Hubble can perform high-resolution observations of any part of the night sky, and on objects that are extremely faint."