Daniel Rocha <[email protected]> wrote:
> This argument is not right. It is not valid also to compare it to a > computer or aircraft projects. The development of Hubble led to a unique > architecture, not to mass production. It would take a long time to build > another one. So, fixing it in space, even if required a lot of money, was > necessary or a lot of fundamental research would be long delayed. That is incorrect. As I recall it would have been faster to make a new one, as well as cheaper. The U.S. manufactures similar satellites on a regular schedule, for military intelligence, just as we manufacture weather satellites the ones that broadcast to DirectTV and other satellite receivers. Hubble was somewhat different from the spy satellites. For one thing, it was facing the other direction! It has a bigger lens I think. But most of the technology is the same. Also, with any spacecraft, making two is almost as cheap as one. Most of the expense is in the design and testing. - Jed
