I think it would be a dream having multiple Hubbles for many researchers, but the problem is that requiring multiple modules would require a lot of extra funding, before the beginning of the project, and basic science is something that people do not appreciate much since it has too much a fame of being wasted money, unfortunately. They rather waste their tax money in useless wars or saving stupid banks, in much bigger quantities.
But I think tolerance for failures with space for upgrades was something taken into consideration before sending it to space. Otherwise, Hubble would not be built into modules and its fixing would not have taken just a few days. 2012/5/27 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]> > At 02:55 PM 5/26/2012, Daniel Rocha 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's arguable. However, it also points to long-term planning failure. It > points to the hazard of betting everything on a single implementation. It's > been pointed out in this discussion that building several space telescopes > would not have cost several times as much money. Only launch costs would > have seen such a multiplication, maybe. Maybe not! > > Further, if more than one worked, great. Easier access to more > researchers. > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ [email protected]
