Not a comparable case

Space/Science » in reply to Re: HST lifespan

Robt Clements — 3/6/2002 3:49:54 PM (archived)

MIR was a wreck which needed massive reinvestment & replacement of core modules (not merely instruments within the modules) to be useful for anything - Hubble (at this point, of course - it could fall over tomorrow) seems to be going along fine with routine upgradings... as a result: the cost of keeping Hubble up would be small in cf with NASA's massive investment in NGST.

Robert

The whole thread (16 posts)

HST lifespan - Raoul - 3/6/2002 10:30:34 AM
- Re: HST lifespan - Success_Machine - 3/6/2002 2:43:34 PM
  - Not a comparable case - Robt Clements - 3/6/2002 3:49:54 PM
    - Re: Another 8 years to go anyway. - Success_Machine - 3/7/2002 12:08:34 PM
      - Re: Another 8 years to go anyway. - Robt Clements - 3/7/2002 1:20:46 PM
- Re: HST lifespan - Robt Clements - 3/6/2002 1:26:40 PM
  - It would be a waste if technology suceeds us that way. - Marcia - 3/6/2002 1:40:37 PM
    - Limited funds and bandwidth. It'd be foolish to sink NGST (a superior insrument) due to Hubble nostalgia. (n/t) (n/t) - ectoterrestrial - 3/6/2002 1:47:59 PM
      - Yes, it would. Even more so if Hubble is still operating, nostalgia is low on the list. - Marcia - 3/6/2002 3:30:54 PM
        
        Re: Yes, it would. I agree... - ectoterrestrial - 3/6/2002 4:06:19 PM
      - NGST could be an ok instrument.... - Robt Clements - 3/6/2002 2:37:39 PM
- Re: HST lifespan - ectoagitated - 3/6/2002 11:45:03 AM
  - Re: NGST and TDRSS - Raoul - 3/6/2002 6:47:07 PM
    - Question about Hubble, Raoul. - Marcia - 3/8/2002 1:25:23 PM
      - Re: Question about Hubble - Raoul - 3/9/2002 9:32:29 AM
  - Yes, there's the bandwidth issue that I addressed before - Larry J - 3/6/2002 1:11:27 PM

Recent posts

On this day in Space/Science

The whole thread (16 posts)