Space/Science — HabitableZone

Space/Science » in reply to Must Hubble be saved?

re: What a bizarre notion...
BRFelix — (archived)

Ponder all the telescopes -- old and not so old -- still in use all over the world. Some have been abandoned only to be revived by enthusiasts, dedicated astronomers and so forth. I'm thinking particularly of the Great Telescope at Castle Birr in Ireland. It lay abandoned and in ruins for decades until people who recognized the importance of the discoveries made there dedicated themselves (and a lot of money) to its restoration. Thank goodness they did.

Should the Hale Telescope on Mount Palomar be shut down or abandoned? Its usefulness has long since been eclipsed, hasn't it? Think of the millions it takes to operate and maintain such a behemoth!

What about the telescopes at Mars Hill in Arizona? They're old, for the most part, and associated with Percival Lowell, and he's in disrepute, so shouldn't they be shut down, sold for scrap?

So when it comes to Hubble, it seems self-evident that it should be maintained and operated for as long as possible, even if newer, better telescopes proliferate.

And yet the question persists. Do we really need it?

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (50 posts)