Should we continue Hubble?

[deapfreeze]

" being able to reliable observe day after day is very critical."<br /><br />I agree here. Why take away a telescope that doesn't have to worry about if its going to rain or snow or be over cast. I think Hubble should definately continue... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>William ( deapfreeze ) Hooper</em></font></p><p><font size="1">http://deapfreeze-amateur-astronomy.tk/</font></p><p> </p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Or at least something with comparable capabilities.<br /><br /><br /><br />Pros of keeping Hubble going:<li>It can observe in wavelengths not possible from the ground because they would be filtered out by the atmosphere or by James Webb. (I asked in this thread a while back if James Webb could take over all of what Hubble does now. The answer I got was "No." It can't see some of the more extreme wavelengths that Hubble can with the same sensitivity.<li>Weather can't interfere with observations.<li>Ground telescopes need adaptive optics to compete with Hubble's resolution.<br /><br />Cons of keeping Hubble going:<li>Cost of more shuttle trips and the risk of losing another orbiter.<li>Aging structure and other non-replaceable components -- all designed back in the late 1970's or early 1980's. Most those were designed for a previous generation of spy satellites.<li>That pesky primary mirror -- all instruments have to either compensate for its error themselves or rely on something like COSTAR (now removed) to fix the image. Either way, you lose a little capability.</li></li></li></li></li></li> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>