The trouble with Hubble...

[SpaceKiwi]

Thanks, that's good to hear. Given the mission is fairly EVA-intensive, I was curious to know that they have been doing some training already on getting those Hubble doors open, etc. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[halman]

I cannot help but wonder what the Hubble would have been capable of if the mirror had been ground correctly. I know that the corrective optics, coupled with image enhancement, have provided us with stunning photographs, but I have still noticed artifacts in images. When I think that the test to determine the accuracy of the mirror curve was dropped to save money, I feel cheated. The cost of the corrective optics, and the shuttle flight to install them, must have been hundreds of times what the cost of the test would have been.<br /><br />Has the Worst Case Scenario been dropped from management, and replaced with the Optimistic Guess Scenario? The Worst Case Scenario analysis of the dropping the mirror test would have indicated what ended up having to be done, which certainly did not save any money.<br /><br />And I still do not understand why 2010 is such a hard date for ending the shuttle program. Is this based upon the number of hours each orbiter has been in space, the age of the airframes, or some other use-related criteria? If so, would not the long flight delays after the Challenger and Columbia incidents extended the life of the program? I know that the Boeing B-52 has been re-certified as flight worthy again and again, even though the original designs were expected to be good for only about 100,000 hours of flight.<br /><br />In light of the long delay in bringing a manned vehicle online to replace the Shuttle, I seriously question such a firm retirement date. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[erioladastra]

Once COSTAR was added, the point spread function(PSF) was pretty much as expected if not better so I am not sure your statement is totally valid. However, before COSTAR, even with maximum entropy techniques there was some loss of science. Any artifacts you are seeing are likely due to the instruments themselves but not sure which ones you mention. Now WFPC2 was scaled back to make room in its budget for the corective optics. Don't know the cost ratio but you are probably right.<br /><br />As for 2010 - that is the line in the sand the White House drew. Nothing to do with technical merit. Purely politcal and driven by budget. Whether you agree or not (and many other threads to discuss that), Bush wanted to have a clear end of the Shuttle to start the next gen of vehicles.