Jed, Hubble must have a very accurate focusing and detection than any spy satellite because it gets very few photons. Its production is much more expensive and slow, to correct defects.
2012/5/26 Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> > Daniel Rocha <[email protected]> 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 is incorrect. As I recall it would have been faster to make a new > one, as well as cheaper. The U.S. manufactures similar satellites on a > regular schedule, for military intelligence, just as we manufacture weather > satellites the ones that broadcast to DirectTV and other satellite > receivers. > > Hubble was somewhat different from the spy satellites. For one thing, it > was facing the other direction! It has a bigger lens I think. But most of > the technology is the same. Also, with any spacecraft, making two is almost > as cheap as one. Most of the expense is in the design and testing. > > - Jed > > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ [email protected]
