The optics was not replaced, it was corrected by COSTAR, http://hubblesite.org/the_telescope/nuts_.and._bolts/optics/costar/
That was a set of small mirrors that corrected the focal point. 2012/5/26 Guenter Wildgruber <[email protected]> > > ------------------------------ > *Von:* Daniel Rocha <[email protected]> > **>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > 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. > > 2012/5/26 Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> > > Randy Wuller <[email protected]> wrote: > > You could have replaced the Hubble many time over for the cost of the > Shuttle and its operation. > > > That is true. See the book "Hubble Wars." The cost of the Shuttle mission > to repair the Hubble was greater than the cost of launching a new Hubble > would have been. I regret to say this, but it was a publicity stunt. > > - Jed > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > It was probably both. > > Simply replacing Hubble by a corrected twin (optics) would have been > prohibitive. > Replacing the optics in orbit was a new stunt, and as such a 'sale' to the > public. > > Space instruments never stay the same over time, except for the instance > when You have a complete spare, which in reality never happens. > ( Having been involved in Herschel project control and instrumentation, I > know what I'm talking about. > Impossible to repair in this case, because it is located at Lagrange point > 2. Cost: A meager 1 billion Euros. Thankfully successful. > http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Herschel/index.html ) > > For the Hubble successor, see 'James Webb': > ... > In April 2006, the program was independently reviewed following a > re-planning phase begun in August 2005. The review concluded the program > was technically sound, but that funding phasing at NASA needed to be > changed. NASA has re-phased its JWST budgets accordingly. The August 2005 > re-planning was necessitated by the cost growth revealed in Spring > 2005.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope#cite_note-replan-53> > ... > Launch date is currently 2018. > > Cost: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope#Reported_cost_and_schedule_issues > > Round it up to 2020 and add a couple of billions. > > Guenther > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ [email protected]
