At 02:55 PM 5/26/2012, Daniel Rocha 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's arguable. However, it also points to long-term planning failure. It points to the hazard of betting everything on a single implementation. It's been pointed out in this discussion that building several space telescopes would not have cost several times as much money. Only launch costs would have seen such a multiplication, maybe. Maybe not!
Further, if more than one worked, great. Easier access to more researchers.
