Pazuzu |
10-07-2021 09:12 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Carlton
(Post 11479081)
Mike- you're an astronomer? That's pretty cool. I am astonished at what astronomers have figured out considering the tools they have.
Question- would the Hubble have been better if it had been designed correctly vs having to have been corrected?
|
I *was* an astronomer. I primarily worked at University of Arizona, at the Steward Observatory, which gave me access to something like 20 major scopes right around town. I no longer do astronomy, but it's always there...
It's hard to say about Hubble. If it has been correct right away, maybe they wouldn't have put as much effort into upgrading it? The upgrades, not just the optical correction, but the new cameras, the IR equipment, the computer upgrades, all were driven by the fact that it was flawed, and needed fixing. If you're machine works flawlessly out of the box, don't you tend to ignore it, just assume it will always be flawless, until it breaks completely? Whereas the basket case, that one gets all of the attention.
There's no question that today's Hubble is WAY beyond the original specifications, and that it's longevity is WAY beyond what was expected. Even with the flaws, it's considered one of, if not the, most efficient pieces of scientific equipment ever, when you look at the ratio of cost vs return.
|