hubble

We need the frickin' Hubble Space Telescope to take good pictures of planets at that sort of distance.

The fact that its closer than some of the things Hubble has taken better pictures of is not relevant.

Saturn-V couldn't carry a mission to repair Hubble Space Telescope similar to Soyuz mission to repair Salyut-7?

What you are saying is true only if the Hubble parameter is constant, it is not.

For some context, that's roughly the cost of a single instrument for the Hubble (~$100M).

If you can look at the images from the Hubble space telescope and call the STS a failure, thats some pretty extreme cognitive dissonance.

Also from your other comments in the thread, sounds like you worked on a Hubble servicing mission, which only Atlantis did after the Columbia accident.

Was anyone else surprised to learn that the US tested a nuclear explosion (Argus III) at a distance comparable to somewhere between the International Space Station and the Hubble Telescope?

Observations by astronomers like Hubble later showed him that his original formulas were correct (my understanding of the field equations are shallow so I may have mischaracterized this).

There are a couple of candidate Kuiper belt objects for a flyby in a year or two, they were found by Hubble after a search with ground telescopes came up with nothing.

If you land telescopes on the moon, you wouldn't be able to observe the sky for a long period of time, like the hubble did with the deep field (50 days of time).

> The Hubble images are a few pixels wide.

The Hubble was far more than "pretty pictures." Please, if you have nothing of value to write but egging people on and being dismissive maybe this isn't the forum for you.

"This has taken four years and 20 computers operating continuously and simultaneously to accomplish," says Buie, who developed special algorithms to sharpen the Hubble data.

It's a bit odd to see "Large Hadron Collider project gets underway" in the same category as "Hubble [Space Telescope]", given that HST got underway in the 1970s.

Comparing the Hubble-obtained 1995 map of brightness to the latest map from New Horizons shows big differences on the surface.

The problem isn't that Pluto is too close (Hubble has taken excellent pictures of Mars), it's that Pluto is tiny, specifically in angular size.

Once the concept was proven, after a few space walks, maybe fixing Hubble, it was time to realize it was a bad idea scrape it.