Good eye, Hubble! Space 'scope spots furthest-ever object

Scientists are used to not being able to service equipment. Hubble was an exception in that regard.

Because they are used to not being able to service their tools, they design resilience into said tools. That's why the Mars Rovers have been functioning so long beyond their programmed end-of-service date.

That's also why their tools cost billions to put into service. It is not money down the drain.

Now stop confusing NASA contractors with the military/industrial conglomerates. They're really not cut from the same cloth.

Re: "though it has been given significant hardware upgrades over the years."

Webb will be totally unserviceable (also being at a Lagrangian point...) - first issue = billions of dollars thrown away. But maybe NASA contractors likes this kind of expensive project more, why repair/upgrade when you can get a contract for a new one?

Oddly enough the bean counters have looked at this and that is why they opted for the alternative approach for the JWST. The images Hubble produces are certainly PR friendly which helps elevate it an almost mythical position in the popular imagination but for its cost you could have built and launched at least three generations of scope aboard unmanned rockets. Within the professional community Hubble is actually viewed as something of a white elephant - yes, the results it gets are good but they have been paid for handsomely.

Re: "though it has been given significant hardware upgrades over the years."

"Webb will be totally unserviceable (also being at a Lagrangian point...) "

It's unserviceable *because* it's at the L2 point - nothing we're planning to build would be able to get there. Trying to come up some Shuttle alternative that can get to L2 and return to Earth is pointless, and a whole lot more expensive than building a replacement for JWST when the time comes.

It also *has* to be at the L2 point to work. It's a sensitive instrument that wouldn't work in the same LEO as (say) Hubble.

Re: well done, Hubble

Again, like the Shuttle was a far more capable device than the Apollo 1.1, what is important is not just to "get there first". It's important maybe in sports (and is something even dumb people can understand, that's why politicians like it also) not so much in science (albeit scientists like to be the firsts too...). What is really important is being able to keep on investigating and gather useful data. There's a big difference in reaching the top of Everest, and actually understand how Earth tectonic plates work.

The Shuttle expanded greatly what humans could do in space (and return to ground) - not just sit into a small space waiting to reach the destination. Maybe the name "Shuttle" wasn't the proper one, because its true advantage was the orbital support capabilities - it was a mistake from the beginning to consider it just a "launch" system to replace older ones, for which it was too expensive. But its capabilities to support payloads in orbit, and return them to ground, is unmatched (that's why USAF wanted a smaller unmanned one...)

The same way, just spotting the farthest object away is just a starting point - you then need to gather enough data to understand it. Hubble of course has limits. Webb is designed from ground up to gather more photons in the IR band, and with some better resolution due to its larger mirror. It should gather far more information from those objects. But it's good to known already where to look.

Re: Hubble is old enough to rent a car

If the Hubble had been launched today, it would be junk since the optics were off. I wish the Shuttle (or a replacement) were available as when Hubble finally dies, it would be great if they could bring it back to earth... just because.

Re: Hubble is old enough to rent a car

Perhaps the X-37 would be able to lend a hand (It was built to fiddle with tiny and fast-moving spy satellites, a telescope would be trivial), assuming that SpaceX wouldn't have something available by the time it needs service.

Of course if the James Webb telescope turned out to be able to see much further, say in excess of 14 billion, things could get really interesting...

We've already been there, done that. The furthest reaches of the observable Universe are getting on for 50 billion lightyears away if memory serves. The Universe didn't spring into existence at its current size, after all, so we can actually see things much further away than a simplistic calculation suggests.