Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
Not sure how Spitzer fits in your classification scheme, Drbuzz0.
It may be said to occupy a niche in the IR that is complementary to that of the HST in the optical ...
Also, how about Galex? Not at all a competitor to the HST (so different in so many ways), but it does have " basically stuff with a lens and CCD and optical sensors, as opposed to a scintillation imager or something similar. And intended for broad use for stars, galaxies etc etc." |
Yes I realize that it's a very poorly defined category when I simply say "General purpose optical" telescope. I don't mean to sound like I don't know what I'm an idiot: I just don't know how to say it better than that. I guess spritzer would.
As I think of all the things that the HST has been part of and all the now-iconic images and the discoveries, it's almost unbelievable. I guess my best interpretation is that the HST is really the only real example of it's type.
I'd love to see the Hubble be replaced by something even more capable. Of course, I'd love even more to see it be augmented by something more capable and remain in service as long as possible. I'd also love to see four HST type telescopes in operation... or for that matter seven ... or maybe 18. (I'm sure there are plenty of things to keep them all busy at. Yes it would be expensive... but... it's not like there aren't a few examples of more expensive investments that returned less than a single space telescope has).
Also, there is a fringe benifit of an optical telescope:
When Joe non-astronomer says
"What the hell have you got to show me for all my tax money and spent up there with that there space rocket and your moon men walking around"
the reply "Well, we now have a much better idea of how nebula form new stars and how galaxies move relative to each other. And it looks like *THIS*"
He is likely to respond "Oh ok. Well... er.. keep that up. oh and also...can I get a poster of that for my rec room?"