[kingu]

Visually, we’re exceeding the quality of images from Hubble right now. Even with these modifications, ground based observations will likely exceed the Hubble before the launch of the next telescope. You have only what datastream you program in to capture and transmit from space, receive and decode. Whereas traditional land observations tend to have a much broader recording depth, in multiple mediums, with the ability to change observation devices on whim. So it’ll likely always be that way until we have a simple, repeatable method to go up into space.

And the only way we’ll get that is if we build hundreds of vehicles, not a scant handful. If you don’t mass produce it, it’s going to become outdated very quickly. And the number of missions you can run is extremely limited.

[dr_lew]

What? What? The claim that land based telescopes are matching or surpassing Hubble is based on the success of sophisticated techniques for overcoming atmospheric distortion.

I think the argument remains largely economic. You can support some number N of these ground instruments for the cost of 1 Hubble, and the scientific return is judged by some measure to be equivalent.

Still, the Hubble enjoys unique advantages, and it would be a great mistake not to exploit them to the fullest, IMHO. It’s just about the best thing we’ve got going in LEO, and if it’s too dangerous to service it, well, let’s just go back to bed.