We must never stop reaching for the stars

The Times (U.K.) ^ | 02/03/03 | Mick Hume

[from occupied ga]

I dunno, that depends on quie a few factors

Let's take mars probe as example. Mars probes have a nasty habit of failing before the send back any data (secret martian x-ray laser installations zapping them?) It is one hell of a lot cheaper to just send another robot than try to send a person to fix them.

The one exception to this is the Hubble, and I'm not sure it's even worth fixing the hubble any more. The Keck telescopes surpass the Hubble in resolution using active optics and cost (depending on how you read 1/500 to 1/250 as much) Just think what sort of images of the univers we'd get if even 1/10 of that Hubble money were spent on Keck technology.

[Constantine XIII]

Keck is brand new, though, while hubble is old as dirt. The Next Generation Space Telescope will make Hubble look like Mr. Magoo, heh heh. The one in the works AFTER NGST should be powerful enough to resolve earth-size worlds around other stars as dots, IIRC. I THINK it involves sending several telescopes into solar orbit and taking advantage of the huge baseline for interferometry.

Defense satellites are an entirelly different matter. These things will be shooting and getting shot at. They'll need maintenence in order to keep on fighting. A small manned orbital repair station would help keep these suckers going. It wouldn't be nearly as expensive as a skylab or intnl space station. It wouldn't do science; it would be a greasemonkey paradise, filled mainly with tools, spares, and ammo.

Cheaper to send three men up to replace out of kilter widgets and reload missiles on 20 satellites for the cost of 2-3 sattelites than to replace them entirely as they get skragged or malfunction. IMHO, o' course :)