# Hubble Telescope

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubble-telescope/174262>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [May 10, 2003, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubble-telescope/174262 "2003-05-10T03:26:30Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 5\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Major\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Major\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Major_Kong)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2003, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubble-telescope/174262/1 "2003-05-10T03:26:30Z")

</div>

Could the Hubble have been put into orbit without manned space flight?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2003, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubble-telescope/174262/2 "2003-05-10T03:29:54Z")

</div>

while I am not an expert, what I do know of the space program indicates that it could have been launched without manned space flight, but could never have been repaired initially or upgraded years later without manned flight.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2003, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubble-telescope/174262/3 "2003-05-10T03:37:08Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Qadgop the Mercotan \*  
> it could have been launched without manned space flight, but could never have been repaired initially or upgraded years later without manned flight.

True. Of course, building and launching new Hubbles as needed would be cheaper than having a manned space program standing by to repair them.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2003, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubble-telescope/174262/4 "2003-05-10T04:03:42Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> Of course, building and launching new Hubbles as needed would be cheaper than having a manned space program standing by to repair them.

There’s no “of course” about it. Do you have some figures to back that up ?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2003, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubble-telescope/174262/5 "2003-05-10T04:12:08Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Xema \*  
> \*\*True. Of course, building and launching new Hubbles as needed would be cheaper than having a manned space program standing by to repair them. \*\*

Not really, because the Hubble cost $2.2 billion at launch. A shuttle launch runs about $500 million. So, if the US had decided to construct a _new_ Hubble instead of sending astronauts up to do a repair, it would have been more expensive. Not to mention, it would have taken longer to accomplish, since they started designing the Hubble back in the 1970s. [Cite](http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/facts_.and._figures/quick_facts/index.shtml#cost) and [cite.](http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/facts_.and._figures/telescope_history/telescope_history_3.shtml)