The telescope was launched into orbit in 1999 and has been a tremendous value to astrophysics. Although it is showing signs of it's age, and it is not as capable or cost effective to operate as the James Webb telescope; it still offers scientists much needed capacity and logistics capability that come with having two telescopes in orbit instead of just one.
One of the fascinating parts about the telescope is it's resiliance and the dedication of the staff who control it. For example, to maximize the usable lifespan of the anti-radiation shielding, and to prevent radiation damage to sensitive features, the position of the craft is constantly being planned and adjusted relative to the sun to balance radiation exposure and maximize observation time at various targets. Much like telling a small child "don't stare directly at the sun" as they take in as much information about their surroundings as possible.
I have been wondering about binary star systems. I think some of them are human scale orbital periods.
This just really feels like someone trying to interject a pet peeve. Whether the peeve is valid or not, it's not the problem here.
Astronomers have thousands of interesting things they would like to point their telescopes at. There are thousands of capable ground stations that could take the easy targets, and only 2 x-ray satellites which should be used only for the highest value targets where absolute clarity and resolution is required. But if you start obstructing those ground stations, the workload must be taken over by just 2 satellites.
Ground stations are valued because they help solve the capacity planning problem. More usable telescopes === more observation time. Having more ground stations frees up the 2 satellite telescopes for truly stunning shots.
Chandra and James Webb are not the same type of telescope either. How is this relevant?
But since Hubble doesn't look towards the Earth, it won't see as many as from Earth.