I've been reading about the Hipparcos Satellite recently and it seems it was the first big telescope with precision-measuring devices to accurately pinpoint a star's location in the sky.
I know Hipparcos was launched in 1989, and Hubble didn't come till 1990 (and its optics weren't corrected till 1993), but I thought Hubble was planned a lot earlier and could do such things as star mapping.
Am I wrong? Can't Hubble accurately measure star positions? And it seems to me that Hubble's large mirror could do it better than Hipparcos.
The only things I can think of:
Maybe Hubble was too busy booked by other scientists wanting to study other things like the planets, or searching for asteroids. Maybe they auction time on it and other interests have been willing to pay more?
Maybe Hipparcos was designed differently to see stars better. I know Hubble can only view the visible and slightly ultraviolet light, and maybe some near infrared too. But that seems enough to view the stars and map their location. Did Hipparcos need to view other parts of the spectrum for some reason?
EDIT: I'm asking this question not because I want to sour-grapes NASA or ESA or anything. I'm trying to understand why different telescopes are apparently needed for similar things. Just looking at Hipparcos compared to Hubble, they look very different. But I could have sworn Hubble is capable of doing the same kind of star mapping.
EDIT 2: My understanding is that Hubble has Control Moment Wheels so it can very finely adjust and maintain its attitude (direction). This, plus Hubble's apparently much bigger light gathering power, seem to imply that it can do the same job as Hipparcos.