A telescope on the moon will not need any gyroscopes. The first Hubble visit was to fix a manufacturing/testing flaw impossible in a radio telescope.
Arecibo's failure would also be impossible, as there is no oxidation and no weather on the moon. The only likely failure mode would be from metal fatigue as a consequence of temperature swings, but they are 100% predictable.
Maybe you are not aware of the very large difference between an optical telescope and a radio telescope? Optical telescopes always have many precision moving parts. Radio telescopes often have none at all.
Anyway, in ten years, given promised SpaceX Starship progress, a visit will be much cheaper than a single Shuttle visit to ISS. Probably such progress will end up turning on thousands of heat-shield tiles not each needing a diaper change after each flight, as the current design seems to require.
Arecibo's failure would also be impossible, as there is no oxidation and no weather on the moon. The only likely failure mode would be from metal fatigue as a consequence of temperature swings, but they are 100% predictable.
Maybe you are not aware of the very large difference between an optical telescope and a radio telescope? Optical telescopes always have many precision moving parts. Radio telescopes often have none at all.
Anyway, in ten years, given promised SpaceX Starship progress, a visit will be much cheaper than a single Shuttle visit to ISS. Probably such progress will end up turning on thousands of heat-shield tiles not each needing a diaper change after each flight, as the current design seems to require.