Victor wrote:

Pierre wrote:

Don't forget Bush wants the end of Hubble and want s to deicde what's good in science...

Actually it is NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe who decided that fixing Hubble is not worth an astronaut's life or losing another shuttle.  A board of investigation was set up to determine the risks involved.  I personally think the risk is not that high and that a human service mission should go ahead as planned.

    Hubble is a sentimental thing.

    At least once a year for the last five years I have read of a new telescope coming on line that advertises having a better resolution than Hubble.

    I thought the reason was scientific investigation not sentimentality. We are getting better resolution than Hubble. We do not have launchers which can put a large enough mirror in orbit to compete with the earth telescopes.

    Is there a rational reason for saving Hubble? In fact, is there a rational reason for continuing work on its replacement in orbit? Can the same dollars produce even better earth based telescopes?

    Resources are finite and NASA has them for space telescopes. THe money does not transfer to earth telescopes so it is not a tradeoff.