In article <3z4dd.19404$vZ5.8734@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
Matt Giwer  <jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com> wrote:

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.

Infrared, ultraviolet, and x-rays don't get through the Earth's atmosphere 
very well.  (Why do you think visible light is visible?)


-- 
"When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he 
calls everything foolish." -- Ecclesiastes 10:3, New American Bible