Derek Lyons wrote:

Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com> wrote:

    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?

No amount of money can produce a better earth based telescope.  It's
not about resolving power, nor is it about light gathering capability.

    As I have said, I am not an astronomer nor in the telescope business. However I understand light gathering to be directly proportional to the area of the primary mirror or lens.

It's about IR and UV astronomy.  Those wavelengths don't penetrate the
atmosphere, and the only way to observe in them is to get above it.

    I said I do not see an issue with those being in orbit. Perhaps if the first decade had not been "wasted" on visible light ... ;(