Ronn Blankenship wrote: > > The main problem with keeping Hubble in service until > after the Webb telescope is in place is that doing so > would cost about $150 million each year. > ???
Where does this number come from?
<quote>
HUBBLE SUPPORTERS REQUEST THREE-YEAR PROJECT EXTENSION from The Baltimore Sun
WASHINGTON - Supporters of the Hubble Space Telescope asked NASA yesterday to extend its life for three years beyond the shutdown date of 2010 - at a cost of at least $150 million a year.
Steven V.W. Beckwith, director of the Space Telescope Science Institute at the Johns Hopkins University, which operates the instrument, told a National Aeronautics and Space Administration panel the money will ensure that Hubble continues to capture pictures that help scientists unravel mysteries about the origin and nature of the universe.
"It's up there, it works well and it's pretty easy to service it," Beckwith told a group of astronomers and planetary scientists appointed to look into Hubble's future.
But there was far from unanimous agreement on extending Hubble's life. <http://www.sunspot.net/news/local/howard/bal-ho.te.hubble01aug01.story>
<unquote>
I would argue for something 100 times less expensive.
Perhaps you should put in a bid to NASA to run it, then . . .
-- Ronn! :)
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
