I'm curious what others on the List think about the abandonment of Hubble.
In my mind, it seems like the kind of hard, but necessary decision that our
space program so desperately needs. As I understand, Hubble's life
couldn't be extended forever. Moreover, the survival of Hubble is
inextricably linked to the space shuttle/deathtrap. Since we absolutely,
positively, have to dump the space shuttle - the loss of Hubble is an
unfortunate side effect.
I'm not sure that the abandonment of the Shuttle means we can't maintain HST. Are we going to abandon maneuverable spacecraft altogether and with them the ability to repair and maintain expensive satellites?
I would want to look at the cost/benefit before abandoning Hubble including the cost of putting a replacement up there. If maintaining HST impacts funding a new generation telescope, I'd be for letting it go, but if it means giving up the telescopes capability altogether I'd consider the decision incredibly myopic (yuk yuk).
We already have other stuff up there but I don't know how it compares with Hubble. Ronn?
-- Doug _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
