Should we let Hubble Telescope die?

It appears that the white house has asked NASA to scrap the mission that will save the aging Hubble Space Telescope (HST). The mission to refurbish the HST is expected to cost over a billion dollars, and the white house thinks that NASA can make better use of the funds.In my opinion this would be a great loss for science. When you consider the amount of scientific data gained from the HST, and then factor in the idea that NASA has already built new cameras and lenses for Hubble that will peer even deeper into space, makes this an absurd. Hubble’s best has yet to come.So I ask you this: with no immediate plans for a replacement for the HST in the works, would it be a better to put the billion dollars elsewhere and not refurbish the HST letting it fall into the atmosphere, or should NASA go ahead with the mission, replace the gyroscopes and lenses and gain even more valuable scientific data?This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-22-2005 15:18 AM

Thread copied to the Should we let Hubble Telescope die? thread in the Coffee House forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.