[fluffy bunny]

Opinions?

[snake0024]

Yes-but for only as long as it takes to get its replacement into orbit

[Archren]

I'm with snake. I want the money to be blown in space no matter what, and I'd like to get as much use out of Hubble as possible, but not at the expense of the better telescopes that are being prepared. Some of the newer projects are going to be amazing!

[kater]

Definitely with the above, space is still the most exciting and enormous frontier which remains an utter mystery and while the money probably could be better spent elsewhere realistically it would just end up in the defence budget so keep it up there till the new one is ready.

[Cardo]

Yes-but for only as long as it takes to get its replacement into orbit

Thats my opinion too. I think that we must put our money on space research, because some time, maybe already after some 1 000 000 years when the sun collapses we must have place to escape to. And in the meantime I think that the more we know about space the more we apreciate our world and work for preserving our valuable environment. We wouldn't wan't it to change into a desert planet without no atmosphere in a few hundred years?

[Blabla]

Isn't there already a new generation telescope en route? heard it'll in space in 2012 or someting. The proble with Hubble is that reparations are indesirable now (for NASA) after the Columbia disaster.

[fluffy bunny]

I think that's true, although Hubble's already up there, and the new telescope may hace problems with the initial setting up. Is it not better to keep Hubble in service in case Hubble2's launch gets cocked up somehow?

I think the people in charge had a finite budget, and had to choose between maintaining Hubble (we learn more and more everyday, but at a slowish rate) or funding an attempt for Mars- double or nothing in terms of technological discovery (plus a greater potential for propoganda and public interest in the space program). Mars goes ahead, but hubble's been put on the back burner.

[Radone]

I'd like to see the Hubble maintained, but the cost of continuing the fairly useless shuttle program and the equally worthless space station doesn't allow for that. The shuttle should never have been built and neither should the space station, which really is just a project funded by NASA for the Russian space agency to keep a paycheck going to their otherwise out of work rocket scientists.
Hopefully, NASA will scrap the shuttle altogether, even if this means we don't return to space for 5-10 years, and invest the billion dollars it costs per shuttle flight into a less expensive launch vehicle. I don't say safer because anytime you strap yourself onto the top of a rocket, it, by definition isn't safe.
That and get us back to the moon with the new launch vehicle, and from their to Mars.

[Shanoncia]

I vote that it should be saved despite the fact it's near to useless once compared to new methods. I don't pretend to be an expert but some things are obvious even to the general public. I don't know. Money is crap to me. It's thrwn away all teh time. Why not here? At least the hubble reeps some benefits. Much better then the money NASA wasted on the dolphin project. Millions and even billions are thrown away all the time for useless crap. What gives? As long as I've enough to get by I'm happy... come to think of it, I don't even need technology. Things are fine. Why not just work with what we have? :rolleyes:

[asimovian]

In principle I would be for saving Hubble.
How much would it cost and what can we get out of it ? I suppose these are the questions which need to be realistically asked.