Hubble's Cost Still Justified?

Annual costs for maintaining Hubble run around 230 million. I have to admit though I'm not convinced adaptive optics are better in all ways. The story does say the resolution was much much better, but it didn't say how long it took and what was involved in getting that resolution. Considering how much uncharted space there is out there, would it really be cheaper to do deep sky surveys with mountain based telescopes with adaptive optics. I don't know, maybe.

I'd like to see a larger, more powerful space telescope, but I guess we're gonna send guys to the moon again instead. Awesome.

Just imagine sticking the Keck telescope on the far side of the moon. You could take deep space images that could be exposed for months at a time instead of the 8 to 12 hours that you are limited to on earth, not to mention what you could do with a radio telescope that was free of the cacophony of RF noise earth based systems are limited by.

The trouble with the HST is not funding, it is misinformation. There is no replacement or equivalent "asset" in space now and there will not be for a long time to come. True, the Keck Observatory sports the largest aperture thus giving it, by definition, greater resolution at a given wavelength, but the Keck only observes in the NIR part of the spectrum. This is not a replacement for visible information from both scientific and esthetic points of view. The difference? It took the HST with perfect seeing 280 hours in 800 sessions to produce the Ultra Deep Field image. There is nothing on the ground that can do this. Repeat, there is nothing on the ground that can reproduce the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image (HUDF). The Keck simply cannot produce images like this as adaptive optics do not remove the atmosphere, but they do greatly improve the seeing through it. The Keck was sent in to produce vital confirmatory data on the spectra of numerous galaxies within the HUDF (Treu et al, Jan 2005 DEEP2 Collaboration, and more), but this is not imaging. The Keck is a true wonder which gets better with advancing projects, but it simply cannot replace the HST. Our lawmakers need to hear a unified and informed voice on matters like this. The spreading of misinformation does not contribute to good decision making.

In Jorrie's defense, he only stated that the resolution was better, which is correct to a point. I agree with you for the need to continue funding for Hubble, actually I'd like to see a new and improved space telescope.

As for lawmakers, a unified voice wouldn't matter, they only listen to money.

The prime objective of most politicans is tocome reelected. To do this they will say anything to pander to the lowest i.q. in their voting area. The true worth and bennifit of anything is lost on them. Too bad we don't require a knowledge of the issues in order to be permitted to vote.