In article ,
JimO wrote:
MSNBC - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4580820/

Yes there is a lot of sound and fury. The decision to cancel Hubble isn't
"heart-breaking" and it isn't just "disappointing". It's disgusting.
While most of this article shallowly nitpicks at the comments of this
or that critic, the heart of the matter is this passing rationalization:

As a result, after resuming assembly and servicing and resupplying
the International Space Station - NASA's priority project, involving
major foreign partnerships - O'Keefe writes that "the earliest NASA
could launch a servicing mission to the HST ... would be Spring 2007."

This is what it is really all about. The space station is NASA's
priority. Not a moonbase, not a manned mission to Mars, not the Mars
rovers, and certainly not Hubble. The space station is still eating
both NASA's budget and the shuttle's schedule. It isn't just because
the station has major foreign partnerships; as if Hubble doesn't?
Rather it's because the space station is NASA's big white elephant,
and it has to go in front.
--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *