OM om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org
wrote in :

...The problem there is that the design of JWST is flawed in the fact
that it's not intended to work in the visible spectrum, which is where
the "holy ****!!!" pictures are truly born than catch the attention of
Joe Punchclock, Ethyl Soapsjunkie and Hipster Treehugger and make them
go "holy ****!!!' and for a brief time get addicted enough to know
full well you don't **** with your pusher and they should quit
bitching about their tax dollars going to NASA.

Those ground based telescopes are producing similarly dramatic
shots (some 'enhanced' for dramatic effect, I'm sure); they're doing
much better than I thought could be possible and they're the
competition. An improved Hubble's got to compete for funding with
that in mind; how much better could it be made without going to a
much larger mirror and much greater cost?

It's an imperfect world.

...And its defeatest attitudes like this which allow things like
Hubble and Skylab to fall from the sky when they're still salvageable.
Just because it's an imperfect world doesn't mean we should accept it
and allow it to **** things up. We should fight to *improve* those
perfections, especially if it flies in the face of those who prefer to
allow those imperfections to limit their lives.

In the short term, fixing up Hubble via a Shuttle mission would
keep the images coming, but it might compete with funding for a
replacement, hopefully significantly improved.

I'd like to have both, of course. What's on the table for future
missions, BTW? We're not the only ones having this debate.

--Damon