Charles Buckley wrote:

Scott Lowther wrote:
Michael Gallagher wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html

Not good news; here's hoping Bush follows through with the replacement
telescope!


Simple answer: sell Hubble. Let whoever buys it sell the images/scope
time... and let *them* service it.

Hubble has been a hell of a success story. But it is rather old and
ailing; if NASA thinks the only way to service it is with
half-billion-dollar Shuttle missions, then perhaps owndership should go
to someone who could service it with, say, two Falcon V launches... one
with the parts, one with the Burt Rutan Spaceship 3 capsule for the
repair crew...


You know, that's not a bad idea.

[God] Of COURSE it's a good idea! [/God]

NASA has already amortized out
most of it's costs associated with Hubble. Puts the onus on the
end user to maintain the system.

Indeed. While I have been more than happy to download high-rez Hubble
images for free... I've also happily purchased Hubble image posters.
There is a market for scientific equipement and their products. Those
who want to use Hubble to look at, say, M-31 should be willing to pony
up the money to do so. If they can find a far cheaper way of doing so
than using the Shuttle, then more power to 'em. And it seems
unreasonable in the extreme to me that the *only* way to service the HST
is with a giant reusable payload shroud that costs a half-billion-plus
every time you pull the trigger on it. If you could get that servicing
mission down to twenty million dollars every five years, that's 4
million per year or about eleven grand per day. Get four hundred
thousand people (worldwide) to subscribe to the HST download service at,
say, ten dollars per year, then your servicing missions are paid for.


--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address