In article ,
Damon Hill wrote:
We can do better, and are. Both in orbit,
and on the ground. Astronomy will not be
seriously impared by Hubble's demise.

What comparable telescopes are in orbit, or planned and funded?

As for the ground, note that every Hubble observing-time proposal has to
explain why ground-based telescopes cannot do the job.

Hubble's demise is going to put a serious crimp in some areas of
astronomy, and not all of this will be remedied by JWST -- even assuming
it flies and works, to say nothing of staying on schedule.

But an updated Hubble using that leftover
mirror and updated instruments/systems could probably be kept rather busy.

Starting a decade or so from now, the earliest time it could realistically
fly even if it were identified as a major priority now.

Hubble is dying after having served us so well;
time to put our efforts into a replacement.

Hubble remains repairable with quite minor risk, and should be kept
operating until its replacement is *operational*.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |