So NASA cancels a shuttle maintance mission and says it's cheaper to

(1) re-write the shuttle software program to work with three gyros
operational instead of four; then probably with two instead of three
(we don't even know this is POSSIBLE yet)

(2) design, test, and built a new experiental robot spacecraft that
when launched will rendezvous with the Hubble, attach to it, then
guide it to splashdown in a remote part of the ocean (we don't know if
this is POSSIBLE either)

I find it hard to believe that a single shuttle trip to Hubble to do
regular maintenance will be cheaper than these very risky, unproven
elaborate programs.

As far as that goes, what happens if Bush loses the election and the
next President disagrees with his plans for NASA? Then several
billion dollars will be spent, and many priceless missions canceled,
for nothing at all.

I'm as much of a fan of a mission to the moon and to Mars, but I
believe that NASA should not act on what the President says. Changes
in space policy of this magnitude must be approved by Congress, and
officially written into law after lengthy public debate. Otherwise
we're just chasing our tail like a dog.

Bill Clark
http://home.austin.rr.com/whcii/