Damon Hill wrote:

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?



And the ground based ones are far easier to service and modify than a
space-based alternative; one of the most advanced recent telescope
arrays is the Keck twin telescope array in Hawaii. The Keck telescope
cost around one hundred and forty million dollars to build, which is
about the price of two to two and one-half Shuttle flights.
Hubble on the other hand cost around one and one half billion dollars,
plus the cost of the Shuttle servicing missions to it.
Even the proposed OWL (OverWhelmingly Large) telescope plan to build a
scope with a _one hundred meter_ wide mirror is expected to cost less
than one billion dollars. You could lay a couple entire Shuttle launch
stacks on that mirror with room to spare.

Pat