Repair Costs for Hubble Are Vexing to Scientists

wallstreetprodigy23 writes "Some scientists questioned whether a repair mission for the aging Hubble Space Telescope was worth a projected cost of $1 billion to $2 billion at a hearing of the House Science Committee on Wednesday. Both scientists and legislators praised the orbiting observatory for the many contributions it had made to science since it was launched in 1990. But the telescope needs servicing to continue working... "

Comments

What is truly vexing are the costs...

[Anonymous Coward]

...of the ISS. Is that money pit doing anything for science but falling apart?

Re:Peanuts

[TheFlyingGoat]

There's two things to respond to in your post:

1. $1-2 billion might not be a good investment for the Hubble. If that money is applied to the design of a replacement satellite, or possibly a replacement for the shuttles, then we might gain even more by NOT spending on the Hubble. It's a cost tradeoff issue, and is hardly a simple decision to make. It's a decision that can only be made when looking at the entire NASA budget (which Slashdot posts never do).

I'd personally like to see $1-2 billion go towards a replacement for the shuttles, since that would greatly reduce the maintenance costs for satellites down the line.

2. The anti-Bush rhetoric is getting old. There's many reason we should or shouldn't be in Iraq, but the fact remains that we ARE in Iraq. We should not leave anytime soon (most reasonable people can agree with that), since the entire thing would have been in vain. So, we're stuck with paying the $80 billion per year for the next few years.

At this point it does no good to complain about the extra money required for Iraq, since it's going there no matter what. It's far more important to determine how agencies will make better use of their reduced funding... like deciding if the Hubble should be repaired or if the money should be spent on something else.