Replies

As you seem well aware, the Hubble has already met its objectives. With the new interferometer at Keck it there is not a major scientific reason to keep it up. Did you see where Cal Tech and Cornell (I think) are going to build a 25 meter scope in the mountains of Chile not far from the ESO observatory. They are also plans for a 30 and a 50 meter along the lines of CalTech's CELT project.

While there are some academics carping about this - and it is unclear how much of their motivation comes from careerism or even a disdain for the GOP - this Hubble business is way overhyped and perhaps motivated less by science than it is the election cycle. The national strategy for the next phase of astronomy instruments is quite excellent, well thought out and in the process of implementation. With using Gemini and other earth bound scopes as survey instruments, using Keck until VELT or something like it comes up as a large earth bound scope, bridging Spritzer and the up coming Hershel space borne platform until Webb is up and the upgrade of the VLA and the new ALMO project. We shall be in great shape, the best shape every, really. If Hubble lasts it will just be gravy.

The future of space based telescopes in in other wavelength than the optical, and in any event at this point earth based scopes actually are better for this wavelength.

That being said, I do wish that they would goose the schedule for the Webb. I would hate to see the Euros have all the fun with the Herschel.

There is a valid idea in keeping Hubble on the hot plate as long as there are scientists who need to use it. For the combined goals of research and learning in graduate astronomy, it could continue to be a way to get viewing time. If we drop Hubble, then the lines of researchers queued for observing slots just gets longer.

Yes, other 'scopes will surpass Hubble, but they by no means makes Hubble irrelevant or obsolete.