Gerard Van der Leun has some thoughts on saving Hubble.

Gerard's pitchfork attack of an argument basically has two tines:

1- HST has been ordained as a "spiritual asset"

2- An ad hominem attack against people he describes as "bureaucrats and sold-out scientists".

His argument is not substantive and it either intentionally or unintentionally ignores the conclusions of the Gehman board.

Nothing is really new on Earth or in space. Similar whining from the "peanut gallery" was heard way back in 1965 when the Advanced Orbiting Solar Observatory Satellite project was cancelled.

The core of my argument is based on a personal opinion that the risks/benefits ratio of sending the Shuttle to HST is a big negative. Losing another Shuttle will certainly result in the immediate retirement of the last two remaining Shuttles. We do need to keep the last three Shuttles operational until the CEV is operational. I favor the most conservative operational limits in order to extend the life of the Shuttle program. I do not fall in Gerard's pigeonhole of "bureaucrats and sold-out scientists". I am a simple and realistic (I hope) observer of space flight activities.

This writer must admit that part of my argument my argument in favor of trashing HST does not rise to the high standards of logic, science or pure economics. I have a "hunch" that the potential gains from a return to the Moon and going to Mars far outweigh the potential of HST. HST was a wonderful and valuable tool, but it is now time to press on and build newer, better tools.