That got your attention 
But seriously, perhaps we should have let Hubble die? It's a moot point now, the service mission will go forward soon. Setting aside the emotional attachment of the general public and the home state politics (Maryland's congressional delegation, where the STSI is HQ'd, led the charge for a repair mission in Congress), is the additional $1 billion cost worth the human and technical risks? A couple of points:
1. COST: $1 billion is a big down payment on a new optical/UV/near IR space telescope. If you use off the shelf technology you could certainly orbit a new telescope for less than the $4.5 billion cost of the Webb. Especially if you keep in simple - no Beryllium folding mirror. A KH-12 spy sat (on which the Hubble design is based) is $1 - $2 billion depending on how you interpret the budget.
2. TECHNICAL RISK: The repair mission will require fixing several things that were not designed to be fixed in space, the ACS and the STIS. These two instruments took up most of the HST's observing time in recent years (prior to their respective demise) and are responsible for most of the science. Yes, the WFPC3 will give great UV to near IR coverage, but that could have been incorporated into a replacement.
3. HUMAN RISK: The space shuttle is a death trap. 2% chance for catastrophic failure. Congress, NASA, and the space-industrial complex are hopelessly attached to the shuttle and the tens of thousands of jobs it provides. It can be both cheaper and safer to get people to space. The Russians do it on a shoe string budget with what is basically an SS-6 ICBM designed in 1957. We can do better for much less $$$.
Had a decision been made years ago, we would be looking forward to a replacement becoming operational in the next year or two. No one would have cared when the Navy brought down Hubble with an ABM 10 years from now.
But seriously, perhaps we should have let Hubble die? It's a moot point now, the service mission will go forward soon. Setting aside the emotional attachment of the general public and the home state politics (Maryland's congressional delegation, where the STSI is HQ'd, led the charge for a repair mission in Congress), is the additional $1 billion cost worth the human and technical risks? A couple of points:
1. COST: $1 billion is a big down payment on a new optical/UV/near IR space telescope. If you use off the shelf technology you could certainly orbit a new telescope for less than the $4.5 billion cost of the Webb. Especially if you keep in simple - no Beryllium folding mirror. A KH-12 spy sat (on which the Hubble design is based) is $1 - $2 billion depending on how you interpret the budget.
2. TECHNICAL RISK: The repair mission will require fixing several things that were not designed to be fixed in space, the ACS and the STIS. These two instruments took up most of the HST's observing time in recent years (prior to their respective demise) and are responsible for most of the science. Yes, the WFPC3 will give great UV to near IR coverage, but that could have been incorporated into a replacement.
3. HUMAN RISK: The space shuttle is a death trap. 2% chance for catastrophic failure. Congress, NASA, and the space-industrial complex are hopelessly attached to the shuttle and the tens of thousands of jobs it provides. It can be both cheaper and safer to get people to space. The Russians do it on a shoe string budget with what is basically an SS-6 ICBM designed in 1957. We can do better for much less $$$.
Had a decision been made years ago, we would be looking forward to a replacement becoming operational in the next year or two. No one would have cared when the Navy brought down Hubble with an ABM 10 years from now.
