You bet it is, Rev. Hubble is at the very least equal to the ISS in terms of it's scientific importance to the world community. It's actual more valuable in terms of pure science, but I don't want to get into a debate about that and derail this very important thread. NASA used to be an agency of dreams and aspirations, and most importantly, creativity and imagination. More and more it appears to be just another bureaucracy. I think we need to infuse some imagination back into our space program, the thirst for knowledge and exploration for knowledge sake alone. No dollar paybacks, projected benefits in terms of cash, but rather because the human species is a curious one. We seek knowledge simply so we can know more about ourselves and the place we call home.
:::sigh::: Even an old guy like me can have dreams........
Back to the real world. From your article......
QUOTE
The decision meant that Hubble, which has been sending home spectacular images of the universe for more than a decade and has virtually rewritten astronomy textbooks, will run out of juice by 2007 or 2008, several years earlier than planned. Once the telescope's batteries and gyroscopes wear out, NASA plans to send a robotic spacecraft to latch onto it and dump it in the ocean.
It seems to me that if it's possible to send a robotic spacecraft up to Hubble to latch onto it and destroy it, it should be possible to send a robotic rocket to Hubble that will move it to a safe orbit and stabilize it there until NASA gets their act together and can fix the darn thing. What's so hard about that? Am I missing something here? I betcha I could figure out the parameters on how to do it, I used to be a rocket scientist ya know.... Matter of fact I had a similar idea for saving SkyLab and darn near got fired for sending it to the President of the company.
I've since grown much older, maybe not much wiser, but I still have my dreams.