Quote:
Originally posted by grumpyolddude
And nowhere at the site that you linked to was the Spitzer declared to be a replacement for the Hubble.
|
You are, of course, absolutely correct. However, since the Hubble program has already been beheaded, we have no recourse or alternative but to call the Spitzer telelscope *a replacement* as a means for framing the current situation in as positive a light as possible -- even if that was *not* NASA's original intent. It was my only goal to point out that another, similar, program existed for all of the star-gazers like myself.
Naturally, it would have been ideal to keep the Hubble in orbit for as long as possible, even if the images it generated were of a lesser quality than those of Spitzer -- better some images than none, no? I concur with you in that the Hubble has had its contribution to science cut short as a result of (debateably poor) decisions to pursue other objectives -- like a child leaving toys strewn about the house. Its a shame to lose such a productive project to nothing more than budget cuts and it leaves me wishing for a private entity to purchase the satellite and takeover operation and maintenance. Nonetheless, Hubble is dying as all good things do.
I, for one, am hopeful for Spitzer's capabilities and eventual fame. When all of this Mars rover bit is over and out of the news, hopefully, the images generated from the Spitzer program will begin to come to public light. This, I hope, will begin to generate the same positive public enthusiasm that Hubble created (after the corrective maintenance).