Ronn Blankenship wrote:
>
>>> The main problem with keeping Hubble in service until
>>> after the Webb telescope is in place is that doing so
>>> would cost about $150 million each year.
>>
>> ???
>>
>> Where does this number come from?
>
> <quote>
> (...) at a cost of at least $150 million a year.
> <unquote>
>
It still doesn't make sense. Is it the cost of
_getting_ and processing the images? If so, then
it's not the cost of operating the thing, but the
cost of the scientific output it produces - which
will be almost the same if you replace it by a newer
model.
>
>> I would argue for something 100 times less expensive.
>
> Perhaps you should put in a bid to NASA to run it, then . . .
>
Who me? A dangerous alien? I might use it to spy the
USA and sell the information to North Korea!
Alberto Monteiro
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
