Why Hubble is worth every penny

A planetary nebula captured with Hubble.

(Credit: NASA)

Space is an interesting subject. It arguably matters most to our knowledge of life. Understanding issues affecting the universe today will help us recognize them as they impact our lives going forward. And since we simply don't have the ability to explore space the way it would be required to fully understand our history, it's the Hubble Space Telescope that we must rely on to provide that for us.

But it's not without its critics. With each new service mission (including the latest), critics have contended that Hubble simply costs too much for what we're getting. And according to one U.S. legislator, it's to the detriment of other programs.

"We have to make hard choices about whether a Hubble mission is worth it now, when moving ahead is likely to have an adverse impact on other programs, including quite possibly other programs in astronomy," Sherwood Boehlert, a former Republican congressman from New York, said in 2005.

Hubble's cost is certainly high. According to NASA, the telescope has cost the United States $9.6 billion since its launch in 1990. In that time, critics remind us that scientists still haven't determined the real age of the universe; they still don't know, for sure, how the galaxy was formed, and they wonder if all those pictures Hubble sends back are really all that important.

Yes, they are.

Hubble's importance

I won't go into the history of Hubble (after all, you can find that anywhere), but I think it's important, especially as astronauts come back to Earth after improving it, that we consider some of the advancements Hubble has provided.

One of the main goals of Hubble, when it was first launched in 1990, was to measure the rate at which the universe is expanding in an effort to determine its exact age. According to NASA, that rate had errors of up to 50 percent before Hubble launched. Today, the rate of errors is just 10 percent, thanks to Hubble.

In 1994, Hubble helped scientists determine that black holes exist at the heart of every active galaxy. Prior to that discovery, scientists believed that black holes were found only in certain areas or in the middle of a select number of galaxies.

Hubble has also provided scientists with views deep into the universe. With the help of Hubble, scientists are able to see galaxies, supernovas, and other phenomena billions of light years away. That's not important just for the cool pictures. It gives astronomers deeper insight into how galaxies and the universe were formed. And it helps us understand how our own galaxy could act in the future.

Nebulae, which are basically flattened disks of gas and dust, were thought to be the birthplace of planetary systems. Thanks to Hubble, that hypothesis was confirmed when it captured those disks around young stars. It gives us significant insight into the formation of our own planetary system.

I could go on, but the laundry list of advancements Hubble has provided us with is far too long to be documented here. Is it costly? Sure. Could it have been built better to weather space conditions more effectively? Of course.

But for all its faults and costs, they pale in comparison to all of the knowledge Hubble has given us. Simply put, the Hubble Space Telescope has proven its worth. And I don't believe there's any debating that argument.

Check out Don's Digital Home podcast, Twitter stream, and FriendFeed.

[cirque1]

Does anyone ever stop to consider that spending 9.6 billion over almost 20 years is a drop in the bucket compared to what we probably spend on military spy satellites. Boehlert and others who object to real science should take some time to look at the International Space Station cost and compare dollar for dollar how much science is done and what discoveries have been made versus Hubble's scientific accomplishments. I ask the other readers of this article- can you list the 10 greatest scientific accomplishments of the International Space Station? I sure have a problem listing more than 5- none of which match anything that has come out of Hubble.

Instead of complaining about Hubble's cost reconsider that dollar for dollar Hubble has produced more science (high level at that) than probably any other NASA program. How about complaining about the detrimental effects ISS has had on other NASA programs. I work with NASA and have see the dramatic impact that Shuttle costs and the ISS have had on other programs. Heck, we have a bunch of aging remote sensing satellites designed to monitor the Earth (another great NASA accomplishment with great science and a great return on every dollar spent that you rarely hear about in the press) and we can't find the dollars to upgrade this aging and failing remote sensing system. Wonder where those dollars went to. Here is a hint. They are circling around and around the Earth in low orbit in a space station that is a poster boy for corporate welfare.

Let's get our priorities right. ISS is nearly worthless from a scientific standpoint. Hubble is pure gold

[Ted Miller]

Actually I like the ISS but at the same time I also think it to be a wast of money, time and outright dangerous! One slip up and the thing plumits to the earth and what kind of damage could that cause? Remember SkyLab? Well what if the money runs out for the ISS? Whos going to keep it up there? I believe it would have been much better to build a base on the moon. Threre at least we can go back to it from time to time and improve it, building upon it. I f we at certian could not afford it... well, it's not going anywhere.

As to the Hubble Space Telescope, I am sure glad it is there and all the money that was going into land base observatories should be channeled to the ISS since the quality of pictures cannot even be compared.

[BCCM]

I agree. The Hubble has produced some fantastic images unlike anything ever seen before. And besides 10 billion is nothing compared to the billions wasted on high-tech software and hardware for the military. Yeah, and we should be complaining about the detrimental effects ISS has had on other NASA programs.

http://www.bccmeteorites.com/misconduct-planetary.html

[Hokulea]

It's unwise to discount the contributions made by land based observatories on Earth. I was part of a team conducting a near sky survey using the 18" Schmidt telescope at Palomar during the late 80's. At that time this recalcitrant well worn telescope was over 50 years old. During the 8-12 minute exposures we made, on hand cut discs of hyper-sensitized film, it was sometimes necessary to lean on the telescope to get it to track accurately enough. Amongst many notable discoveries made using this old telescope were asteroid 1989 Fc (4581 Asclepius) and Comet SL9.

Asteroid 1989 Fc passed through space that had been occupied by Earth only six hours previously. It was observed on an outbound track some eight days after it's closest approach to Earth. Prior to Mar. 31, 1989, it's orbit hadn't been accurately determined and it was not being tracked. Had it hit the Earth, it would have done so without any warning whatsoever.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4581_Asclepius

"The asteroid passed through the exact position where the Earth was only 6 hours before. Astronomers say that had the asteroid hit Earth, the impact would have been equivalent to one Hiroshima-sized atomic bomb detonating every second for 50 days."

Comet SL9 impacted Jupiter in July of 1994. It put on a spectacular show and served to wake a lot of people up concerning the scale of damage that cometary fragments can wreak on a planet. The energies involved make nuclear weapons look puny. After their discovery of SL9 the Shoemaker's lost their funding and the near sky survey they conducted shut down.

Hubble is a wonderful science instrument but is unsuited for discovering potentially hazardous asteroids that threaten Earth. Terrestrial land based telescopes return a lot of good science that Hubble can't do.

FYI:
http://www.astro.caltech.edu/palomar/18inch.html
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/lists/PHACloseApp.html
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/lists/ClosestComets.html
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/lists/Closest.html
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi
http://members.shaw.ca/andrewlowe/ALL-PHAS.HTM#Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-Earth_object
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth-crosser_asteroid

[Hokulea]

I highly recommend reading this analysis of the effects an asteroid impact by a small and inconsequential bit of space rock on the scale of Asclepius 4581 (1989 Fc).

http://geoverse.brookes.ac.uk/article_resources/gilchristT/gilchristT.htm

http://geoverse.brookes.ac.uk/article_resources/gilchristT/Asclepius_Geoverse.pdf

At this point in time there is nothing that can be done to mitigate any potential impacts by even very small asteroids. Nor is there much interest in formulating any kind of plan to do so.

[daveedvdv]

First, let me say that I'm fascinated by the science of space exploration and that includes the images provided by Hubble. In addition, as a grad student I had financial support that was partly motivated by the issues surrounding Hubble's initial mirror problems.

However, I'm curious about your arguments for "It arguably matters most to our knowledge of life."

And I certainly disagree with "And I don't believe there's any debating that argument."

In general, deep-space exploration has contributed very little to the lives of people not directly involved with it (it certainly has provided a living for scientists, technicians, students, etc. that have worked on it, but that's purely at the expense of tax payers). There are no technologies that have come out of these endeavors into our daily lives. I'd even claim that the knowledge gained hasn't noticeably improved humanity's condition or its prospects.

We love to explore, and perhaps Hubble has inspired some youths to pursue more interesting careers (although I doubt it's significant). But it hasn't -- in my opinion -- be worth it. Better to delay such investments until they're more affordable, and instead spend such sums on projects that will not only make future exploration more efficient, but contribute to our real needs today (I'm thinking education, primarily).

[climber_mike]

I would argue a bit about the notion that space exploration is not worthwhile.

I hate to say it, but eventually (not in our lifetimes) the human race is going to turn the Earth into a barren wasteland filled with toxic air and not enough resources to sustain the population. We'll eventually need to "move" to other planets and I believe eventually that will happen. (not for a VERY long time, but). The issue with waiting on space exploration is a bit like waiting to do your masters thesis until a week before it's due. You need to take baby steps, and discover everything along the way. If you wait on something like space exploration and attempt to do it all at one time people will die, ships will explode and everything will be put on hold because the general population is terrified that it will happen again. People will still die, ships will still explode, but given enough time people are willing to try again and make forward progress.

Simple things like understanding how space affects humans for extended periods of time, what we can grow in space, how to deal with sleep, and normal human bodily functions, etc. (related to eventually going to other planets)

Inventions that people use everyday that we would otherwise might not have. Velcro, scratch resistant lenses, memory foam, ear thermometers, long distant communications, adjustable smoke detectors, cordless tools, the list goes on and on.

Getting to other planets (Mars for example) and finding that there may be some life on another planet, no matter how small, is a HUGE step forward for the people of Earth to finally come to the realization that there can be life on other planets. If anything can be living on another planet, any rational person needs to come to the conclusion that someplace in the VAST universe there are other beings as advanced, and probably more advanced than us.

Plus - who doesn't love an astronaut? I think they are more worthy of fame than someone that hits a ball and runs around some bases, or can dunk a basketball 40 different ways.

[cwlqwp]

second to last paragraph is wrong, just plain incorrect. try doing some research about it. nothing nasa has worked on in the last 20 years has converted directly to consumers because it is high precision ex. (expecialy for deep-space) but if you did some research you could find items that where then used by companies after nasa invented them to improve or make new consumer products.
also you seem to discount the importance of science in general so i guess you wouldn't really care about or understand what finding the exact age of the universe or how galaxies form means to everyday life.

[joepram]

Space exploration has indeed contributed greatly to all of our lives. There have been thousands of technology & product spinoffs from Hubble and other programs that have paid back taxpayers on their investment and improved daily life. See www.nasa.gov/topics/nasalife/index.html . But the main benefit is knowledge. If we lose our desire to explore and understand our universe, if we lose our human curiosity for answers to the big questions and only worry about the stock market, whether our garbage is collected, etc., we lose a critical part of what makes our civilization great. If we pushed off these investments "until they're more affordable" they would never happen -- there will always be more pressing issues at hand. I hope we never get that myopic; our children and their children need our vision and inspiration.

[vamman]

As a grad student I was a bit aloft at why engineers working in this industry were getting paid so handsomely well while an environmentalist working on problems relating to the survival of our species on this planet didn't. Time to whip out the Reality Bat for a moment. We know more about the ******* of the moon then we know about the bottom of the ocean floor - isn't that a scary fact. Billions of gallons of toxic anthropogenic compounds are dumped into our globe's waterbodies, yes that also includes drinking water supplies, and causes what some would believe to be irreparable damage to those water ways. Seems like more of an important issue facing people then fixing an ocular lens on a 20 year old telescope.

The hubble telescope is a complete waste of money in terms of advancement for mankind and I think that the scientific community is likely to be split on this debate but in Reality all this is, is discovery science. Anyone working their ass off doing good life-science's research (and I don't mean the tree hugging, save the bunny rabbit morons) will likely scoff at the idea that this project is receiving this level of funding when issues such as safe drinking water are so fundamentally important to our immediate survival yet completely ignored by most policy makers.

It won't be our knowledge of the solar system that will save us, it will be our knowledge of our planet and our own remediation practices that will. A simple - yet understood by all peoples on this planet issue such as a clean drink of water should be our first and foremost priority. To the guy that suggested we can throw a few species on a dropship and fly them off to a new earth, theres a good book you should read, filled with many fairy tales just like that - its called the Bible!

[TONAFUN]

I beg to differ, such exploration has brought meaning to the lives of many people, as they dared to learn and understand the wonders of the universe. The forces at work in across the vastness of space are at work within us. We are a microcosm of everything else, all knowledge gained is useful. There are many technologies that exist today because of Deep-Space Exploration, every advance in orbital tech has been spawned from the desire for advances in D-SE and all the ancilliary tech that we take for granted such as ziplock bags and toothpaste tubes, cellphone tech, 3d processors, fire resistant materials which protect our firefighters, bullet-proof vests, mag-lev(originally conceptualised as a future means of transport on the moon) etc. We dream of Deep-Space Exploration but we start with Near Orbit, then move to Near Space Exploration, and hopefully if we don't kill ourselves......

[Tronman161]

I could see myself giving those same arguments to quite a few people I know and getting nothing but blank stares in return. For many people, if money (government money) isn't being spent on something practical with direct/immediate benefit to the people, they don't think it's worth it. Many people don't believe in researching things now with no immediate benefit, for the chance of the benefit in the future. It's been my experience that these attitudes have only increased with the economy recently. For average people, they don't care about the origins of the universe, or where black holes are, or how nebulae work, even if their are payoffs for it, and don't see why their money should be going towards it. It's disappointing, but it seems to be the way attitudes are going, at least from my experience.

[Ted Miller]

I believe a lot of money has been wasted by NASA over the years. To think we do have the tecnology to build something better then an ISS that just goes round and round the earth. What we should have built where 3 large spaceships that could travel any where in the solar system. One could travel to the outer planets and one to the inner planets and one that could keep a standard orbit around the earth. ready at any time, one returns the other could go. These could always be rifitted with new engines and science equipment as the tecnology improves. The savings over time could be huge compared to all the satilites, deep space probes and rovers that we just throw away over time. The problem is that we just don't think very big at all.

[celticbrewer]

If we're just talking about money, I'm sure there's far more wasteful items that our government is funding. (Cow fars, Thai prostitutes, etc..) If for nothing else, space money has translated into high tech jobs.

[doctroid2]

"Understanding issues affecting the universe today will help us recognize them as they impact our lives going forward." Gaah! What two-bit MBA program taught you to write like that?

[txstubby]

I wonder how many of the technologies we use today are the descendants of 'blue sky' research, like Hubble. Sometimes just trying to understand how a natural process works can spark a whole new line of applied research that leads to something new and unexpected.

Yes, it's a gamble and most of the time we just increase our collective store of knowledge with no tangible benefits, but occasionally new ideas can spark a revolution that leads to a significant return on investment.

Incidentally a lot of current technology is the result of NASA's research into space exploration (manned and robotic), however due to an act of congress NASA is not allowed to patent it's inventions to allow us to recoup some of our expenditure.

[jlbindc]

I'm an "average person" and I really "don't care about the origins of the universe, or where black holes are, or how nebulae work." I will definitely start to care when the rocket scientists elaborate with better clarity on how "their are payoffs for it." I read with enthusiasm each scientific discovery and am amazed by the cool pictures, but am constantly let down by the price tag when there is no tangible "payoff." If the payoff is a forcast on what our planet or solar system will look like in 20,000,000 years, then I, an average person, really don't care. So there's my challenge to you: Tell me why I, the average person, should care and support these big ticket hobbies? (yes, I used the word "hobbies" to stir the passion)

[cwlqwp]

If you need it to be explained to you then you are a lost cause probably. Most people like you think that research needs an immediate pay off. however its this sort of open research the discovers things like nuclear fussion/fission (best example is the sun which basically got the idea of fission started for scientists), something that has been believed impossible (like the conversion of matter into energy) for hundreds of years to be shown possible and be a viable source of energy. every once in a while a discovery from open research pays off and can entirely rewrite what we think of as possible and impossible, however it takes a lot of research, money, as well as ideas to make this sorts of things happen.

[xcal78]

NASA has made so many inventions over the years. Sure this is about the 'Hubble' but what about all the stuff required to get it up there and maintain it? Go look up what NASA ahs invented then revisit this article.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/ten-nasa-inventions.htm

[graham_glass]

If you're an average person, then you probably pay minimal federal income tax and therefore don't fund NASA anyway. So your question is immaterial.

[ameulen]

The difference from the NASA with what happens in Europe. Is this in my opinion;

In Europe the disadvantage of many bosses like different countries which is a problem for the high staff.

However only a few companies are important for them.

And with you look at the many companies who have to earn from it. Much more checks needed.. Also more expensive.

And Europe does it without people also cheaper. Only Russia has people like your astronauts (cosmonauts)

But for the scientific findings it's not so expensive. I agree with that.

[galileo126]

I agree that scientific exploration is needed to advance our understanding of the universe. Heck, that's why I'm a professional astronomer. It does no good to reduce one's sphere of knowledge to just the orb that is the Earth. So, we must explore outward to understand Earth's past, present and future in the universe.

I could pontificate all day long (sorry, I work nights) about the benefits of astrophysical research and space exploration, so I won't herein. My beef is regarding the Hubble itself. Many discoveries have been made using the Hubble since its placement into orbit in 1990, and as an astronomer I feel we taxpayers got much bang for the buck with this project. However ... I have believed for the past 5 years that Hubble has outlived its benefits. We have been dumping money into this aging light bucket at the expense of other NASA astrophysical projects, whose development and launch have been delayed by years due to a "stolen budget".

The general public (aka - taxpayer) simply wants its pretty picture to make sure they got something for those billions. I get it. I want to see those pictures too. However, by extending the life of Hubble we have put off the next generation of space telescopes, ones whose engineering lessons of Hubble have been incorporated into their design and fabrication - ones with far greater capability across the EM spectrum.

I believe we've just put in a new sound system and spark plugs into an old cluncker , whose cost of doing such far outweighs the cost of those items themselves by a factor of 100. Would you spend $100,000 to have someone change out the engine in your '90 Chevy ? Or, would spend that $100,000 toward a car of the current model year, with all the latest bells and whistles that current technology had to offer? Sure, the new Widefield Camera is current. We astronomers are constantly making new camera systems (imagers, spectrometers, etc) and placing them on 100 yr-old telescopes. That's easy (and cheap by comparison) to do on the ground. But when it comes to space-based platforms, ie - the observatory itself, not just the camera - it is time to update to the 21st century.

Sorry folks, Hubble has stolen too much money from too many projects, causing stagnation (and in some cases, outright cancellation) of NASA's next generation projects. We're still living in the year 1990, and the Maryland Space Agency has a powerful lobby to keep her up there... The problem is that the interested taxpayer has very little knowledge of how Hubble's "extended mission" is being funded. Money from Hubble's successor (James Webb Space Telescope) was taken, as well as many other projects in development within the NASA community, ones who capabilities far exceed Hubble's.

Do you just want pretty pictures, or do you want greater capability to obtain data which could expand our knowledge and depth of understanding of the universe?

If it's the former, spend a couple of hundred on a backyard telescope and SLR camera.

[NocturnalCT]

Interesting perspective galieo126. I take pretty pictures from my front yard so I know a little bit about what's involved. It's more than a few hundred :) I did not know Hubble took money away from Webb. I'm a little surprised as I know someone who's involved with both so it seems the projects are not disjoint. Maybe disfunctional then. At the same time the public's interest *is* rather important. It's possible (speculating here) that Webb would not be funded if Hubble had been de-orbited 5 years ago.

[buddesatva]

Every time Hubble takes another picture that shows a galaxie or star outside our solar system another angel loses his wings. These photos are an effront the the litteral Bible. These things cannot exist if the Bible is the litteral word of God. I've always thought that the most terrifying thought for the Bush administration was a clear video of a fossil outline from one of the Mars rovers.

[Ted Miller]

And here we another person who most likly never read the Bible let alone even opened one, trying to give an intellecual comment as to what it says and does't say. People like you are truly dangerous! I would have respected you more if you gave a more informed comment.

If you're going to mock someone, you might have more credibility if every other word weren't misspelled. And, I suspect Mr. Bush would've responded with, "Eh, pretty cool. I might've misunderestimated those boys over at NASA."

[AndreyEliseev]

Black hole is mathematical object existing at every level of structural matter from elementary physics particles and up to the universe. Every structure should contain 2 poles one consuming matter and another issuing matter into space. If you want details on it you can translate and read about this at "www dot maths dot ru".

[NocturnalCT]

High end research is what ends up as 'common' knowledge 20, 50, 100 years from now. Ground breaking research into general relativity by Einstein and others allows our GPS receivers to be more accurate than they would be if we didn't understand that relative speed affects the perception of time. Investment in large ground based telescopes and paying the salaries of astronomers like Hubble (the person) and his contemporaries allowed us to understand that our galaxy is not the only one in the Universe and that the Universe is dynamic with object moving at incredible speeds.

Even ignorant people take advantage every day of achievements made by their ancestors. Smart people who figured out how to turn mechanical energy into electrical energy and how to deliver it to your home cheaply and reliably. Even if you live in a cave you still benefit from what you were taught by everyone you ever met. That is why the human race succeeded the way it did. The distribution of knowledge through spoken word, books and now electronic means. Folks that think that our improved understanding of the Universe and its processes don't benefit man kind are, frankly, stupid and short sighted. Back when electricity was a novelty you can bet you had people proclaiming it was the work of the devil or generally not necessary to 'waste' money on that research. Candles work just fine, thank you. Luckily they were not discouraged and proceeded.

That's not to say every bit of research always benefits everyone. Sometimes you encounter dead ends. That's why your reach needs to be wide. Try lots of things and some percentage of the work will turn out worthwhile.

Besides, it's laughably cheap. I mean shockingly so. If anything we (US taxpayers) should invest more in science. The immediate benefit to the US economy is that every dollar you invest in science ends up in the economy again. Scientists spend their salary after all. Projects need to be built by tradesmen, transported by truckers. In other words, the money doesn't disappear. Another benefit is that it might encourage a few kids to stay in school, pick science or tradesman profession because the pay is good. That is investing in our future.

Thanks Don for posting this.

[Lawpark]

As a tax-payer myself, I would rather see my money go to peaceful science experiments like Hubble rather than entitlements to people who may or may not deserve it.

[peteyy]

Was Hubble worth it?

$9.6 Billion / 15 years / 300 million people = $2.13/person per year.

[freemarket--2008]

Where did you get the 15 years? It's already been up there for 19 years and will last at least 5 more, so more like 25 years total or $1.28 / year.

[celticbrewer]

nice breakdown peteyy. I can say that I've enjoyed my $2.13 a year by just looking at the pretty pictures.

[knowles2]

I love it when people break these costs down on a person by person basis.

it makes the sums involve look small and meaningless.

[MadLyb]

This is great, but I would suggest a couple of changes. Only count taxpayers. Not every person funded the work. Also the number changes by year, so you have to do an aggregate.

[monkeyman1140]

When the Pentagon needs a new keyhole satellite, one is procured, paid for and launched by the Space Shuttle via a DOD classified mission. Each keyhole satellite is the size of the Hubble space telescope and is made of the latest technology available. No questions are asked about how expensive they are. We presently have SIX of them in orbit.

Now we have an 18 year old scientific telescope that is way past its prime, living on maintenance and dangerous spacewalks, that does far more than a simple spy satellite.

Can you see the problem here with how we do things in the USA?

[cirque1]

Exactly. We have no problem putting up new keyhole satellites. Better technology than Hubble but modified to look at the Earth's surface. Need a new one- no problem, it is procured quietly, launched and put into operation. In contrast science in this country has to beg for the scraps. We have tens of thousands of brilliant minds here in the US that using science have already changed and improved the world and that have the potential to do much more. Instead of looking to take advantage of this resource we squander it by not funding it.

I would really love to see US science given the opportunity to show the world what we can do. Maybe we could do that by diverting/devoting 10% of the current military budget to scientific research rather than to destroy things.

[Angmarr]

we are all here today due to the progress of science/technology .... that's not an argument, Its a Fact!

[pwandmaker]

Angmarr my friend, those are the best word written so far, no others are needed. well done.

[Angmarr]

Thanks = )

[mjd420nova]

I think that NASAs statement that this is the last visit to the HST may be premature. I think that there will be many more advances in tachnology in the next five years that would be a huge benefit for a retrofit to be far more economical that launching an entirely new platform. The other question that really jumps out to me is that looking at the outer edges of the universe will help use determine the possible age of the universe but isn't that the wrong place to investigate the origin? If you drop a rock into a still pond, shouldn't you be looking in the middle of the waves, where they started, not at the outer edge of the first wave?

[knowles2]

I think we getting to stage now where parts of the satelite are breaking down which cannot be repaired. I believe we already lost one instrument permanently.
We should learn from the Hubble and that a new platform design from the ground up to have every component replaceable in orbit either by astronauts or robots.

[technoeyes]

To hinder the Hubble Project in any way would define the ideal of what hideous ignorance means. Sorry the possibility of it's end ruffles my feathers a bit. There are a simple aspect and fact that if we didn't have it we wouldn't know. Knowledge is the key to our world's survival. I think that profound is more of a likely reference to it and I am proud to be able to say that I actually drilled hundreds of holes in a camera housing case for one of the camera's on it in 1985 in California.
I think in fact that it is a literal expression that humanity is intelligent.

[HappyPike]

Just saw this news article on Yahoo news:

Senate passes $91.3 billion war funding bill
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090522/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_war_funding

Seriously, any politician who says Hubble is not worth it should be fired.

[walwebster]

You nearly lost me ... any article that starts with a paragraph that uses the expression "going forward" is clearly going to be inflated with liberal helpings of such weasel words. But then I thought -- where I come from, we've spent more than a billion of our dollars so far on developing a public transport ticketing system for just one state's capital city -- yeah, I know, that alone seems incredible -- that 's taken (so far) maybe five years(?) of "development" and delivered (so far) NOTHING. And certainly no photographs that anyone in their right mind would want to use as screensavers ... want to trade?

[graham_glass]

80% of the population hardly pays any federal income tax at all, so it doesn't actually work out that way. But still, it's a small number and a good payoff IMHO.