Not to reopen the issue of saving the HST -- or not -- but this is an image, one that has never been presented to view previously, and it shows in remarkable dimension, detail and clarity something we really haven't seen this well before.

All the "information" certainly did exist -- in discreet packets -- before this image, but they had not necessarily been combined in a comprehensive whole such as this.

We could say the same thing about nearly all telescopic images, HST or otherwise, but that misses the point. The fact is that images such as this one tell stories -- in a manner of speaking -- that cannot be told so clearly in other ways, nor can they reach so many people.

Other telescopes can provide other -- equally informative or more informative -- images, other information, other stories, but this one is unique to Hubble.

Does that mean this telescope should be preserved and be kept operating no matter what? Not necessarily. But the tendency to dismiss Hubble and its contributions to astronomy today -- because it costs too much, or its utility isn't what it once was, or there are political interests that want it shut down and abandoned, or whatever -- is not helpful. I know that's not what you were doing, yet strangely, bizarrely to my mind, there is an "anti-HST" cohort that just seems to want to pull the plug on it, no matter what. And there are others who believe there is no way to keep it going -- given other priorities. The "either/or" faction.

I suggest it isn't necessarily true that HST must be abandoned in order to have other, better instruments. And whatever the benefits of these other instruments, HST has a significant role to play for as long as it can be reasonably kept aloft and maintained.

But we can certainly argue about what's "reasonable."