# NASA can really suck sometimes **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [January 22, 2005, 9:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-can-really-suck-sometimes/286062 "2005-01-22T09:41:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 18
**Author:** ![RandomLetters](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8edcca/32.png) [@RandomLetters](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandomLetters)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2005, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-can-really-suck-sometimes/286062/18 "2005-01-23T16:01:35Z")
> [@OtakuLoki](#): > > Not to sound cynical, but the Senior Senator from MD has already saved Hubble once, IIRC, so I’m not so sure it will stay cut. Not out of any sense of scientific history, or exploration, but to keep the pork barrel rolling. :dubious: > > Not that I don’t want Hubble saved, mind you, I just wish it would be for the right reasons. Even if they don’t save Hubble, the [James Webb Space Telescope](http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/) is scheduled to be launched in 2011, and will be a large improvment over Hubble - the James Webb Telescope has a main mirror more than twice the diameter of the mirror on the Hubble scope. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-can-really-suck-sometimes/286062)._