Yes it does. I only wanted to get at the apples vs oranges question of whether Webb would serve as a direct replacement for Hubble. The two scopes are not designed to address the same needs.
In other news, the slashing and burning goes deeper than just Hubble:
NASA To Use Outer Planets Data Analysis Funds for Other Purposes
My two cents:
The fact that we even have a space program, manned or unmanned, is extremely stupid and a colossal waste of money. It’s sexy and exciting (to some, anyway), but we derive no benefit from the program.
My suggestion: Let’s spend our money on finding cures for diseases like cancer, or something similar that would have a positive impact.
That’s the real beef. There isn’t any serious debate about the scientific merits of retrofit and use. Whether or not Hubble is capable/cost-effective in producing good observations, the administration is slashing it, and a whole host of other, moderate-cost, science-heavy programs for a program of (at best) limited scientific or exporatory benefit with a questionable probability of success. The (few) folks I know over at JPL are concerned about programs being slashed left and right to fund this albatross.
Stranger
Oh, absolutely, a complete waste. Satellite communications, orbital meteorology, pre-emptive defense against catastrophic asteroid strikes (someday, when the Powers-That-Be get their collective act together), knowledge of the natural world; yep, it’s “extremely stupid and a colossal waste of money”.
You do understand that it’s not a dichotomy, right? We can spend money on both, and oncology research is enourmously well-funded. If it’s waste you want to eliminate, then there’s plenty elsewhere. We seem to be investing a lot in Arabian beachfront property, these days.
Stranger
Yup, complete waste of time. Never mind the micro electronics we got from space technology so far include reasonably sized heart monitors, Life Alert type modules, GPS to keep ships safe and hikers from getting lost (and maybe some day warn that a volcano is preparing to explode or a faultline is going to heave), weather satellites to warn of and monitor major storms, OnStar for your car, cell phones, etc.
I will eventually die of something, perhaps cancer.
I hope, above all else, that I may die with an explanation of how I came to live in the first place.
What are the odds?
It is both an epistemic and a metaphysical impossibility. Your “isn’t possible because we don’t presently know how to implement it” is a strawman, and has nothing to do with why it won’t happen.
Yes, I know you were — while simultaneously balking at the possibility of contamination.
Nonsense. There are numerous counter-examples of humanity being charitable, kind, and edifying. The only pattern to emerge that is relevant here is the blatant disregard for life by antsy explorers who fancy themselves to be discovering something.
I’m Lib, the person whom you’re addressing. If you’re not talking to me, then don’t use my posts.
How about answering the question posed earlier?
You’ve given some very nice little speeches, all of which add up to precisely zero. You wail and rend your garments in response to all of the supposed horrors brought about by human exploration. Fine. What course of action are you suggesting, beyond the breast-beating?
Dude, your parents still haven’t given you the ‘birds and bees’ talk? 
I don’t know. What are the odds? (The odds of what? Not being a Trekkie? Using a metaphor with a superficial similarity to another? The odds of picking the right door in the Monty Hall problem?)
I’m not sure I know what you mean, or indeed that you even know what you mean by this. My original point was that
[ol]
[li]There are theoretical possibilties, within the framework of relativity physics as we currently understand it, for superluminal propulsion, and[/li][li]Isn’t necessary, as sublight exploration by proxy is also viable. (The classic example are self-replicating von Neumann probes, though Dr. Robert Forward, among others, has suggested means of interstellar transport which utilize more near-term viable technologies.)[/li][/ol]
Are either of these “epistemic and a metaphysical impossibili[es]”, or otherwise inconceivably unfeasable? If so, why?
Eh? What has one (relativity physics) to do with the other (biological contaimination)?
You seem to have taken a humorous comment (re: a fleet of spaceships being eaten by a small dog), paraphrased from The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy, and somehow construed it as being a personal attack, or as you put it “swoop in and fart at me”. It was not intended as such, I’m not clear how you interpret it as such, and if you are for some reason mortally outraged, well, I guess I apologize, though I’m not exactly clear for what.
But do watch the blood pressure. You seem to take offense at the most abstruse slight. I wouldn’t want to be the one responsible for causing a stroke.
Stranger
Well, I’m not a biology teacher, but I’ll try to give a synopsis…
Years ago a young man and woman met…
(Stuff deleted to avoid embarassment)
the little swimmers raced furiously to their goal with one finally “breaking through” and nesting into “the goal”. (Sports analogies work with everything)
Then cell division began, creating all your different parts. After about 9 months, your mom (carrying you to term and not aborting) suddenly went into “labor pain.” This is something no man is ever to know. Even if he does feel something similar, it’s not the same. (Men who have passed kidney stones are really pissed about this rule.) Also, a sidelaw passed decades ago allows the woman to increase the labor time by 50% while men passing stones are arbitrarily forced to decrease their discomfort by 50%. There is no chance of changing this law as it’s impossible to make a stone feel guilty for the pain involved.
Then, after spending your entire existence in pitch black, you enter a brightly lit room. (Take waking up in the morning and turning on the bathroom light. Times 50.) To calm you, you’re held upside down, smacked on the ass, and then molested my people swaddling you in blankets. (Granted, it’ll be fun in 20 years, but not then)
Anything else you need to know? 
Hmmmm. And all along I thought I fell off a turnip truck, or something to do with a cabbage patch
What can Deep Field galaxies tell us about the initial conditions of the universe which ultimately allowed abiogenesis in the first place?
You might see the craps table where God rolled a 3, lost the bet, and had to make us.
Short of that, I have no idea.
Are you not even curios what the non-God-based explanation might be for our existence?
Before the post-Enlightenment period, natural philosophy (science) and religion were intertwined in the assumption that one would learn more about the nature of The Creator by learning more about the world. When observations started to contradict the literalist interpretation of the Bible, science and religion (understandibly) diverged. But in these modern times, most Christians, excepting the fundamentalist factions, seem agreed that the dates and descriptions of events of the Old Testament are metaphorical, not literal.
One would think even the deeply devout would be interested in exploring the universe. I understand that God’s Last Message To Creation is thought to be found out there somewhere.
Stranger
The odds that you will argue out of both sides of your mouth — on the one hand, dismissing the possibility of contamination based on what you call an infinitessimal probability, and on the other hand, arguing that there is a possibility that an earth space fleet will somehow land on a planet with a mass large enough to contain a dog that eats the fleet like flies. I’d say it’s even.
Well, that just makes you doubly ignorant, doesn’t it?
[quote]
My original point was that
[ol]
[li]There are theoretical possibilties, within the framework of relativity physics as we currently understand it, for superluminal propulsion, and[/li][/quote]
Nonsense. You listen too much to the chatter of string theorists and other pseudoscientific quacks.
Absurd ideas on manifold levels. Setting aside the sheer futility, how will you establish a continuity among generations of people for half a million years or more? How do your probes communicate back to you? It’s like finding a bottle put in the sea 10,000 years ago with a picture of a bison and some scribbles. What possible use is it to whoever sent it out? Science and technology do not solve problems, otherwise there’d be no one hungry: the means exist to feed everyone. War and disaster can easily wipe out the whole of humanity, leaving your probes useless.
An epistemic modality is contingent on knowledge. A metaphysical modality is contingent on necessity. To make an epistemic claim that superluminal travel is possible, you must show knowledge of how to accomplish it. To make a metaphysical claim about it, you must show how it could not be otherwise.
You tell me. You’re the one who dismisses so-called infinitessimal possiblities for one but not the other.
You guess you apologize? Well, you guess wrong. A conditional apology is like a disingenous compliment — neither is heartfelt, and both are patronizing.
I suspect that actually you would. I have no idea why you dislike me so much, or for what reason you saw fit to bowdlerize my comments about the tyrannies of European conquerors with your condescending lectures about crackpot physics and your tedious jokes culled from obscure pop fiction novels.
I can’t say that I care about you enough one way or the other to dislike you.
But I do think you need to purchase a dictionary. I don’t think bowdlerize means what you think it means.
As for the rest of your response…well, I guess it speaks for itself, particularly the claim that “Science and technology do not solve problems”. I guess you should stop using a computer, strip down to skin, and live in forest as far away from any of that nasty, icky technology as you can.
Enjoy yourself.
Stranger
Of course I’m curious. But asking me to not factor God into it somehow is like asking an atheist to factor God into it. My last couple posts were supposed to be lighthearted. Don’t take it too seriously. 
And so you would appreciate that spending money on explaining our existence is every bit as valid and worthwhile as spending it on extending our existence?
An eminently reasonable request, IMO. The God-based explanation has been more or less complete for centuries - I can compare it with the current state of the non-God explanation whenever I like and choose between the two. But there is still enormous scope for the non-God explanation to be developed, expensive though that might be.
Of course - I was just trying to answer your previous question about what the point of space telescopes are.