Glad you like it
I will stick my neck out here and say that you can actually "do better than Hubble" with earth-bound scopes, even amateur setups - but of course it all depends on what you mean by "better".
Hubble has a very limited field of view, this means you don't get big panoramas like an amateur can take by sticking lots of frames together. The other (minor let down) with Hubble images is that they are false colour as opposed to the "true colour" images I, and other amateurs take.
On the plus side - Hubble of course can manage resolutions I can't even dream of - but then again, you don't NEED really high resolution for wide field deep-sky images.
Finally - I can put a LOT more exposure time into one of my images than can be typically allocated to a Hubble target, which means "better" data at the end. However - when Hubble is set up for a very long exposure (like the Hubble deep-field and ultra-deep field images) nothing can touch it
Nexstar 11 GPS, 2 x Sky 90, M25C, MaximDL, Photshop CS3, Noel Carboni's Photoshop actions, 7 foot Pulsar fibreglass dome, Canon 40D, 100mm macro lens, 28-200mm zoom lens, 17-55mm f#2.8 zoom lens, 100-400mm zoom lens, 1.4x converter, 2x converter.