<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>There should be one more Hubble mission, performed by the Shuttle. Sometimes you just have to take a chance. Another Hubble mission would really inspire people. But it doesn’t look like this is going to happen. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I believe there should be one more Hubble mission. I think it will be pretty much a wash as to whether a robotic or manned mission to attach a deorbit module will be cheaper (sure, the actual MISSION will be cheaper if it's robotic, but designing the thing in the limited timeframe will be very expensive), and so I personally think they ought to roll in both the attachment of the propulsion module and the last servicing mission and do it all in one go. After all, there's no reason they can't attach a deorbit module and then wait three or four years to actually use it. Most (if not all) of the parts for the Hubble servicing mission are already completed. Without a need for automated rendezvous, capture, and mating, the deorbit module will be relatively simple and composed entirely of common, commercially-available technologies. If they choose to use solids or hypergolics, it can sit up there for years before they ditch. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em> -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>