While NASA certainly needs to do some looking at the pocketbooks (which was why Hubble was originally to be abandoned), this is a good thing. The projects NASA should scrap are the more invisible ones that the public doesn't see. I'm sure no one would argue that Hubble has always been one of NASA's most visible projects -- take a look in nearly any book of astronomical photography.

Perhaps one of NASA's greatest investments is in making its missions popular; Hubble's always been one of the best at doing that. While it may cost NASA a little more in the short term, the long-term PR benefits (which could easily result in approval of smal increases in funding) more than make up for it.

Maybe "YAY!", or maybe not... The Interim Report of the National Academy's Committee on Assessment of Options for Extending the Life of the Hubble Space Telescope is less than enthusiastic about the feasibility of a robotic mission and recommends that NASA "should take no actions that would preclude a space shuttle servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope."

The jaded may suspect that O'Keefe's insistence on a highly problematic (and expensive) robotic alternative to Servicing Mission 4 is merely a cynical ploy to silence critics until it's too late for a shuttle mission.

I sincerely hope that NASA continues to follow through on the service mission to Hubble. Its clear that the original promise for ISS (and its science components) have begun to fall due to budget cuts and cost overruns. Hopefully, Hubble's superior track record will allow NASA to feel more confident about the robotic mission and its payoffs.

Uh... GREAT that they are planning to save Hubble, but why a robotic mission? How can that be cheaper than a Space Shuttle flight?

Some concerns:

-air
-food
-space suits (at least $1,000,000 each)
-shielding on the craft to keep cosmic rays out
-personnel training
-more weight to get off the ground (it costs a lot more than you'd think to get a pound of anything into space)
-space shuttle repairs after the flight (the ceramic tiles on the bottom all have to be replaced, if I remember correctly), which are labor-intensive
-ground crew to assist shuttle
-etc.

I'm sure others can add, but the added equipment and labor required to support humans in space is extremely costly.

The reason for cancelling the Shuttle mission O'Keefe gave was that it was deemed undoable within the constraints that the CAIB's final report set. Wether the real reason was financial, I guess we'll never know.

And, NASA is internationally committed to finish the ISS. It has only 3 shuttles left. I can understand them not wanting to risk one more on a different mission. I don't necessarily agree, but I can understand it.

I think it could be a good thing to do this robotically. It will result in lots and lots of experience that can be used in other missions, ISS and others.

The Interim Report of the National Academy's Committee on Assessment of Options for Extending the Life of the Hubble Space Telescope is incredible vague, it basically said "keep yer options open". Well doh.. fund me that way and I can say that too :)

Hubble is an incredible asset, too valuable to the science community to lose. Its UV capabilities will not be replaced anytime soon, and can not be replaced by earth based telescopes.