I actually prefer using last names as a sign of respect and formality. Respect and formality are things that are often lacking on the Internet.

Please call me Mike. Mr. Puckett is my Dad’s name!

Webb is going to be deployed at L-2 so de-orbit is a non-issue.

There is still the deorbit safety concern that still require at least that mission even if it dies. The cost of just that part is more than I would want to put in any budget even if it is done as cheap as possible.

Since the only reason for no Hubble visit by the Shuttle is lack of safe Haven and inspection platform. Then provide on small module for just that purpose.
Since most likely the Webb telescope will have the same basic flaws of not being repairable for not being at the ISS and it will most likely be designed with no deorbit booster control to save on cost.

There is actually a time limit. Once the batteries die, they lose internal heat. This causes part of the mirror system to delaminate. At that point the HST is junk.

In other words, unless a servicing mission is launched before this happens, there is no reason to do so.

Mr. Puckett wrote:
“They may well have manned Soyuz capability at Kourou before this occurs. Russia is negotiating right now to join ESA as a full partner and it would not suprise me in the least to see some manned capability from Kourou if that union occurs.”

Since you do not have dates, why don’t you go and look up dates?

Mr. Puckett wrote:
“I am sure it could be done again given enough time and I am sure the systems involved are far better understood now than in 1967-68.”

Anything can be done, given enough time and money. The question is why this is a better solution to all of the others.

http://www.myspacemuseum.com/l1_2.jpg

Note the escape tower.

They may well have manned Soyuz capability at Kourou before this occurs. Russia is negotiating right now to join ESA as a full partner and it would not suprise me in the least to see some manned capability from Kourou if that union occurs.

As to Soyuz on Proton, check this out:

http://www.myspacemuseum.com/zond.htm

I am sure it could be done again given enough time and I am sure the systems involved are far better understood now than in 1967-68. Hell, if they used the later cryo upper stage, they could proabally leave the orbital module and up the crew to at least two.

Of course, they would have to man rate all this hardware but the basic mature pieces already exist.

It came very close to beating Apollo 8 to the moon except for the part where it failed to work.

This is extreme hand-waiving. The Soyuz was NOT designed to fly on the Proton. So any plan that requires the Soyuz to fly on a Proton will first have to explain how Soyuz will be qualified to fly on the big rocket. You cannot simply say “Abracadabra! It works.”

“I see no reason why soyuz capsule could not be fitted to a Proton but if you simply wanted to send a manned Soyuz to HST, a launch from The ESA complex aboard a Soyuz booster could proabally reach it. It would take several years to achieve but I do not see why it could not be done before Hubble is toast.”

Is the ESA complex for launching the Soyuz rocket complete? At what point will it be complete? At what point will ground facilities for supporting the Soyuz _spacecraft_ (which is different from the Soyuz rocket) be complete in Kourou? Do you have dates for any of these?