I certainly think it makes sense to try to extend Hubble‘s service life, and if someone wants to do it for free and actually has the resources to succeed then let them have at it. But there’s definitely no reason to try something risky now when we should still be able to get another decade of science out of it in its current configuration. I think the article makes clear that no matter how prepared the crew is, working directly on Hubble is risky, and even moreso without the Shuttle’s wonderful bay and robot arm.

However, it’s this quote that really concerns me:

“Up until now, there’s only been, you know, one group that would ever touch Hubble. And I think that they have an opinion of whether — of who should or shouldn’t be allowed to touch it,” Isaacman said. “I think a lot would say, ‘I’d rather it burn up’ than, you know, go down a slippery slope of, you know, the space community growing. So I think that’s a factor now, unfortunately.”

That definitely reads like someone who’s most concerned about his own ego, not what’s best for science. I highly doubt there’s anyone on the science side at NASA who opposes the mission because they don’t want someone who’s not NASA being the hero. I’m very confident they don’t want someone who’s not NASA killing their very expensive instrument prematurely. They probably would feel better about a NASA astronaut accidentally killing the telescope because at least then they’d be confident that they did their best to minimize the risk but at the end of the day there’s always a chance for it to go very wrong.