[Nonstatist]

The prelim plan is to attach a pair of ion engines to HST and boost slowly to the rqd orbit. Doing this was previously the second choice to bringing it down and putting it in the Smithsonian, but now this option is now off the table, permanently. And a controlled burn reentry will be pretty much impossible given its size and the mass of slow melting metals like Titanium, etc.

Besides, geo synch orbit will allow even better pictures to come across (no grav pull distortions), and is a backup in a way to the JWST, with its risky deployable mirror, etc. And who knows when that will launch, given budgetary and other constraints?

[bedolido]

getting into the correct orbit is a main concern. Too far out and it takes more power to operate. As it is now, the Hubble has only two working gyros out of four. If they lose one more they won't be able to control it and will have to shut it down. The window between getting the shuttles back online and the degrading hubble orbit will be very close. That's why they're considering a robotic attempt to capture it and move it out farther.

[RonF]

Putting the Hubble in geosynch orbit would make it non-servicable. No replacement of cameras, no repairs, no new instruments, etc. Not a good idea, in my opinion.

[El Gato]

Besides, geo synch orbit will allow even better pictures to come across (no grav pull distortions), and is a backup in a way to the

Why not use the ion engines for station keeping and re-boosting the current orbit? If you put it in geo synch, you can no longer service it, until such time as we build something that can take the servicemen that high.