Farewell To Eyes Above And Below

LMCBoy writes "SpaceRef is reporting that the STIS Instrument on board HST has failed. The Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph was HST's only spectrometer, and was responsible for several important discoveries, including the first detection of an exoplanet's atmosphere. The loss is believed to have been caused by a failure in the instrument's main electronics box, which led to a rapid increase in the input current of about 1 ampere, which caused the instrument to enter a "suspend" state. It is believed that this failure is not recoverable." No_Weak_Heart writes "Perhaps the world's most renowned submersible, Alvin of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, is slated for retirement. Alvin has helped scientists explore deep sea, find a lost Hydrogen bomb(oops!) and discover more than 300 new animal species, will be replaced by a newer version in 2008. Also available this audio clip from NPR." (Here's a glance at Alvin's replacement.) Update: 08/07 17:29 GMT by T : Note: "HST"="Hubble Space Telescope." Thanks to Chris Johansen for pointing out the overloaded acryonym.

Comments

Hopefully this....

[ProudClod]

won't put an end to the planned rejuvenation of the Hubble Telescope.

A friend of mine's dad has been pulled out of semi-retirement to help design a light receptor to be fitted to the hubble, which would be able to detect accurately induvidual photons of light.

So if this failure leads to the collapse of the Hubble Reborn project, he'll be out of a job, and more importantly out of a damn interesting project.

Re:Hopefully this....

[FlutterVertigo(gmail]

The problem isn't if it could end, but who wants it to end. As long as HST is functional, it'll be more difficult to get the next gadget (name escapes me) off of the drawing board and into space. There will be questions as to why we need both[1]. If HST fails, its purpose has been demonstrated time & time again - so the next on the assembly line can easily be justified.

Bottom line: I seriously doubt we'll see both toys in the sky working at the same time.



[1] See George Carlin: "Flammable, inflammable, and non-inflammable. Why three words? Either it flamms or it doesn't."
A quick bit, but true.

If you need your spirits lifted, look up Indian Sergeant...("Love your loincloth. Someday, it may save your life.")

Re:Hopefully this....

[simcop2387]

the next generation is the James Webb Space Telescope

So long..

[Grave]

And thanks for all the awesome images.

Re:So long..

[Capt'n Hector]

I know you're trying to be funny, but this failure in no way prevents hubble from taking all those pretty pictures. All you need for those is a few filters and the wide field camera.

Re:So long..

[Biogenesis]

I believe "and thanks for all the gif's" would have flowed better in parallel with the original quote...I'll go back to the shadows now.

It's time to let the Hubble go

[HMA2000]

You don't spend $1000/year on maintaining an old lawnmower you buy a new one that is cheaper and requires less maintence. Likewise it's time to let the Hubble go.

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[Anonymous Coward]

let my hubble goooooooooo!

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[WindBourne]

Yes, but until you have the replacement in place, you do not get rid of the old one. Once there is a good replacement for, and not just more empty promises, then you let it go.

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[Exatron]

No, it's not time to let Hubble go. A lawnmower is completely different from an expensive and still potentially useful scientific instrument. Fixing Hubble is worthwhile because its replacement isn't operational yet, it won't be serviceable, and it's designed to detect different things.

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[Anonymous Coward]

Not unless you have someone willing to eat the grass (like a niece or nephew you can borrow once in a while).

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[nwbvt]

Whats the worst thing that could happen if there is a period of time where we are without a space telescope? This isn't exactly a life-critical piece of machinery.

The Hubble is done. Deal with it. If the geniuses in Congress decides that our hard earned tax dollars are better spent putting up a new scope up than feeding the poor, educating our children, or researching cures for deadly diseases, we can have another one.

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[Detritus]

You do if a new lawnmower costs $100,000 and has to be ordered five years before delivery.

NASA and HSTSI have invested very large amounts of money and time in the HST program. Even if a new telescope was built and launched, it wouldn't make the instruments magically become 50% cheaper. With the way NASA is being funded, it may be decades before another optical telescope is put in space.

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[Anonymous Coward]

"better spent putting up a new scope up than feeding the poor, educating our children, or researching cures for deadly diseases, we can have another one."

Um, they think its better spent going to corporate welfare and pork barrel for their hometowns. At the very least it will goto tax breaks for the most wealthy.

Might as well fund Hubble then these alternatives.

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, they think its better spent going to corporate welfare and pork barrel for their hometowns. At the very least it will goto tax breaks for the most wealthy.
You forgot to list the biggest item in the US federal budget: blowing up brown people.

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

You're a peasant. Deal with it.

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[DAldredge]

No, the largest portion of the US FED budget is transfer payments. Defense and Interest on the debt are in 2nd and 3rd.

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the geniusses in Congress should decide to stop invading other countries on knowingly false claims and save that money to send up ten new Hubbles and caring for the poor...

But noooo, why do something good if there are still people to kill and oilfields to capture....

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[Capt'n Hector]

No, it's not and yes you do. Repairing hubble is much cheaper than designing/building/launching a new telescope. Hubble has a failure rate, yes, but so will any other space based telescope. Tell that to those people planning the next generation space telescope at earth-moon l3, an orbit which is NOT servicable. Your new telescope better require NO maintenence.

Additionally, how exactly do you "let the Hubble go"? Ever wonder what an enormous 2.4 meter, aerodynamic chunk of glass will do if you let its orbit decay? SOMEONE is going to get hurt, because many parts of hubble will not burn up in re-entry. To "let the Hubble go" would require another servicing mission. Might as well fix the STIS anyway, eh?

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[Anonymous Coward]

How is the James Webb Space Telescope, which will launch in 2011, an empty promise?

Why must a replacement be in place before we let the disintegrating old one die, when it will take enormous costs in time and resources to "bandage" until then?

Especially when advances in adaptive optics have allowed ground-based observatories to compete with Hubble in terms of clarity?

Isn't it true that yours, and most other Hubble-rejuvenators' positions are largely based on sentimentality and emotionalism? This is science, not religion...

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[AndroidCat]

feeding the poor, educating our children, or researching cures for deadly diseases

We need to spend money on important problems like a solution to the heat-death of the universe. Compared to that, everything else is small potatoes.

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[WindBourne]

X-33 was about 90-95 % done. Now presumably shelved (I am not convinced that it is).
Since W. came into office, we have stepped down the construction of the Space station that we had commited to for 20 years. Given the choice of local space or far space, I will take far space, but it does not change the fact that W. turned Reagan/Poppa Bush/Clinton's promise into being worthless (At this point, I would love to see us turn it over to Russia/Europe/China/etc and make the move for Mars/Moon). And that was before he ran up the deficit.
I do not recall the name of it, but many just called it Gore's satellite. But it was shelved shortly after W. came into office.

So what does this prove? That you do not trust any politician or their promises.

As to Science vs. Religion, yes, I agree. I am speaking about science. Not religion (or more appropiately politics). Until we have something better to replace it with, better to take a trip up there, fix it, and keep the awesome science coming.

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[WindBourne]

Whats the worst thing that could happen if there is a period of time where we are without a space telescope? This isn't exactly a life-critical piece of machinery.

Uh, yeah

The Hubble is done. Deal with it. If the geniuses in Congress decides that our hard earned tax dollars are better spent putting up a new scope up than feeding the poor, educating our children, or researching cures for deadly diseases, we can have another one.

I am curious. At what time in our past history, or any societies history for that matter, have we been able to feed all, educate all, and have absolutely no disease? None that I am aware of. But I do note that in history, societies always do better when they persue science and technologies. Historically, that was when they where engaged in a war off their soil. When the war is on their soil, science and technology stop. So how do we increase our science. One approach is simply start worthless wars that do little for us. Hummmmmm. Rome did that for eons. Perhaps others have as well.

But a better time was when a society sought something beyond their grasp. England migrating all over the world is a good example (interesting that they were not the original discover, but took advantage of it). The original Space shot did more us than any other war did. And it was a whole lot cheaper than any war that we engaged in.

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[ApewithGun]

Bad Analogy.

If there was only one lawnmower in the entire world (like the Hubble) then you would spend whatever it takes to keep it working even if you could build 3 or 4 other mowers.

Keep the Hubble AND build the others. There is enough research (or lawns to mow) for both.

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[Anonymous Coward]

So what does this prove? That you do not trust any politician or their promises.

Well I see your point, but it is based on the emotional notion that Hubble is irreplaceable except by another space telescope.

This was once true but is not really any longer. Terran arrays can do pretty much everything Hubble can/could these days. The Keck observatory in Hawaii, alone, is a near equivalent of Hubble. When it dies we will probably not miss much, even if the interim to JWST is extended by decades.

Even if not... since Hubble, the commercial satellite industry has matured. A lot. Also, component costs have dropped dramatically. Costs will continue to drop and the industry will continue to mature.

Honestly, it might be better for the long term future of humans in space if politicians kept lying, stonewalling and misappropriating space funds. Private industry is what has brought costs down and kept the technology improving - not NASA or Congress.

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[fredmosby]

The X-33 was canceled because they couldn't keep the composite fuel tanks from leaking. They had to change the design to aluminum tanks, which lowered the payload because they weigh more. When NASA evaluated the new design they said no thanks.

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[Anonymous Coward]

I am speaking about science.

No, you're gushing over Hubble, elevating it to Godlike Tool of Science status, despite its advanced age and apparent marginal utility, without any reasoning or evidence. That's "religion".

Until we have something better to replace it with

"We"? You and I don't get to use these telescopes. "We" don't benefit from the results. "We" just have to pay for them.

keep the awesome science coming

Cosmology is nothing more than space-archaeology. It is a scientific discipline with no practical utility, it serves only to satisfy curiosity. I'm all for curiosity satisfaction, but Hubble doesn't deserve exalted status or glorification. It's a useful tool for astronomers, not regular people. Regular people will never be affected by anything Hubble has ever done or will do, in the course of their lives. Hubble will not cure cancer or provide anyone with a faster car. All Hubble will do is make a few scientists go "wow, that distant phenomenon is neat" and record it every once in a while.

Tell us, what's so "awesome" about the data Hubble's provided so far, since it went live in 1990? How has it impacted your life since then (aside from giving you neat wallpapers)? How will it impact the lives of your grandchildren (aside from giving them neat wallpapers)? How has Hubble benefited you aside from the "wow that's neat" effect?

This is religion to you, it's clear.

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[Nygard]

I agree with the OP. At this point, it's better to devote resources to the other Great Observatories.

We're already seeing wonderful results from Spitzer, and Chandra has been producing valuable data for years. Their biggest deficiency has been a lack of comparable PR campaign to Hubble's. (That and XRay data doesn't make such beautiful pictures.)

Our next visible-light instrument needs to resolve objects two to four times fainter than Hubble, with finer resolution to answer the next round of big astrophysical questions. VLBA instruments, composed of multiple collectors in solar orbit are the right answer. Diverting scarce NASA funding to keeping a relic -- even one as significant and loved as Hubble -- working is not the right answer.

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[Anonymous Coward]

The metal tanks were temporary until the composites were done. Last year, they got them built and tested. In essence, every part of the ship has been tested and now works.

The engine testing was finished up at stennis and then taken away.

Of course, the x-33 was simply a prototype. Hopefully down the road the technology will lead to a much bigger boaster that can outdo saturn V or braun.

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes you do, if it costs $10,000 to deliver the new $999 mower.

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[nwbvt]

I believe you completely missed the point. I, nor anyone else here, am advocating a complete halt to science and technology. What I am advocating is not giving agencies blank checks of taxpayer money to continue funding research programs that have already gone past their expected lifespan, especially when there are better alternatives worthy of funding even in the same field.

And don't give me any crap about this being about 'science'. To think that is either naive or disingenuous. Imagine if a similar situation happened in another field. What if a biologist's request to expand research on the genome of a field mouse was denied so funds could instead focus on working on another animal? Clearly this research is just as important, if not more important, than staring at celestial bodies millions of light years away. Would there be mass protests? Would millions of citizens write angry letters to their congressmen demanding them to add more funding to this program? Would ACs rush to /. to write angry posts denouncing anyone suggesting that this may be the correct path? I think not.

We all know what is really fueling the "Save the Hubble" movement. Its an emotional connection to something that gives us pretty pictures of something we have long associated with superstition and religion. Support saving the Hubble all you want, just be honest enough to admit you are not doing it in the name of science.

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever wonder what an enormous 2.4 meter, aerodynamic chunk of glass will do if you let its orbit decay? SOMEONE is going to get hurt, because many parts of hubble will not burn up in re-entry

That someone is only going to get hurt if they're on a boat in the middle of the Pacific and they have extremely poor luck.

When MIR was decommisioned, the deorbit was performed such that any fragments would touch down in the most remote part of the Pacific Ocean. The likelyhood of hitting anything is so low that Taco Bell gambled 10 Million dollars that it wouldn't hit a target.

For another example of the unlikelyhood of anyone being hurt by the Hubble, when Coloumbia burned up, it did so over an inhabited region, and still there were no casualties.

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[bluGill]

While I agree that we should not be giving blank checks to science, just because a project is past its design lifetime doesn't mean we should stop funding it. Instead we need to weigh the expected gain by adding funding, to transferring to elsewhere. Hubble was built years ago, maintain it or not, and it will continue to orbit the earth. (Until it reenters, which is a situation to understand and deal with) If the value of the science from maintaining hubble is greater than the value of the science from scrapping hubble, and building a new project, then you keep hubble.

Note that there is a lot of money, and a lot more projects to choose from. So it isn't a matter of funding the best choices. Because hubble is already designed, the cost to continue it is a lot less than any new project that you have to design. Therefore the value of the science hubble gives doesn't not have to be worth near as much as a new project to make it wroth funding hubble and not the new project. (though you could do a partial funding for the new project and hubble - that works to a point)

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[bluGill]

Until medical ability leaves me pretty confident my death will be a result of the heat death of the universe I'm not to worried about it.

Hmm, just thought a a great life insurance scam to get people like you. For the low price of 5 dollars a month you can get 50 million dollars in protection against the heat death of the universe. Should the universe die of heat death we will pay your loved ones 50 million US dollars. I'll make millions.

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[Bootsy Collins]

Regular people will never be affected by anything Hubble has ever done or will do, in the course of their lives. Hubble will not cure cancer or provide anyone with a faster car.

To be honest, it seems sad to me that these are the only sorts of ways in which you can imagine regular people being affected.

Tell us, what's so "awesome" about the data Hubble's provided so far, since it went live in 1990? How has it impacted your life since then (aside from giving you neat wallpapers)? How will it impact the lives of your grandchildren (aside from giving them neat wallpapers)? How has Hubble benefited you aside from the "wow that's neat" effect?

Well, I'm not the person to whom you were responding, but I'll answer this for myself: without the FOS on the HST, we would not have had two independent teams confirming each others results in the course of determining the eventual fate of the universe. Yes, that's affected me greatly. You may chalk that sort of effect as nothing more than a version of "wow, that's neat." But if so, I can only wonder whether you've ever experienced love in your life, since loving someone and having them love you doesn't result in cancer cures or faster cars either -- but it has a huge effect on us nonetheless. Various astronomical results, including some from the Hubble, have affected me in ways a hell of a lot more profound than the most recent sexy-but-ultimately-meaningless gadget or computer game.

Note that I'm not arguing in favor of keeping the Hubble going; I'm not addressing that at all. I'm merely responding to what seems to me to be a rather sad perspective on what it means to have an effect on lives. Have you ever heard a talented orator give the St. Crispin's day speech from Henry V? Did you really not feel an excited chill when you learned that the atoms that make us all up were at one time contained in a star that supernovaed? That latter one will humble me with awe decades after I've forgotten there ever was an iPod. What kind of effect does this stuff have on us? Nothing, and everything.

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[LWATCDR]

"If the geniuses in Congress decides that our hard earned tax dollars are better spent putting up a new scope up than feeding the poor, educating our children, or researching cures for deadly diseases, we can have another one."

When will this stupid argument stop... "We can put a man on the moon but..."
Did you know that the population of the US spend more money on potato chips last year than Nasa?
Get over it. If you are so worried about the poor stop spending you money on consoles, cable tv, and Ipods and give it to the poor. Even better get up and work a soup kitchen and or homeless shelter.
The amount that hubble costs the US is trivial.

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[nwbvt]

Ok, so I am justified spending $X of someone else's money as long as they spent more on potato chips? Give me a break.

Keeping Hubble up there would cost billions of dollars, plus the risk involved in sending astronauts up in an old shuttle fleet. Maybe you think thats trivial, but NASA has determined that they have better uses of that money.

The government (like any business or individual) has to make what we call decisions about what to spend their budget on. Some things get funded, some don't. Deal with it.

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[sjames]

When will this stupid argument stop... "We can put a man on the moon but..."

Actually, that's a different and more valid than 'If we haven't ... yet, why are we spending money to ...'

In fact,it would appear that if we give up our bombing habit, we can likely afford to feed the poor, educate the children, research deadly diseases, AND have another space telescope.

A few hundred billion dollars goes a LONG way.

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[nwbvt]

What you fail to realize is that the Hubble is in danger of reentering the Earth's atmosphere in the near future. Keeping it in operation is not a matter of just keeping the electric bill paid. In order to keep it operational we will have to send up a repair crew very soon (in a shuttle that has been grounded for good reason), along with more and more whenever repairs are needed. These costs will quickly total in the billions, not to mention the risk of using the shuttle fleet in its current condition.

Even if each trip up there is relatively cheap compared to sending up a new scope (or building a land based scope using advanced technology), the costs of keeping it up there indefinetely build up. There will come a point in the Hubble's life when it will go down for good.

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[twiddlingbits]

Ah you must be talking about JWST aka the James Webb Space Telescope. That is the HST replacement probably around 2010 if I recall the launch schedule right.It will be stationed at one of the LaGrange points (L-2) I think and supposedly is going to be a super-duper HST. There are also the SWIFT and GLAST missions coming up that are looking at high-energy sources such as Gamma-Ray Bursts. Of course all this could have changed since I was at NASA (6 months ago) but I doubt it. Sorry to see HST going downhill, its down to 2 solid gyros and 1 flaky one which could crap out anytime. Lose that gyro and the sceince ability is even more impedded. I worked on HST SM4 which was supposed to upgrade HST,but since the Columbia incident who knows if that will ever happen. I know there are lots of scientists who think HST has life left but it needs maitenance. And I don't know if STS (Shuttle) will ever go anywhere but ISS (Station) now.

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[Anonymous Coward]

Why, that would be like biotech companies trying to get the government to fund embryonic stem cell research when we already know how to cultivate adult stem cells... all the same functionality, no donor rejection problems.... yet there seems to be a political party who is dedicated to throwing money at the wrong technology!

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[MattHaffner]

Might as well fix the STIS anyway, eh?

Even better, COS (Cosmic Origins Spectrograph) should be installed, as it was going to be on SM4. I find it particularly ironic that the fact sheet on COS has this sadly prescient quote in it (my emph):

Although not possessing a wide variety of observing modes, COS will outperform STIS in the key areas for which it was designed, and in many others will provide limited back-up capabilities should the STIS Side 2 electronics (and hence the instrument itself) fail in the future.

Which is exactly what has happened :(

Slashdotted already

[pjt33]

Does "not recoverable" mean with or without sending astronauts up? If the latter, is it possible it'll be repaired in a few years?

Re:Slashdotted already

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if NASA could send a team to fix, the job won't
be easy (if not feasible). The failure occurred in its low voltage power supply on the backup mechanism controller boards. The main board failed in 2001. So there is no backup and hence there is no viable option to bring it back.

Keep in mind that it was designed for 5 yr lifetime on the HST; it lasted over 7 years.

Now I feel that spectroscopy is truely going to die. Well, at least in the U.S. that is.

Re:Slashdotted already

[Capt'n Hector]

without. It means they can't fix it from the ground.

Blind? No problem

[Isopropyl]

Now that the HST is effectively blind, it can look forward to a long and promising career as an NFL referee.

Re:Blind? No problem

[NeoThermic]

>> Now that the HST is effectively blind, it can look forward to a long and promising career as an NFL referee.

Or if FIFA get their hands on it, it can referee the next England match...

NeoThermic

Re:Blind? No problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time I checked, England has lost all their recent matches on their own merits. Maybe you're thinking of the referees during WC02 who constantly gave South Korea the upper hand. Italy actually beat SK, but the refs interferred! PS - your footy team sucks there laddy!

Re:Blind? No problem

[bareshiyth]

Note: Goodyear, the company that pionerred the blimp's-eye-view cam (credited by many to have led directly to the infinitely more obnoxious "webcam" revolution, has offered to buy the Hubble.....

source: NY Times (all the news you should be allowed to know)

Could the extra power distort what hubble saw?

[displague]

Maybe those extrasolar bodies were just electronic blur from the over powering. Is this possible? Does HST focus in on some spectographically known object as a periodic test?

Re:Could the extra power distort what hubble saw?

[Capt'n Hector]

um. no. sorry. And yes, HST does check quite often with its shutter closed (after each exposure, probably) to account for temperature changes across the CCD.

Sea littler

[ndavidg]

Found a hydrogen bomb? The one that releases the power of the sun? Given the amount of earth the ground covers compared to dry land, it makes you wonder how many more of these little "lost treasures" are out there. Definitely puts one over on the guy and that T.V. commerical: "With the treasure hunter, my wife is proud of the weight I lost, and she's definitely proud of this!" [H-bomb twinkles]

Re:Sea littler

[Guppy06]

"Found a hydrogen bomb? The one that releases the power of the sun?"

As in "fell out of a B-52 off the coast of Spain in 1966 and the USAF really wanted to have it back."

Re:Sea littler

[AndroidCat]

Did they try notices on milkboxes: "Have you seen this H-bomb?"

Re:Sea littler

[britneys 9th husband]

Too bad it only works underwater, or they could send it to Iraq to look for those weapons nobody seems to be able to find.

Alvin and Titanic

[linuxdoctor]

Don't forget that Alvin was also responsible for helping Dr. Robert Ballard to find the wreck of the Titanic.

Re:Alvin and Titanic

[Exatron]

So what you're saying is that Alvin should be blamed for that awful movie and accompanying Celine Dion song.

Re:Alvin and Titanic

[MtViewGuy]

Well, it's high time for WHOI to phase out the Alvin and donate it to a museum.

That submersible pioneered a lot of deep-sea research, to say the least.

Re:Alvin and Titanic

[BigBadBus]

To correct you: the Titanic was found in 1985 by a French/American team using unmanned visual and sonar packages trawled above the ocean floor. Alvin was there a year later, with the robot JJ (Jason Junior) to test Dr.Ballard's "telepresence" idea.

Re:Alvin and Titanic

[chimpo13]

In these, our modern times of ours, I don't think you're allowed to credit the French with anything.

Re:Alvin and Titanic

[BigBadBus]

Yes, certainly, if you're a Merkan. How come this shit reply gets 2 points and I get 1? F**king USA-nians.

Re:Alvin and Titanic

[chimpo13]

Free karma for anyone born in the USA. Sorry, I tend to yank off my American karma bonus. Just forgot this time.

How do you pronounce USA-nians? Or is it just one of them there interweb doohickeys like MYSQL which ain't meant to be pronounced out loud? Unlike URL which we all know is pronounced "earl".

Re:Alvin and Titanic

[DerekLyons]

Don't forget that Alvin was also responsible for helping Dr. Robert Ballard to find the wreck of the Titanic.

Actually, it wasn't. Dr. Ballard located Titanic using a camera sled towed from the surface. Alvin was used on Dr. Ballard's *2nd* expedition to Titanic.

HST = ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Note to submitter. While 99% of us may know what HST stands for, it is extremely poor taste (and frankly just plain lazy) not to spell it out. Some comment to Timothy, who could have elaborated before posting the story. Not eveyone may know what HST stands for.

Re:HST = ?

[Anonymous Coward]

even if everyone knows what it stands for, the general convention is to spell out an acronym the first time you use it, possibly also putting the acronym in brackets after it, and thereafter abbreviating it.

Re:HST = ?

[Anonymous Coward]

My US Robotics HST modem served well for many years before I replaced it.

Re:Alvin and Chipmunks

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and starting 'The Chipmunks'.

Maybe...

[the pickle]

...this will take some of the sting out of the planned retirement of the Hubble.

I agree with another poster here that we need to get a suitable replacement up ASAP, but perhaps now that Hubble is truly showing its age, the public will accept its retirement as an eventuality. After all, Skylab was a pioneering space "device" (for lack of a better term) and we let that fall back down to Earth.

I'm not saying we should necessarily write it off right now, but that maybe those folks at NASA who said six months ago that Hubble was getting near retirement age were right. Now, instead of lots of expensive repair missions, let's get a new and better 'scope up there ASAP!

p

Re:Maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

er, what exactly did skylab pioneer?

Re:Maybe...

[RobertFisher]

I think you are missing out on one major fact.

The plan to decomission Hubble earlier this year came within days of the Bush plan to redirect NASA to explore Mars. If you really believe that the decision was based on good science and engineering, and not on political goals, then you are incredibly naive. The announcement came with only a nominal budgetary increase, so many NASA budgets were completely slashed, including the Hubble servicing mission. Several other very important missions, including the Dark Energy Probe, are now on permanent ice as well. It is not a matter of "expense," as you suggest, but rather one of priority. We have the money, but rather than devoting it to science, it is now going into the drain of a Mars mission which will never launch, because Congress will never approve the hundreds of billions required.

The NGST (now named Webb) telescope has been in the works for years. It has a launch date of 2010. The Hubble reservicing mission was planned for 2006, and should have kept Hubble in operation until at least 2011 or 2012. That WAS a rational plan to keep the HST maintained, and to ensure than we have one optical space observatory in service at all times.

--RF

Re:Maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't seen one post on the fact that there at least has to be one more mission to Hubble. As of now Hubble's orbit will decay, and it will tumble into the atmosphere without any predictability or control (that is we cant exactly predict where it will end up in ~6 years when it re-enters). There at least has to be a mission to attach some sort of de-orbit module to the telescope. So, when we are talking about repair missions, there is no choice. The cost difference between only sending up a de-orbit module and adding some useful giszmos to the mission to extend the Hubble's life is miniscule. So what reason is there to not extend the Hubble's life?

Re:Maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unstable orbits and really spectacular re-entries?

Re:Maybe...

[wass]

Firstly, it's not certain that STIS it out for good. It looks like a bad inductor MAY be the faulty component, but there's still a chance engineers can figure out how to save it. Actually, there has been no official comment on this yet anyway (at least as of yesterday), so this is just unofficial hearsay.

Secondly, STIS is used in about 30% of Hubble scheduling. So this means that 70% of science can still be done even if STIS comes back online.

As for putting a better scope up there ASAP, that ain't gonna happen before the NGST would go up. Anyway, if there was to be a manned servicing mission, which seems to be more and more likely, perhaps a new STIS replacement can be installed, thereby saving the 30% of science that would otherwise have been lost.

Re:Maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're missing a major fact; Columbia scattered seven astronauts in little pieces across Texas a year before the decision.

Our response, should have been to ground the Shuttles entirely, ending both the HST and ISS as unfortunate side-effects of the final shutdown of the whole misbegotten Shuttle program. (We should have been getting a replacement on-line in the 1990s, but, hey, there was a budget to balance, and a space station to build as an international venture, and the best replacement candidate came from that evil Star Wars program . . . )

Instead, because of the needs of international diplomacy, we're going to keep launching shuttles on a minimal schedule to keep the ISS open. And as a result, we have to deal with assholes like you suggesting we put even more wear-and-tear on these dangerous, antiquated experimental spacecraft so we can gather data now instead of in ten years, because, hey, the laws of the universe are going to change if we take the time to exercise a little caution. What's another seven lives if it lets you publish another paper, after all?

Mars, of course, isn't something that's going to happen any time soon. But it's the kind of PR goal neccessary to get the funding for the far more prosaic job of building a replacement for the shuttles. You know, something to service future orbital obervatories?

Re:Maybe...

[sjames]

assholes like you suggesting we put even more wear-and-tear on these dangerous, antiquated experimental spacecraft so we can gather data now instead of in ten years

Why not have ISS make itself useful? There have been several proposals for an automated craft to snag HST and tow it up to ISS for repair. The parts can go upon one of the progress flights.

This is the sort of thing that is bound to come up eventually if we are ever going to have a real presence in space. Might as well develop the tugboat now.

Re:Maybe...

[Halvard]

After all, Skylab was a pioneering space "device" (for lack of a better term) and we let that fall back down to Earth.

We didn't "let" Skylab fall back to Earth, unless you consider orbital decay about 18 months early and a delayed space shuttle that was to push it back up letting.

Re:Maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

The plan to decomission Hubble earlier this year came within days of the Bush plan to redirect NASA to explore Mars

There is NO BUSH PLAN to explore Mars. He tacked that on the end of a speech, which wasn't even in the official transcript.

At best, he was egging on the "return to the moon" (well after my term of office, even if I'm re-elected), but then cut the budget to NASA.

I'm sure Halliburton needs the money more than JPL does.

Re:Maybe...

[DunbarTheInept]

Secondly, STIS is used in about 30% of Hubble scheduling. So this means that 70% of science can still be done

Only if there is a one-to-one correspondence between "time spent" and "science done". That seems highly unlikely.

Re:Maybe...

[ColaMan]

For hubble , that ratio is pretty much one to one - apparently to get time on hubble requires a pretty rigourous review of merit.

Re:Maybe...

[DunbarTheInept]

Here are two things you said:
1 - that ratio is pretty much one to one
2 - to get time on hubble requires a pretty rigourous review of merit.

You seem to be implying that (2) logically leads to (1). I don't see that. The way I see it, (2) only guarantees a minimum level of merit, not that all uses are exactly the same level of merit.

More info on the STIS failure on Hubble

[Jack Porter]

• NASA Press Release
• Space.com

That IS amazing...

[B2K3]

Interesting. I had no idea that our thirty-third president was some kind of spacefaring cyborg.

I now wish I stayed awake in American history class.

Re:That IS amazing...

[antizeus]

I had no idea that our thirty-third president was some kind of spacefaring cyborg.

Or, for that matter, the king of gonzo journalism.

Geez guys, pay attention!

[nbvb]

The spectrograph is what failed; the optics are fine and dandy.

We're still going to get nice pretty pictures out of Hubble, just no UV/wavelength pictures ...

Hubble's hobbled, but still alive and kicking.

NASA did this

[Anonymous Coward]

Now they have legitimate reason to ditch HST.

ACS grism still works!

[Capt'n Hector]

Hubble is NOT blind, although this is a major setback. There is still a working spectograph on the space telescope called the ACS grism. You can still do spectroscopy!

Linkage

Re:ACS grism still works!

[Anonymous Coward]

NICMOS has a grism mode, too. It will still be possible to do some multi-object spectroscopy, but STIS was our best instrument for specta.

This might help extend the life of the batteries a bit, too, since STIS is/was a power-hungry beast.

It's a bad deal to trade the best spectrograph for battery life, but there had already been discussions of going to "campaigns" where we would power down one or two instruments for extended periods to save power.

Re:Of course it is dying....

[Anonymous Coward]

mod parent up. It's true.

Replacements

[Mr. Sketch]

I believe there are already some possible Hubble replacements. The new telescope in Arizona is planned to produce visual images 10 times sharper than Hubble (according to cnn.com) . Also, many scientists studying deep space are using X-rays, which has the Chandra X-ray observatory

Re:Replacements

[wass]

The new telescope in Arizona is planned to produce visual images 10 times sharper than Hubble

for the bazillionth time, Hubble is more than just pictures. Ground-based scopes are limited to optical frequencies, Hubble can see from near IR to near UV.

More importantly, though, imaging is only one small component of astronomy, it's the spectra where much of the 'real' science is done. Spectra need to be very clean, the atmosphere not only blocks certain frequencies out of optical, but adds its own absorption/emission spectra on top of that.

So basically this telescope is NOT a replacement for Hubble, no matter what they're claiming to get funding. It will complement Hubble, that's for sure, but definitely not replace.

Re:Replacements

[Anonymous Coward]

In related news, GWBush declares an end to any kind of support for science, saying "Can science raise the dead? Jesus could." Jesus could not be reached for comment, but so far prayers for the Hubble Space Telescope have gone unanswered.

*sigh*

[erveek]

"Goodnight sweet Hubble. And a flight of angels sing thee to thy rest." - Crow T. Robot

There's still one off the coast of Georgia!

[RogL]

There's still one off the coast of Georgia!

Heard about this only recently. Google for "Georgia coast bomb", you'll find some stories, such as http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/05/02/a5.bo mb.0502.html.

It's considered more risky to retrieve than to let it lie. Might spread contamination. I'm in Jacksonville, Florida; if it went off, I might hear the boom!

Re:There's still one off the coast of Georgia!

[ikeleib]

There's a big differnence between the one of the coast of Georgia and the one that was off the coast of Spain. The bomb is in US territorial waters, and the Navy can effectively guard that position. However, it was not certain that the bomb off the coast of Spain was in their territorial waters. By the international laws of the sea, the first person to tie a line to salvage is entitled to it. Both the US and the Soviets were desperately looking for that bomb. It represented an intelligence goldmine. The Soviets were relegated to looking outside Spanish territorial waters, whereas the US had the run of both. The US Navy salvage team was able to secure and grab the bomb from the bottom of the ocean. It was just inside Spanish territorial waters. It is exactly for this reason that the US Navy salvage team is one of the elite parts of the Navy. They could very easily be called on to find and recover a sunken ballistic missile submarine in international waters.

Likewise, those who think that Navy deep diving vessels, such as Alvin, are purely for research are kidding themselves.

Re:There's still one off the coast of Georgia!

[chimpo13]

Did you read the article he cited? I'm sure you can't trust the goverment on this (they've said 11 missing bombs and 4 missing bombs), but it appears they were looking in the wrong spot.

Some guy wondering about the bomb, hired some salvagers and found it. It wasn't under guard from the Navy. The feds said it wasn't worth retrieving -- it'd cost $5 million. The guy offered to pick it up for $900,000 and the feds said no.

So if you want a cheap h-bomb with bomb grade uranium, you can pick it up for $900,000. It'd make a good starting bid on eBay.

Re:There's still one off the coast of Georgia!

[ikeleib]

Yes, I did RTFA. The bomb is in US territorial waters. The Navy doesn't have to put it under a visable guard patrol. If a foreign vessle enters US territorial waters without permission, they will intercept it and sink it. Furthermore, I doubt very much the bomb has the detonation capsule on board. Without it, the bomb presents little intelligence value. Why would you ever fly a practice mission with an armed bomb? The Air Force is very careful with nuclear weapons, I see no reason that they would expose themselves to risks they didn't have to take. Furthermore, the government doesn't have to worry about this guy getting it off the sea floor. Tthe Navy never has to worry about this guy doing it on his own. For one, inside US territorial waters, the US owns the wreck. For another, his possession of the material is illegal.

The Navy decided that this bomb was not worth the risks, and they have no challenger to take it away from them.

Re:There's still one off the coast of Georgia!

[chimpo13]

You said you RTFA. It says the bombs' not armed. Some random guy found the bomb and offered to bring it back up without the Navy coming by and saying "get lost". What's to stop someone else from finding it?

The Navy does a great job keeping out foreign vessels. There's hardly any drugs brought in that way.

I think the panicked people in Georgia have a right be be panicky about a nuke sitting in the nearby ocean. They're not worried about the Russians learning anything from it. They're worried about bomb grade uranium ready for the taking. The feds need to spend the money and bring it back up.

This new business model makes me mad...

[saskboy]

1. Build and deploy great working device.
2. Wait for it to fail.
3. Then build and deploy new untested working device years later.
4. ???

5. No profit, only the loss of the previous, valuable device.

Hah

[nwbvt]

Look at how little it takes to piss off dumb ACs who then go into offtopic rants.

Oh how I love slashdot.

Re:Blind? No problem - OT

[NeoThermic]

Actually, what about the England vs Portugal match in the Euro cup we just had?
England scored what would of been a game winning goal only for it to be dissalowed by the ref.

Basically everyone agrees that the goal should of stood, even Portugal fans, who also got hit by the same judgement from the ref in the extra time of *the same game*...

NeoThermic

Alvin and the romance of oceanography

[Animats]

It's hard to believe it now, but there was a period in the 1960s when the ocean was talked about as a great frontier, as important as space. Undersea habitats were built, and undersea cities were discussed. Men went to the deepest place in the ocean and came back.

Today, the romance of the ocean is dead. You can work on a containership or an oil rig, but nobody dreams of a career as an "aquanaut". Jacques Costeau seems dated.

Re:Alvin and the romance of oceanography

[Daniel Ellard]

Today, the romance of the ocean is dead.

Maybe you don't hear about it as much, but it's still there! I heard an interview with some folks at Wood's Hole regarding Alvin's retirement (which they view as a logical step towards an upgrade, not necessarily a loss) and they sounded pretty fired up about it. And let's not forget these folks, who are finding all kinds of cool stuff.

I think it's a little less exciting now because it requires more infrastructure to do anything new. Unlike the days when you could discover something new with little more equipment than a scuba, nowadays it requires quite an investment.

Re:Alvin and the romance of oceanography

[Trejus]

The romance of the ocean isn't dead. If anything, it's just starting. In someways it was a little unfair to put these two articles together, since the implication for Alvin was all wrong. It's not being decommissioned, they have just announced plans to replace it.

Woods hole, the makers of Alvin, are buliding a new a sub that can go about 5,000ft deeper, which means that crews can access 99% of the ocean floor as opposed to ~68% they have accessable with Alvin. They are also building a ROV that descend the full length of the Marinara trench. Alvin still works great, but is just too old and cramped, and doesn't compare to the modern research subs operating out of Europe and Japan, which puts American researchers at a disadvantage. In fact, the operators of Alvin have not decided whether or not to decomission it. They might still decide to continue to run it after 2008 in the "shallow" waters that it accesses today in conjunction with the new submarine.

Plus, it's going to be bigger and roomier, one of the researchers compared it to "buying a new cadillac when you have a chevy in the garage."

Sounds like more of a new dawn than the death of oceanography to me. Of course, the Slashdot headline was mis-leading, but that's why we love it ;)

You can find more information here
and here

Re:Alvin and the romance of oceanography

[Creedo]

And here I am, in the middle of freaking Kansas, trying to get enough dives under my belt to become a SCUBA instructor and singing Jimmy Buffet songs, while trying to scrape enough cash together to get an old catamaran.

The old romance isn't dead. Go check out some of the online sailing(here) and SCUBA communities(here) to find some.

Re:Alvin and the romance of oceanography

[argStyopa]

It's hard to believe it now, but there was a period in the 1960s when space was talked about as a great frontier, as important as the ocean. Space stations (Skylab, Mir) were built, and space colonies were discussed. Men went to the MOON and came back.
Today, the romance of space is dead. You can work the shuttle or in NASA, but almost nobody dreams of a career as an "astronaut".

Unfortunately, after the edits it's still pretty much true.

Mod +1 tragic.

Re:Alvin and the romance of oceanography

[sakyamuni]

descend the full length of the Marinara trench

Get this man some food! He's starting to hallucinate. After you've plumbed the depths of your spaghetti sauce, read about the Marianas trench.

</smartass>

But seriously, good post. +1, Informative, as well as +1, Funny.

Re:Blind? No problem - OT

[Anonymous Coward]

We was fucking robbed. Fucking Swiss greengrocer bastard.

Aren't there other instruments on board Hubble?

[WoTG]

How "important" in the grand Hubble scheme of things is this particular imaging device? I assume there are other tools on board Hubble that are still functional, i.e. Hubble isn't space junk yet.

Re:Aren't there other instruments on board Hubble?

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

RTFA...

"The highly probable consequence of this scenario is the total failure of the MEB/Support Electronics +5V power converter. Since this component is essential to the operation of all of the 8 mechanisms within the instrument (including shutters), its demise renders those mechanisms inoperable. A re-configuration to the Side 1 electronics (current operations are on Side 2) is not possible. (The Side 1 electronics failed in May 2001.)"

my enphasis.

Re:Aren't there other instruments on board Hubble?

[Keysh]

Yes, there are several other instruments; and, as a previous poster noted, these other instruments account for about 70% of Hubble's typical observing. There's more on the various instruments, past and present, here: http://www.stsci.edu/hst/HST_overview/; and links to more technical descriptions here: http://www.stsci.edu/hst/HST_overview/instruments/ .

Briefly, there's ACS (Advanced Camera for Surveys), which does both optical and UV imaging; WFPC2 (Wide Field Planetary Camera 2), the older UV/optical imager; and NICMOS, which does near-infrared imaging. Both ACS and NICMOS also have spectroscopy modes, though they don't make up for what STIS does, or did.

Re:Aren't there other instruments on board Hubble?

[MadCow42]

Yes, yes... but it's not the only instrument on the HST.

Basically, the spectrometer is toast, but there's still other instruments that are just fine. Unfortunately the one that failed was one of the more useful ones.

MadCow.

Re:Aren't there other instruments on board Hubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

atenttion here dude... the arcticle says: there's a total of EIGHT scientific devices on board. ALL of them depends on the failed one to work. without this device the whole telescope is little more than space junk.

Conspiracy Theory

[wideBlueSkies]

The conspiracy lover in me wonders if the brass at NASA had this instrument overloaded on purpose.

They want to kill the Hubble..the pretty picture loving public wants to save it...thus it's a PR nightmare for NASA.

So they felt the need to tell us that something was wrong in an attempt to get us to say "oh well, it's broken now...go ahead and kill it".

I for one am not buying it. I think that the Hubble is alive and well and functioning fine, just like Jim Morrison, Elvis and the second gunman.

wbs.

Re:Conspiracy Theory

[Jelloman]

The conspiracy lover in me wonders if the brass at NASA had this instrument overloaded on purpose.

The sci-fi conspiracy lover in me figures that ALIENS BROKE IT so we wouldn't find their home planet.

"acryonym"?

[Uber Banker]

HST"="Hubble Space Telescope." Thanks to Chris Johansen for pointing out the overloaded acryonym

Do you mean acronym, which please note is derived from the Greek: acro [head] and nym [word]. Opposing views beow, there is no requirement that this acro-nym be pronounceable as a normal word, this is a restriction imosed very much in recent times.

Re:"acryonym"?

[GrassyNoel]

Yeah. 'acryonym' = 'word that is not cold'.

OOOVERLOOAD

[MegaFur]

Thanks to Chris Johansen for pointing out the overloaded acryonym.

Actually, the word "overload" is kind of overloaded on subtley different definitions too.

Re:OOOVERLOOAD

[Snard]

Actually, the word "overload" is kind of overloaded on subtley different definitions too.
I for one welcome our acronym overloads.

The Alvin Hubble Bubble II

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes ! We can save both of them by merging them into the new Alvin Hubble Bubble II.

Just add water!

The submersible spectrographicating sea space tele/periscope! Dive into the oceans of newly found extrasolar planets! Think of the possibilities!

Exclamation Mark II !

no one can hear you scream

[Doc Ruby]

Maybe the orbital sensors were damaged by the increase in solar storm activity lately? Or maybe the misfires from Star Wars tests are being "measured" by other government devices...

Re:Blind? No problem - OT

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically everyone agrees that the goal should of stood

Maybe if you're such a fan of England, you could try being a fan of the English language too.

Mind you, it seems wrong to try to put blame on the ref for your team sucking so hard.

robotics for space and sea!!!!!

[BrentRJones]

1. Why not put some big $$$ in robotics to repair HST?
2. Why not put HST and International Space Station together? Compromise orbit.
3. Why not send robots to the bottom of the sea?
4. Why not send robots to our moon and Mars?
5. Why do physical humans have to do everything?

Give the automatons a chance at the actions

. |

Re:robotics for space and sea!!!!!

[bareshiyth]

1,3,4 get my vote. Prop 2 is not sensible, and I say "nay". But as for 5: This I say to you, "Cuz two good human scientist/observers, properly dressed and outfitted (Land's End, anyone?) would have done everything the two rovers dis in their 6 months, in one day. Plus, pulled out the right tool, aimed it in the exact right spot (in moments, not days of relayed instructions), and answered all our questions about "blueberries", and water signs, and ... and... Three decades hence, billions of $, and a dozen more robots and we still have the same debates. A human exlorer answers questions, and collects the right samples... which robots and rovers, and hour or two away, cannot!

Obligatory Beatles reference

[Whumpsnatz]

I still say Alvin should be painted yellow.

Mod me off topic, but...

[NeuroManson]

All forms of exploration have long since stagnated, since all have been done to a degree. It's boring to the masses because once you saw the same visit to a planetary body, you've seen them all. It's boring to the intellectuals because, honestly, they've done it already.

How about everyone around the world move beyond "the first" and instead focus on being "the best"? Exploration, at least for our species, has always depended on competition. Competition, however, obviously does not depend on a series of "firsts".

Why not replace hubble

[jonwil]

Use the second mirror that was made for the origonal.
And the instruments currently constructed to replace the ones up there now.

Dumb mods

[nwbvt]

I don't think the mod got it. Subtlety does not work well in slashdot posts.

Hunter S Thompson is blind?

[Paul Crowley]

How will he shoot straight?