Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hubble Camera Shuts Down

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the in-space-nobody-can-see-you-scream dept.

Maggie McKee writes "Hubble's main camera is offline again, but the problem does not appear to be with its power supply, like it was this summer. This time, the issue seems to be the electronics on the sharpest of its three camera-like channels, the High Resolution Channel. NASA says the worst-case scenario is that the ACS could lose half the channel's field of view, so it would take longer to observe its targets. If the problems are truly unrelated, it's been an especially unlucky few months for this instrument!"

106 comments

  1. Somebody set up us the bomb! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Main screen turn on.

    1. Re:Somebody set up us the bomb! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We get signal.

    2. Re:Somebody set up us the bomb! by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      It's you!!

      --
      Circumcision is child abuse.
    3. Re:Somebody set up us the bomb! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How are you NASA-geeks ?
      All your telescopes are belong to us !

    4. Re:Somebody set up us the bomb! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take off every shuttle.

    5. Re:Somebody set up us the bomb! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Move shuttle...for great justice!

  2. This time, its the Americans... by bogaboga · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    You know why I chose that as the subject line? Well, it's because if it were the Russians, then American slashdotters would already have posted comments doubting Russian technology.

    Never mind that fact that the Russain Soyuz craft was the main lifeline of the International Space Station (when the shuttle exploded), which space station, would not have been a reality if it were not for Russian participation.

    1. Re:This time, its the Americans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, I've observed the opposite. A large portion of slashdot dislikes the spaceshuttle, regularly saying something along the lines of, "If only we used disposable rockets like we used to, like the Russians, we'd be better off"

    2. Re:This time, its the Americans... by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Also, remember that it was the Russian space station that the oil drilling crew docked to when blasting off to save the world. It's too bad that the thing exploded, though. Stupid made in Taiwan parts.

    3. Re:This time, its the Americans... by Yehooti · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why blame anyone when leading edge technology has a problem? It happens. The Russian's deserve our hats off to them for their dependable rides to the ISS. The US deserves a hat tip for the brilliant images brought to us of space, from space. Though different, it is all high tech and subject to the problems that always happen when we're pushing the envelope. I just don't see how we would blast the Russians anymore than we would blast the US, if the US has a failure in one of their most publicized systems.

    4. Re:This time, its the Americans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Should've quit with your first 2 sentences -- instead you had to go on one of your usual misinformed rants.

      "shuttle exploded" -- not what happened (http://caib.nasa.gov/)

      "space station, would not have been a reality if it were not for Russian participation" -- not true at all. The US has essenitally funded all Russian participation in the project. The only reason we brought them on board was to keep them from selling their services to the Chinese. Additionally, we lose about 20000 lbs of lift capability each launch to the station because we put it in an orbit that the Russians could get to also. Would've been cheaper to do it all ourselves.

    5. Re:This time, its the Americans... by chebucto · · Score: 2, Informative

      Two space shuttles have been lost; one of them exploded (or at least that's how it looked on tv), and the other burned up in the atmosphere. RIP to the astronauts. As far as I remember, the great evil in the world at the time when the ISS was being built wasn't the chinese, it was rogue states and criminal gangs. That, at least, was the justification for a bunch of make-work programs for former soviet rocket and nuclear scientists. Regarding building the thing, you american's didn't just rely on russian heavy-lift, you also relied on a good deal of russian space-station technology that was developed and refined for the Mir. Things like CO2 converters and such. Remmeber, the russians had spent a hell of a lot more time in space stations than the americans did when the ISS was being built. And, an orbit friendlier to the american launch locations woudn't have made any difference when the shuttle was grounded for however many months it was during these past few years.

      --
      The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
    6. Re:This time, its the Americans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is it with all the yank bashing? There's some serious chips on shoulders out there. Time to grow up and stop whining about the evil americans. America has done a lot of bad but it's also done more for the rest of the world than any two countries put together. If you live in Europe you can thank WWII on american support and a similar thing can be said in the Pacific. When any country gets in trouble the first ones they generally ask for are the americans. As to the space station, america has been carrying the Russians for the simple fact they haven't had the money to come through with their end. Up until the shuttle program the US had a phenominal record in space exploration. Most countries can't launch a sattelite reliably let alone people. We also had the first private space launch by a piloted craft. A feat not equalled even now. The United States is the last super power so learn to cope and improve conditions in your own country. It's always easier to blame the other guy.

    7. Re:This time, its the Americans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem isn't leading edge technology. It's 80's technology wearing out long after it's design life. Hubble is old, it is long past the time that we should have launched a new one.

    8. Re:This time, its the Americans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Any time anyone bashes the Seppos, someone defends them by bringing up the second world war. 1945 was more than 50 years ago, folks.

      Besides which, all America seems to do these days is terrorise other countries, so I'd like some recent and current defensive banter for the place...

    9. Re:This time, its the Americans... by chebucto · · Score: 1

      the mods may say you posted flamebait, but to me it's a flame that warms my heart. rock on, brother!

      --
      The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
    10. Re:This time, its the Americans... by Krazy+Nemesis · · Score: 1

      Yes, those Russians sure know a lot about rockets... but not by design: At least we can get our shuttle program running. But, beside all of that... cutting edge technology breaks. No matter who built it.

    11. Re:This time, its the Americans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And if you live in America, you can thank Europe for providing bases, backing your armies up and generally helping out a hell of a lot in WW2. You can also thank Europe for funding the expeditions that got to America in the first place, giving birth to your ancestors, providing the armies that got rid of the native Americans, and giving you a good third, if not half, of scientific advancement over the millennia. And know why the Russians don't have enough money to get to space on their own? Because you ruined their economy by dragging them into a decade-long arms race!

      Yes, America gets a lot of flak that it doesn't deserve. But you guys have GOT to stop dragging out the old "if it wasn't for America you'd all be speaking German!" bullshit. Every single goddamn country has contributed to avoiding disasters or to important scientific input, you aren't the only ones. You're just the richest and most complacent at the moment, and even at your best you aren't a patch on the Romans.

    12. Re:This time, its the Americans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      nevermind the fact that the russians were the ones who beat the germans, or at least 2/3 of their army. d-day only happened after the eastern front had been essentially won. and if the americans didn't have the a-bomb, they would have had to rely on the russians to beat japan, too.

    13. Re:This time, its the Americans... by justdweezil · · Score: 1

      What do you mean "you can thank Europe for funding the expeditions that got to America, giving you a good third, if not half of scientific advancement over the millennia" etc? Most of the Americans ARE Europeans, just further down the line. You act like Europe found some wayward "Americans" over here and gently brought us up to speed... we ARE the Europeans that brought America up to speed.

    14. Re:This time, its the Americans... by Altanar · · Score: 1

      Because, you know, that the other space shuttles that are in operation are waaaay better than the Americans. Oh, wait.

    15. Re:This time, its the Americans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excuse me, but we are not all of European descent here in the US...
      Regardless, I think we should fix up the old hubble, if not out of respect for the man for whom the telescope is named, then at least for the sake of fixing a great piece of technology. Ground based celestial monitoring systems don't all function as well as high atmosphere and/or post-atmosphere satellites.

    16. Re:This time, its the Americans... by dafing · · Score: 1

      Good point, shame you got modded flamebait, but this is an american site. We really need to have a free internet site, where anyone can post VALID opinions.

      --
      --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    17. Re:This time, its the Americans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Europe you can thank WWII on american support" Seriously - you guys in America have watched Saving Private Ryan too much - I bet you think that you cracked the Enigma codes too.. America - saviour of the world.. give me a break. Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan - all wars based on the American need to kick ass on countries weaker than them - oh hang on.. have you kicked ass? or kick started the end of the world.. time will tell.

    18. Re:This time, its the Americans... by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      We did kick the ass of the Japanese. But all we did in Germany was come in late and claim we should get one of the four zones of the country.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    19. Re:This time, its the Americans... by hcob$ · · Score: 1

      giving birth to your ancestors, Last I remembered, the State of Georgia was originally a penal colony, new England was founded by people being persecuted for their religious beliefs, and most of the original settlers from Europe were considered the dregs of the sub-continent. So yeah, we'll thank you guys. However at the time the Colonies were orignally settled, Europe would have just as soon spit on the settlers than wished them a good journey.

      --
      Cliff Claven
      K.E.G. Party Chairman
      Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
    20. Re:This time, its the Americans... by hcob$ · · Score: 1

      The last country that was on equal footing crumbled from the Economic Collapse of Socialism taken to the extreme. So, are you saying we should wait till another country gets on equal footing, builds the hatred into the society not seen since Hitler, and then attack? You obviously know nothing about military tactics. Let me sum it up for you.

      As a soldier, your job is to make "the enemy" die for his country. Any advantage you have, you take it. Otherwise, the other soldier achieves his job.

      --
      Cliff Claven
      K.E.G. Party Chairman
      Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
    21. Re:This time, its the Americans... by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. We are all speaking English now...

      Ok. Ok. Just kidding.

      --
      http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
    22. Re:This time, its the Americans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, how about taking that attitude and imagining yourself a citizen of another country? What you're basically saying is that Europe should nuke us now while they have the chance.

    23. Re:This time, its the Americans... by IIIKrazyKiDDIII · · Score: 1

      Its the Gou'old. I know it!

    24. Re:This time, its the Americans... by crotherm · · Score: 1
      nevermind the fact that the russians were the ones who beat the germans, or at least 2/3 of their army. d-day only happened after the eastern front had been essentially won. and if the americans didn't have the a-bomb, they would have had to rely on the russians to beat japan, too.


      What utter bull crap. Try reading about the Lend Lease act. The USA funded a HUGE portion of the Allies war programs including Russia. If the USA did not do this Russia would have fallen.
      --
      "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
    25. Re:This time, its the Americans... by crotherm · · Score: 1

      Read up about the Lend-Lease Act before you talk about things you do not know.

      --
      "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
    26. Re:This time, its the Americans... by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Okay, we sold the Brits a few guns. I remember the invasion of Britain failing because they didn't surrender and not because they violently fought back.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    27. Re:This time, its the Americans... by crotherm · · Score: 1


      From that wikipedia article...


      The list 1 below is the amount of war matériel shipped to the Soviet Union through the Lend-Lease program from the beginning of it until September 30, 1945.
      Aircraft 14,795
      Tanks 7,056
      Jeeps 51,503
      Trucks 375,883
      Motorcycles 35,170
      Tractors 8,071
      Guns 8,218
      Machine guns 131,633
      Explosives 345,735 tons
      Building equipment valued $10,910,000
      Railroad freight cars 11,155
      Locomotives 1,981
      Cargo ships 90
      Submarine hunters 105
      Torpedo boats 197
      Ship engines 7,784
      Food supplies 4,478,000 tons
      Machines and equipment $1,078,965,000
      Non-ferrous metals 802,000 tons
      Petroleum products 2,670,000 tons
      Chemicals 842,000 tons
      Cotton 106,893,000 tons
      Leather 49,860 tons
      Tires 3,786,000
      Army boots 15,417,000 pairs
      --
      "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
  3. The telescope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    just need some shut-eye because of watching the universe for too long

  4. Slashdotted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The website is offline again.

  5. I think NASA is hiding something... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe the camera got smacked by a lost bolt from the International Space Station?

    1. Re:I think NASA is hiding something... by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

      or the Intel 486 cpu stoped working.

    2. Re:I think NASA is hiding something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, silly; the Transformers are coming!

    3. Re:I think NASA is hiding something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, silly; the Transformers are coming! Comedy Genius

    4. Re:I think NASA is hiding something... by kalirion · · Score: 1

      No, it was blinded by a laser from China.

  6. Must be out of warranty by syousef · · Score: 1

    Things aren't built to last forever. Anyone know what the envisioned life of the ACS is? (no pun intended)

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  7. It got pink eye by djuuss · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Yup, infection from aggresive space bacteria. Thats what you get when you dont use a self-cleaning mouse.

    --

    my capcha was condom
  8. "Do0d I am so stOned", said Hubble by iluvovaltine · · Score: 2, Funny

    I bet NASA has some sweet solar vaporizers. Cosmic weed...? Did someone call p-funk or something?

    --
    Die when you die -GG Allin
  9. cue the shuttle enthusiasts by grozzie2 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Ok, cue up all the shuttle enthusiasts to pipe in now with the 'drastic need for a hubble service mission'.

    When you do though, ask a simple reality check question. With shuttle trips running on the order of a billion dollars these days, what will generate more actual scientific data? Squander those kind of funds on a rocket ride to fix the aging hubble, or, invest half of it in modern ground based observing infrastructure, then take the other half and feed it into the scientific welfare system known as grants over a period of 20 years.

    1. Re:cue the shuttle enthusiasts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mike Griffin has announced that STS125 will be flown sometime in 2008, so the debate is pretty much over.

    2. Re:cue the shuttle enthusiasts by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 3, Informative

      Good. I'm fine with one last major repair mission. There won't be a replacement to the Hubble and it is the only decent telescope for some wavelengths, those that the atmosphere absorbs which no ground telescope can touch. The Webb won't really be a replacement.

    3. Re:cue the shuttle enthusiasts by stevesliva · · Score: 1
      When you do though, ask a simple reality check question. With shuttle trips running on the order of a billion dollars these days, what will generate more actual scientific data? Squander those kind of funds on a rocket ride to fix the aging hubble, or, invest half of it in modern ground based observing infrastructure, then take the other half and feed it into the scientific welfare system known as grants over a period of 20 years.
      Booooooring. Unless there are astronauts involved, you won't get anyone's attention.
      --
      Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
    4. Re:cue the shuttle enthusiasts by JackieBrown · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wrong.....

      Should read "Unless there are astronauts involved, and unless something terrible may happen to them, you won't get anyone's attention.

    5. Re:cue the shuttle enthusiasts by Shag · · Score: 2, Informative
      With shuttle trips running on the order of a billion dollars these days, what will generate more actual scientific data? Squander those kind of funds on a rocket ride to fix the aging hubble, or, invest half of it in modern ground based observing infrastructure, then take the other half and feed it into the scientific welfare system known as grants over a period of 20 years.


      Modern ground based observing infrastructure... we've already got that, don't we? With adaptive optics or interferometry, Keck can get angular detail smaller than the best plate scale Hubble has available. Combining AO and interferometry, they should be able to do almost 10x better than Hubble. And the technology being developed for Webb? The instrument labs aren't in space. The prototype of the 16-megapixel sensor array for NIRCAM (which will be on Webb) lives at the U. of Hawaii observatory, in a three-year-old camera called ULBCAM. Production versions of the array have already been built into cameras for other terrestrial observatories, including the WFCAM wide-field camera at the UK Infrared Telescope (UKIRT). So by the time Webb launches, this will be "old" tried-and-true technology.

      Yes, there are some things that are developed specifically for use in space, then found to be useful for something on earth, but a lot more things that are sent into space are designed, developed, prototyped, and as the case above shows sometimes even implemented on the ground long before they go into space.
      --
      Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
    6. Re:cue the shuttle enthusiasts by Fnkmaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While I generally agree with you, the billion dollar figure is an *average* cost per mission, not a marginal cost per mission. On the margin, the incremental mission cost is about $60M dollars. If you "cost" out some smaller fraction of the fixed costs to a marginal shuttle mission added to service Hubble, you might be able to justify saying it "costs" a few hundred million.

      Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program .

      Anyway, the cost of the Hubble was $1.5B at time of launch (excluding all the operating and maintenance costs since then). If we assume the replacement cost would be about that much (less design cost, but in 2006 dollars it would be costlier - let's figure that's a wash), then another shuttle mission would be well worth it over a replacement Hubble telescope.

      Of course the flip side of this is that if you are using Hubble service as the *justification* for running the shuttle program in the first place, then it would be legit to assign all the current fixed costs incurred as part of the Hubble maintenance bill, in which case it probably would just be cheaper to replace the damned thing.

    7. Re:cue the shuttle enthusiasts by Agent+Orange · · Score: 1

      actually, there is a grant flow-on from hubble operations, in that observing time on HST can translate directly into money (e.g. HST General Observer grants).

      Further, HST has made many observations that are simply not possible from the ground, even with 8m-class telescope and adaptive optics (which are notoriously difficult to get working). E.g. observing in the UV is simply not possible from ground-based telescopes.

    8. Re:cue the shuttle enthusiasts by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Informative
      With shuttle trips running on the order of a billion dollars these days, what will generate more actual scientific data? Squander those kind of funds on a rocket ride to fix the aging hubble, or, invest half of it in modern ground based observing infrastructure,

      Spending on Hubble - absolutely no question. Ground based infrastructure (no matter how modern) cannot;
      • see the wavelengths that Hubble can (they don't penetrate the atmosphere)
      • see as faint an object as Hubble can (the light doesn't penetrate the atmosphere)
      • see as fine a details as Hubble can (that pesky atmosphere again - though here they are getting better, but still nowhere near what Hubble can do),

      No matter how much you spend you cannot overcome the first two limitations, and third is still somewhere in the misty future. To some extent, more ground infrastructure (though we can always use more) is just 'more of the same'. Hubble is unique. (And don't bring up the JWST - it 'sees' in different wavelengths than Hubble.) No amount of money can change the laws of physics.
       
      Having said that last - I just *know* somebody will pipe up with 'but how do we know there is not some undiscovered principle'. How? This is 2006 - not 1806 or even 1906. These things have been intensively studied - and no principle exists to make the atmosphere transparent to UV. None. Not now, not ever. The same goes for extremely faint objects - barring intervention from Harry Potter the atmosphere isn't going to become less turbulent and more transparent.
    9. Re:cue the shuttle enthusiasts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There won't be a replacement to the Hubble and it is the only decent telescope for some wavelengths, those that the atmosphere absorbs which no ground telescope can touch. The Webb won't really be a replacement.

      By "some wavelengths" you must mean ultraviolet.

      My view is, first we need to know what things are wrong with Hubble, and figure out how difficult it would be to fix them. It could be that this new problem cannot be fixed by a shuttle mission anyway. If it is fixable, then we discuss what to do.

    10. Re:cue the shuttle enthusiasts by headkase · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...and no principle exists to make the atmosphere transparent to UV...

      We could start using CFC's again... ;)

      --
      Shh.
    11. Re:cue the shuttle enthusiasts by Firehed · · Score: 1

      I think that strapping themselves to tens of thousands of pounds of rocket fuel and then launching themselves off the face of the Earth - literally - puts them at pretty high risk of something terrible happening. Maybe that's negated by the fact that it's in the job description.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    12. Re:cue the shuttle enthusiasts by mhh5 · · Score: 1

      And why not just build a better Hubble from parts on the ground already and send another one up there? Didn't NASA make spare parts for Hubble like they do for all their other satellites? Does it require the space shuttle to launch a Hubble clone?

    13. Re:cue the shuttle enthusiasts by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      The 1 billion launch cost for the shuttle, combined with advances in ground observatory systems is what has led me to believe that our best solution if we are going to have an orbital telescope/observation system is to design a new one and launch a new one. Retire the hubble.

      Even at the size of a schoolbus, a properly designed replacement satellite would still be a whole lot lighter than the shuttle, and safer in that you won't be launching people in it to go out in a space suit to conduct maintenance and repairs.

      Spend some of the money saved developing a proper replacement for the shuttle.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    14. Re:cue the shuttle enthusiasts by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Anyway, the cost of the Hubble was $1.5B at time of launch (excluding all the operating and maintenance costs since then). If we assume the replacement cost would be about that much (less design cost, but in 2006 dollars it would be costlier - let's figure that's a wash), then another shuttle mission would be well worth it over a replacement Hubble telescope.

      Then again, you'd also have to figure that they can update/improve many parts of the replacement satellite that they can't do with the old satellite. So you'd be getting a better satellite for that $500 million.

      While the marginal cost per mission might be $60 million, the fact is that there's not much lifespan left on the shuttle bodies, thus including a chunck of the billion is a good idea. We also have limited shuttle frames, so we have to decide which missions are the most important, and ISS usually wins.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    15. Re:cue the shuttle enthusiasts by Cisko+Kid · · Score: 0

      Until we get the replacement for the aging Hubble we need to maintain it as much as possible. Hubble is the best that we have right now. The Hubble is doing some really good science.

      --
      I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.- Douglas Adams
    16. Re:cue the shuttle enthusiasts by purfledspruce · · Score: 1
      The thing is, it would probably cost only about a billion dollars to reproduce the Hubble, sans launch costs. I have spoken with people in the telescoope building industry about this and they think that the telescope itself would only be $4-500M, due to new mirror polishing techniques that achieve convergence within days instead of months.

      There are good reasons to do a new, cheap telescope. I think I would rather see a new duplicate telescope (with different instruments) launched every 5 years rather than do a servicing mission. First, it's cheaper; second, it gets cheaper and cheaper; third, we can use a rocket that is higher reliability than the Shuttle; finally, we could decide to change the system.

      JPL proposed more than one telescope on the Discovery proposal cycle this year. I'm sure that Goddard and APL made proposals similar. the Discovery budget, including launch, is $425M.

  10. Back on topic by djuuss · · Score: 2, Informative
    On a slightly more serious note:

    Like the article says, its not that big a deal until we know if this malfunction is fixable. From TFA:
    Vision loss Burch is optimistic that the ACS and even the High Resolution Channel itself will still be usable, although he stresses that the outlook could change as engineers obtain new information about the problem. Still, the problem could mean that the HRC will be able to use only half of its normal field of view in future observations, Burch says. "We would have to take more observations to cover a given area [of the sky], but that's far from the end of the world for us," he told New Scientist. Malcolm Niedner, deputy project scientist for Hubble at Goddard, agrees with that assessment. "None of us is talking about the loss of HRC," he told New Scientist. Losing half of the channel's field of view is being talked about as "a worst-case scenario," he says.


    In other words, stay tuned for next exciting installment of 'Hubble, the incredible cyclops.'
    --

    my capcha was condom
    1. Re:Back on topic by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      In other words, stay tuned for next exciting installment of 'Hubble, the incredible cyclops.'

      OK, OK, our first attempt at a radio-controlled robotic orbital space telescope should have been MUCH more reliable.

      "The amazing thing about a dancing bear is not how well it dances, but that it dances at all."
      But yeah, it's a pain it doesn't send us more cool pictures ;)

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  11. Solar Flare up? by Jules · · Score: 1

    Let's see Dell get them a new battery up there then.

  12. How much could we learn? by sdo1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hubble is and has been an amazing scientific instrument. While I do love the idea of sending people into space, I feel more and more that the money is far better spent on unmanned missions, including satellites like Hubble. Instead of figuring out how to send humans to Mars (and back to the moon), pour 25% of that budget into Hubble II and Hubble III (or whatever you'd want to call them) and the rest into unmanned probes/missions to Mars. It just feels to me like money well spent. Build two or three identical satellites. Yea, that's expensive, but if one goes south, you figure out why, fix it in the one sitting on the ground (if it's something that can be fixed/improved) and fire it up into orbit.

    The Mars rovers and Hubble have been absolute bargains as far as new knowledge gained. That seems like the right model to follow.

    -S

    --
    --- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
    1. Re:How much could we learn? by undeaf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Trips to the moon and extraatmospheric telescopes are not neccessarily at odds to each other, if we could put a telescope on the moon, that would also be not be inside an atmosphere, and it wouldn't need gyroscopes to stabilise itself.

    2. Re:How much could we learn? by zensonic · · Score: 1

      And besides the monetary issue of sending people out into space theres the problem with humans not really being built for traveling through space. To put it simply humans will not survive prolonged space trips due to radiation, lack of gravity, being squeezed into a small compartment for years and so forth.

      In my oppinion interstellar travel for humans lives or dies foremost with the success of theoretic physics finding an effecient way of getting from A to B in space.

      --
      Thomas S. Iversen
    3. Re:How much could we learn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think space, time, physics, and science care about currency?

      When you start quantifying discovery with monetary value, then you've already lost your soul to the system.

      This world needs a revolution, currency is outmoded, unnecessary, and causes almost as much strife as religion.

      Yes, I know "that is how the world works", but it only works that way because we allow it to. I'm tired of being a sheeple.

      -W

    4. Re:How much could we learn? by Mentally_Overclocked · · Score: 1

      If only life were like Star Trek: TNG ...

      I completely agree with you though ... the current (hah) system is quite broken

      --

      Mathematician, n.:
      Someone who believes imaginary things appear right before your i's.
  13. Re:To hell with the hubble telescope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whatever you're smoking, I want some.

  14. If they decide to fix it by Solr_Flare · · Score: 1

    The best bet would be to schedule in a repair stop during one of the space shuttle's remaining 13(?) scheduled space flights to deliver parts to the ISS. Otherwise, as valuable a tool as the hubble is, the cost just isn't worth it since the hubble's days are numbered as is. It just wasn't designed to last too much longer without a complete replacement.

    --
    You are who you are, let no one tell you different. But, never close your mind to a new point of view.
    1. Re:If they decide to fix it by Orange+Crush · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The best bet would be to schedule in a repair stop during one of the space shuttle's remaining 13(?) scheduled space flights to deliver parts to the ISS.

      I don't think that would be feasible. The shuttle can't just zip around to multiple different orbital rendezvous over the course of a single mission. I haven't been able to find any info, but I'm doubting very much that Hubble and the ISS are even remotely "on the way" to each other. Not to mention that the shuttle will be using much of its payload capacity to build the station and burning some of its limited orbital-manuevering fuel to correct the ISS's orbit. There's probably not enough room or enough in the tanks. (Hubble needs orbit correction too, as well as new gyroscopes in addition to this recent camera failure--no telling what that'll entail.) Even if they're close in orbital rendezvous terms, the shuttle would still probably have to fly a dedicated mission to fix hubble. Not gonna happen.

    2. Re:If they decide to fix it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did the calculation a few years ago, and determined that the delta V between ISS and Hubble is actually as great as the delta V between either object and the ground. So if you are going to go from one to the other in the shuttle, you'll need a fully fueled external tank and a pair of solid rocket boosters -- in orbit! Orbital mechanics makes changing inclination brutal. You are much better off landing, and taking off again.

      There is a cheaper (and much scarier) way. Do a partial deorbit burn, drop into the atmosphere, make the turn like an aeroplane, then burn back up to orbit. You still need way more fuel than the shuttle's OMS engines can carry, but it's at least within the realms of possibility. The air force were once considering a system like that for repositioning spy satellites.

    3. Re:If they decide to fix it by Karthikkito · · Score: 1

      Can't do it as they're on different orbital inclinations -- would need two launches to reach them both.

    4. Re:If they decide to fix it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      NASA has already stated they will consider this October whether or not it is prudent to conduct another Hubble servicing mission. If approved, the mission would take place in 2008.

      ISS and Hubble are mutually exclusive destinations.

    5. Re:If they decide to fix it by Orange+Crush · · Score: 1
      NASA has already stated they will consider this October whether or not it is prudent to conduct another Hubble servicing mission.

      That is correct. Originally, in the aftermath of Columbia the answer was "far too risky, not a chance." NASA's previous administrator O'Keefe left standing orders that there would be no more shuttle missions that couldn't stop at the ISS . . . which ruled out just about everything that wasn't an ISS construction/resupply mission. Griffin's more open to the idea . . . but I'm still in the "not gonna happen" camp. It'll be astonishing if the shuttle can get the ISS built before it's retired, I'm not holding out hope there will be enough missions to allow one last bandaid for Hubble.

    6. Re:If they decide to fix it by decsnake · · Score: 1

      I dont work on Hubble any more (I left when Servicing Mission 4 was canceled the first time in Jan '04) but I do know that preparations are underway (again) for SM4. There's no guarantee that it will happen, but it is under consideration. I don't recall if the ACS was due for replacement in SM4 or not.

    7. Re:If they decide to fix it by decsnake · · Score: 2, Informative

      here's a reference for you:

      http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0512/05hubbleservi cing/

  15. Redundancy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What kind of redundancy is built into these type of high visibility systems. Is it too much to ask for redundancy built into the telescope so that if one fails, the other system can take over ?

  16. Stupid nationalism by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seriously, people... Who cares what country they come from? Space exploration is ultimately the achievement of the people who are involved with it, not most Slashdotters, politicians, or others who just happen to be from the same arbitrary zone of political union.

    If the only things you can be proud of are things that you in no way actually caused, then you need to re-evaluate your self-worth.

    Now, BAG MY GROCERIES!

    --
    http://outcampaign.org/
  17. Is that on the antenna mounting? by Lactoso · · Score: 2, Funny
    "Things aren't built to last forever. Anyone know what the envisioned life of the ACS is? (no pun intended)"

    I'm not sure, but my Fault Prediction Center reports that the AE-35 unit may fail within seventy-two hours.

  18. Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    +1 Insightful!

  19. YOUR A DEAD MAN VLAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah i got your last email and the answer is no!!!!! marticock should be enough for you now go die in a fire you fat son of a bitch!!!!

  20. It couldn't possibly by UmmoSirius · · Score: 1

    Mike broke the Hubble! Mike Broke the Hubble!

    1. Re:It couldn't possibly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Good night, sweet hubble. And a flight of angels sing thou to thy rest."

    2. Re:It couldn't possibly by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 1

      "Hope you're insured, Mike..."

      --
      Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
  21. needs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    needs more hot grits

  22. Hubble Origins Probe by bhima · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Hubble Origins Probe is the cheapest, easiest, and fastest way to replace the Hubble. And it doesn't even require the shuttle.

    http://www.pha.jhu.edu/hop/

    It's not that hard people. Call your senators and ask them why in the hell this isn't already in orbit.

    --
    Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
  23. Here we go.. by Damingo · · Score: 1

    I blame to Lucian Alliance

    --
    PAKA will take over the world one /. at a time. With the help of me his evil R'n'D guy
  24. fuck me, why is nobody funny here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is it cos you all spend too long sat at 'puters, or what? get out more, please...

    1. Re:fuck me, why is nobody funny here? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I work full time for a help desk, so I can't avoid sitting in front of a computer. I'm taking two night classes, Finite Math and Unix Administration II. I go to the gym two to four times a week. And I saw Molly Ringwald in "Sweet Charity" at the Center of Performing Arts last Saturday night. You're right... I don't get out enough. :P

  25. It'll be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It's bound to be those damnable Chinamen playing with their lasers!

  26. Worst case scenario by d_54321 · · Score: 1
    NASA says the worst-case scenario is that the ACS could lose half the channel's field of view, so it would take longer to observe its targets.

    This is no where near the worst case scenario
    --
    Support the FairTax
  27. Maybe.... by bobdobbs3 · · Score: 1

    ...it was the Chinese "lasers"!

    --


    This is the best Democracy money can buy?!?!?
  28. Lasers? by brianwgray · · Score: 1

    Blah blah blah, atmosphere this and that. Lets get off of our one track minds and develope other means of solving problems. So, the atmosphere is in your way. Do it the American way and blast the atmosphere out of the picture. We already have blur correction to deal with turbulance. I know I've seen Lasers used to litteraly create a hole in the atmosphere. I must admit I wasn't able to quickly find any articles on lasers used this way, however it may not be some magical Harry Potter crap as much as a more simple approach of simply blasting it out of the way. Blur correction http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap050207.html http://www.afrlhorizons.com/Briefs/Sept01/DE0108.h tml

    --
    -BrianWGray
  29. Hey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't China just caught shooting lasers at satellite cameras? coincidence?

  30. well duh by Wizzerd911 · · Score: 0

    Obviously China fired a laser beam at it and it fried (see story a couple articles up :-P)

    --
    Is it just me or is it not going to upgrade to Vista in here?
  31. feh. where's my robot army?! by tapehands · · Score: 1

    Running with the idea that we should invest elsewhere...why not tinker with the idea of repair robots? That way, whenever the Hubble breaks (which it seems prone to doing), we don't need to send a shuttle up. We either make the robots autonomous (which may be hard since I'm not sure about the diagnostic info Hubble can report), or make it so we can control them from one of our wonderful little command centers. They could either be solar powered, or the crew that installs them could probably fit some sort of docking/charge station on to the telescope without interfering with anything...if there is a docking station involved, it could probably also store small spare parts that the robots could use.

    I know I'm simplifying the solution to a complicated problem, but hell. It's not like it couldn't be done. Just look at DARPA and their autonomous vehicle challenge.