Slashdot Mirror


Hubble Telescope's Main Camera Shuts Down

anthemaniac writes "Space.com is reporting that the aging observatory's primary camera, the ACS, has been in safe mode since the weekend. From the article: 'An initial investigation indicates the camera has stopped functioning, and the input power feed to its Side B electronics package has failed.' The camera has shut down before and been revived."

93 of 131 comments (clear)

  1. of course not by User+956 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Space.com is reporting that the aging observatory's primary camera, the ACS, has been in safe mode since the weekend.

    No wonder they can't contact it. Safe Mode doesn't support networking by default.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:of course not by bjinatj · · Score: 1

      Doesn't it run Linux? If not it should...

  2. obligatory conspiracy post.... by apl73 · · Score: 1

    Wasn't the shuttle scheduled to do one-last service call on Hubble? This is despite NASA's foot-dragging
    and originally deciding NOT to service it and just retire it.

    Gee, if it's fried, then they can't do a normal maintenance and can save $100M on a launch....
    And if it's just been told to "roll over and play dead"......

    1. Re:obligatory conspiracy post.... by Mooga · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Hubble is getting old.
      I'm pretty sure they were going to stop servicing it.
      The question is: Will they come up with a replacement or try to fix the Hubble again?
      And would be cost effective to repair it again or has it's time finally come?

      --
      ~ Mooga
    2. Re:obligatory conspiracy post.... by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      They have the James Webb telescope due to launch in 6 years, but it's made to detect infra-red wavelenghts.

      But it will give some very interesting pics anyway.

    3. Re:obligatory conspiracy post.... by btc9183 · · Score: 1
      I thought they already had a service launch scheduled for sometime soon...

      From http://hubble.nasa.gov/index.php: "Hubble to be Serviced Again Administrator Michael Griffin's decision on October 31, 2006 to fly servicing mission SM4 in mid- to late-2008 will bring unique capabilities to Hubble in the form of two new science instruments, Cosmic Origins Spectrograph and Wide Field Camera 3. In addition, new gyros and batteries will extend Hubble's life through 2013."

      Of course by then it may be too late...
      --
      There's nothing wrong with shooting, just as long as the right people get shot...
    4. Re:obligatory conspiracy post.... by moro_666 · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see them coming up with bazillion nanorobots. Robots that could fix eachother and the hubble itself. We know that to a level it's possible, tiny midgets running around on the hubble fixing it where it breaks and fixing eachother. Ofcourse they'd need a bunch of supplies too (hear that nasa dudes ? don't forget to give them a bunch of resistors and stuff). Would be cool, would be economic from some point.

        Ofcourse there's a chance of them gaining somekind of ai and destroying the world as we know it but that's just a minor issue isn't it ?

      --

      I'd tell you the chances of this story being a dupe, but you wouldn't like it.
  3. It has nothing to do with Hubble's 486. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The summary clearly states that the article clearly states that the problem is with an input power feed, and not with the 486 used to control the cameras:

    'An initial investigation indicates the camera has stopped functioning, and the input power feed to its Side B electronics package has failed.'

  4. They should just hit F8 on startup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    and choose "Last known good configuration."

    1. Re:They should just hit F8 on startup by zCyl · · Score: 1

      You'd better hope that's a really good bluetooth keyboard.

  5. this was obvious by rucs_hack · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Since they have already said that repair missions to the hubble scope are off the agenda, sooner or later its going to die. There are replacements on the way anyhow.

    Personally I think they should boost it into higher orbit so it stays safe for future space archeologists. The same bods who will eventually be interested in retreiving the Viking missions, and who knows, if we get fast enough ships, the voyagers.

    1. Re:this was obvious by cbcanb · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's one more Hubble repair mission to come (planned for Atlantis's final flight).

      And despite future spacecraft like JWST, none of the planned replacements will cover the UV range.

    2. Re:this was obvious by rucs_hack · · Score: 2, Informative

      true, but there's not much will for that mission, one has already been cancelled, and I doubt this one will go ahead either

    3. Re:this was obvious by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      true, but there's not much will for that mission, one has already been cancelled, and I doubt this one will go ahead either

      Yup, the Bush administration doesn't see much use in science and NASA has been hurting badly since, then again, the Bush administration isn't the only issue, given that ever since the last shuttle accident no one is willing to risk anything in the name of progress. There are certainly other space agencies around the planet that could work together to make a worthy successor to the Hublle Space Telescope, but I am not aware of anyone doing so.

      I would be curious to know whether some of the new Earth based observatories give Hubble a run for its money?

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    4. Re:this was obvious by Shag · · Score: 1

      despite future spacecraft like JWST, none of the planned replacements will cover the UV range.

      ... and those are all future. JWST won't even launch until at least what, 2011? And it only does IR. TPF is even further away.

      --
      Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
    5. Re:this was obvious by Shag · · Score: 2, Informative

      I would be curious to know whether some of the new Earth based observatories give Hubble a run for its money?

      New? Keep in mind that the top Earth based observatory, Keck, is 10-15 years old too. ;)

      Oh, and with technology like adaptive optics, AO lasers and interferometry... yes, Keck (and others) can "give Hubble a run for its money" in some regards. Not across the board, though - no real UV capability, for example. Even up at Keck, there's still enough atmosphere over my head to ruin things.

      *shakes fist and curses at atmosphere*

      --
      Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
    6. Re:this was obvious by servognome · · Score: 1

      Personally I think they should boost it into higher orbit so it stays safe for future space archeologists.
      Spend hundreds of millions of dollars so that some grad student in the future can get funding for a space ride.
      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    7. Re:this was obvious by rucs_hack · · Score: 1

      Sounds good to me....

    8. Re:this was obvious by bware · · Score: 1

      TPF-I has been effectively cancelled ("deferred"), in no small part due to its money being reallocated to a Hubble servicing mission and the other manned space flight programs.

  6. Re:What a huge POS by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Truly spoken like an ignorant retard. Or a troll, in which case I'm falling for it. This "POS" is one of the greatest astronomical instrument ever devised, and has yielded enough data for years of study to come. There's a reason why scientist want to keep it around.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  7. Re:Can we trust NASA? by prelelat · · Score: 1

    Do you know what the Habeas Corpus usually means?

    "Latin for a court petition which orders that a person being detained be produced before a judge for a hearing to decide whether the detention is lawful. Habeas corpus is a basic individual right against arbitrary arrest and imprisonment"

    are you saying that NASA wants to unlawfully imprison you?

  8. Re:"Aging" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Well ya, it's aging. So is everything else in the universe, at the rate of one second per second. Geez I hate it when reporters use that word to make something sound old.

    Well, they could call it "Saging," but it would make it sound disgusting or offtopic to 4-channers.

  9. Just outsource to China by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 3, Funny
    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Just outsource to China by chaney · · Score: 1

      NASA: You got missile in my satellite! China: ...

  10. Re:What a huge POS by peragrin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    why waste it in such a fashion. The shuttle is designed to retrieve it. how much could the smithsonian get for having that on display.

    That would be a good thing for Nasa to do.

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  11. China by Lacrymator · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Hmm, did defunct Chinese weather satelite debris damage Hubble?..

  12. You keep using that word... by insanarchist · · Score: 1

    ...I do not think it means what you think it means.

  13. Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    In Soviet Russia... they don't have cameras.

  14. Soyuz and Shenzou for repair missions by heroine · · Score: 1, Informative

    Assuming the space shuttle is retired after 2010, which seriously looks unlikely, how would they keep it alive? Soyuz and Shenzou are the only vehicles with air locks.

    It looks like the space shuttle is going to be around long after 2010 and Hubble repairs may continue indefinitely. The appropriations for replacing the shuttle were finally canceled and there's too much voter pressure to fund low Earth orbit science.

    1. Re:Soyuz and Shenzou for repair missions by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      This should be modded down as you don't have any clue what you are talking about. STS will NOT be around after 2010. First there is the funding issue, then there is the parts issue...they don't make STS parts anymore! Specifically, the STS main engines can no longer be rebuilt and/or upgraded, the program to do that was cancelled several years ago. Rocket Engines don't last forever. The engines must be rebuilt every 5 or so launches or they risk losing 1 or more of them during a launch. If any systems break there are few spares and soon the other shuttles will be cannibilized to keep the most current one going. The other two will be Hanger Queens. There is funding (minimal) for the launches but not much for anything else. Why do you think NASA was so worried last launch that the shuttle may have landed at White Sands or Edwards costing NASA millions of bucks they dont have in he budget to get in back to the Cape for refurb/relaunch.

      There is a shuttle replacement on the drawing board but don't expect that for a long time. ISS missions will be via Soyuz or by the new manned launcher NASA is building which will also power the Mission to Mars. After ISS is built and Hubble serviced one more time the Shuttle really doesn't have a role anymore and it should be retired. They were never meant to be flown this long anyhow. They have not exceeded the number of launches planned but have exceeded the lifetime plannned.

    2. Re:Soyuz and Shenzou for repair missions by khallow · · Score: 1

      By "Shuttle replacement" do you mean the Ares I? That should be active by 2015 or so, if NASA can keep the mometum for the program going.

  15. *sigh* another incomplete /. by Raynor · · Score: 5, Informative

    RTFA: It was restored from safemode on Sunday -.-

    They are hoping to switch it back over to the primary power supply and get limited usage until the shuttle gets there.

    --
    "Dictator Flakes. They WILL be delicious."
  16. Re:Can we trust NASA? by teridon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Dear Troll,

    The HST Data Archive (HDA) has always been available to the public, albeit after a one-year "proprietary rights" period.

    --
    I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing. -- Thomas Jefferson
  17. Re:"Aging" by Andrew+Kismet · · Score: 1

    futaba Sage = (slashcode)(-1, Offtopic);

  18. dear advanced computer user. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    by "public data" he means 8mb JPGs with color and false color correction emailed to him at troll@aol.com

  19. It's Cooked by floateyedumpi · · Score: 5, Informative

    It shorted, and burned enough plastic or wiring to trip the overpressure sensor (do wire shorts smell in space?). See this message from the Space Telescope Science Institute. Side A electronics are available which might be able to run a portion of the instrument. This has been expected since the first failure last summer, and "contingency" proposals are available to keep the observatory running using its other instruments (ACS has recently been the most used).

    1. Re:It's Cooked by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      do wire shorts smell in space?

      I don't think it matters where they are if they don't have a nose.

      I'm so sorry for that.

    2. Re:It's Cooked by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Wire shorts involved in the conversation in the first place? If you insulator nose from the clothes it's no problem.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    3. Re:It's Cooked by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      do wire shorts smell in space?
      The smell that is normally associated with shorts is ozone, which would not be produced without some oxygen around.
    4. Re:It's Cooked by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

      The smell of ozone is more associated with high voltage corona and arcing than with a short circuit.

      Given enough available energy, a short circuit will heat wires enough to melt/burn insulation, or even vaporize the metal conductor itself. The typical smell associated with letting the magic smoke out of something isn't ozone, but burning plastic and phenolic insulation.

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  20. Aren't the optics the valuable part? by Radon360 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We have a telescope in orbit that's servicable. It seems to me that the big, expensive part of this marvel would be the large optical reflector. Unless someone could point out a reason otherwise, would it not make sense to just keep making camera upgrades to put on the end of this thing? Yes, I realize that I may be oversimplying this procedure, but if it's not feasible to service it in the near future, is there something wrong with tucking it away in a safe orbit until it would become feasible...or clearly determine that the telescope has reached the end of its useful life and then de-orbit it?

    Heck, if privatized, manned spaceflight is just around the corner, sell the silly thing to a private entity so they can fix it up and sell operating (viewing) time on it. Richard Branson and his ilk could have a field day with it.

    1. Re:Aren't the optics the valuable part? by floateyedumpi · · Score: 2, Insightful
      A little budget math:

      Total HST cost: $6 billion

      Yearly HST operations budget: $337 million

      Single servicing mission in 2008: $900 million

      I like Hubble a lot, but other missions which don't require (or allow) Shuttle service and cost on the order of $0.3-0.8 billion seem to me far more cost effective. The mirror is a tiny fraction of the cumulative operations costs.

    2. Re:Aren't the optics the valuable part? by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      Optics are the valuable part, but fuel is the trickiest part. If they can refuel HST, then in theory they could keep it up there forever. The problem is, as another reply mentioned, cost effectiveness--we have optical telescope arrays on the ground now that give us better images than Hubble's main camera.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    3. Re:Aren't the optics the valuable part? by Detritus · · Score: 1

      Refuel what? HST does not have any rocket motors.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    4. Re:Aren't the optics the valuable part? by edwardpickman · · Score: 1

      Yeah let's sell it to a bunch of geeks. All they'll do is turn it around and aim it at the nearest nude beach.

    5. Re:Aren't the optics the valuable part? by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      No rocket motors for attitude control, I saw upon further research. But none for stationkeeping, either? Every time the satellite moves a handful of meters outside its proper orbital station, someone has to up there and fix it? That has to suck.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    6. Re:Aren't the optics the valuable part? by stevesliva · · Score: 1

      No rocket motors for attitude control, I saw upon further research. But none for stationkeeping, either? Every time the satellite moves a handful of meters outside its proper orbital station, someone has to up there and fix it? That has to suck.
      The altitude isn't that important, and the attitude is controlled by those gyros that keep failing.
      --
      Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
  21. Re:What a huge POS by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    I've heard that it was designed to be brought down by the Challanger, which was unfortuantly lost. The Challanger had a slightly larger cargo bay, so any other shuttle would have to be overhauled in order for it to fit.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  22. Funny? by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
    Say something serious, get scored funny.

    China have a demonstrated ability to kill a satellite. Why not use this to get Hubble, or for that matter, any other satellite down?

    NASA have proven their inability to produce the right transport for many jobs. The shuttle is woefully old, unreliable, expensive and inappropriate for many of the tasks it is used for. Likely much of the reason is that NASA is not a scienfici or engineering body, it is by its own name an **administration**. Rather than try do everything themselves or pork-barrel subcontractors, it can make a lot of sense to just outsource work to people who have cheaper technology.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Funny? by Carmelbuck · · Score: 3, Insightful
      China have a demonstrated ability to kill a satellite. Why not use this to get Hubble, or for that matter, any other satellite down?

      Eh? In case you're actually serious about this, (a) The US demonstrated ASAT capability over 20 years ago, and (b) ASAT capability is completely irrelevant, as such attacks don't deorbit the satellite, but result in tens of thousands of pieces of debris that are dangerous to other satellites.

      In any case, casting aspersions on NASA's ability based on Hubble is ridiculous, as it's been by any measure a spectacularly successful instrument, which even 17 years after launch has capabilities not matched by any foreseeable ground-based instruments (no, not even with adaptive optics) or by any planned space instrument.

    2. Re:Funny? by anubi · · Score: 4, Interesting
      See, this is what happens when we do not fund our organizations sufficiently. They do the best with what they have.

      I am still miffed after reading another story elsewhere about what we pay football coaches versus what we pay the president of the college.

      We'll get what we pay for. Maybe the average American feels tougher football games are more important to our society than scientific research.

      Most do not want to take the time to study science... but in the end, its the laws of nature ( applied science ) that will determine the temperature of my house, the operation of my car, and whether or not I eat. In short, my whole life is determined by my and other's knowledge of applying science.

      Maybe pretty pictures of the stars isn't deemed particulary useful. The pictures are only the frosting. The important thing to me is gaining more and more understanding of materials and physics governing them. Technologies developed are useful for many things, especially medical and agricultural.

      I feel that as an intelligent species, it behooves us to understand the universe around us and our place in it. By observing phenomena happening somewhere else, it will help us to intelligently react if it happens to us.

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

  23. Re:What a huge POS by Carmelbuck · · Score: 2, Informative

    Since Hubble was orbited using Discovery, I doubt it.

  24. Picture quality by Skadet · · Score: 1, Funny

    As long as the photos don't come back at 640x480 in 8-bit color with a "safe mode" watermark in each corner...

  25. Just not asking it right... by Samuel+Dravis · · Score: 1

    Main camera turn on! Sorry. :P I hope it is fixable. Hubble is pretty cool.

  26. What does that remind me of? by dgr73 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Safe mode. Stopped functioning. Needs to be rebooted to make it work. Anyone for a game of word association?

  27. ACS is a serviceable part by iamlucky13 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Advanced Camera for Surveys wasn't installed until the third servicing mission in 2002. It's been problematic since then. If it can be installed on a spacewalk, it can be replaced on a spacewalk.

    Also, the Hubble servicing mission has been approved. Barring some act of God or Congress, Atlantis will conduct this mission on STS-125 in May of 2008. The ACS was not on the itinerary for service, but it might still be possible to add it to the agenda or push back the mission date if need be. On the other hand, it might be possible to work around whatever problem caused the latest shutdown, the third according to Wikipedia.

    I should point out the foot dragging was largely spurred on by calls for the retirement of the shuttle as soon as possible (even immediately) and some general hysteria following the Columbia incident (as opposed to the rational re-examination that also took place). There is also the issue of the cost, which is in the range of hundreds of millions and had not been provided for, and a difference of philosophy between O'Keefe (administrator until 2005) and Griffin (current admin). Mission development is fully provided for in 2007, and should be in the 2008 budget, too.

    If Hubble was going to roll over and play dead, it should've done so back in mid-2005, before more money had been spent on the servicing mission.

  28. At least it's in warranty! by Kelson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    FTA:

    The ACS anomaly comes just two months before the instrument's projected five-year warranty expired, Hubble managers said. Spacewalking astronauts installed the camera on March 7, 2002 during NASA's STS-109 mission aboard the Columbia orbiter.

    In all seriousness, though, it's worth noting that this camera is comparatively new (installed 12 years after launch) and that it's failed more or less on schedule. Too bad NASA doesn't plan on sending a mission until next year. Also worth noting is that it's not the only instrument on the telescope... though it is the one that takes the purty pictures that garner mainstream attention.

    1. Re:At least it's in warranty! by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      Another case of a botched NASA program???

      Instead of writing this code:
      if (today() >= warrantyEnd + 1 month) { //break product
      }

      They must of switched signs: //NASA code
      if (today() >= warrantyEnd - 1 month) { //break product
      }

      Layne

      (joke stolen shamelessly from a cohort)

  29. The shuttle will be retired on schedule by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The parent is not informative, it is wrong, or at least out of date.

    The Space Shuttle will be retired upon completion of the ISS. NASA will be taking steps over the coming years which would prevent almost any extension of the currently planned flight schedule, like reconfiguring launch pads to support the future vehicles, retiring shuttle craft as they complete their scheduled missions, caniballizing said vehicles for parts, and refraining from ordering parts like external tanks and solid rocket boosters which would be required to extend the schedule by even one flight.

    The shuttle will cease operations regardless of the status of replacement vehicles. Although many planned technology programs intended to help replace the shuttle with a more reliable and cost effective system were cancelled over the years, NASA is currently pursuing a manned vehicle program, Orion which has not been cancelled.

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    1. Re:The shuttle will be retired on schedule by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      I have some faith.

      NASA has big cargo capacity in the ARES V heavy-lifter and a much smaller manned craft in the ARES I. There is not much for returning orbiting cargo, something the shuttle could do, but I suspect it is cheaper to strap a heat shield and parachutes on anything that need to go down in one piece.

      ESA was also planning a cargo vehicle to replace the Progress ships.

      Using the shuttle for both types of mission, crew and cargo, is terribly ineffective. It should have stopped long ago.

      Yet, NASA still needs to develop some way to do orbital assembly for larger vehicles. I think even an ARES V can't haul a Mars-capable spaceship in one haul.

      As for replacements to Hubble, I would love to have one installed near the first long-term settlement on the Moon.

    2. Re:The shuttle will be retired on schedule by Gabrill · · Score: 1

      Read carefully: Earth Moon != Mars.

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    3. Re:The shuttle will be retired on schedule by x2A · · Score: 1

      Um... the moon and mars are actually two completely different things.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    4. Re:The shuttle will be retired on schedule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Um... the moon and mars are actually two completely different things.

      True enough. In fact, there has been a lot of discussion over the past year or so as to how astronomers could use the building NASA Moon infrastructure to do astrophysical science. There was a conference at STScI back in November on this topic. Turns out there are some very good reasons not to put a telescope on the lunar surface, but some excellent reasons to use the developing heavy-lift capacity for larger space-based systems and the Earth-Moon L1 point as a staging area for potential servicing.

      http://www.stsci.edu/institute/center/information/ streaming/archive/AERM

  30. Re:"Aging" by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    at the rate of one second per second.

          Except for the stuff that is moving very very fast...

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  31. Re:"Aging" by UncleTogie · · Score: 1

    Well ya, it's aging. So is everything else in the universe, at the rate of one second per second.

    Actually, I thought that all depended on how close to the speed of light you're traveling.....
    --
    Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
  32. Why Keep it going? by Juliemac · · Score: 1

    None of the up coming space telescopes, nor anything on the ground can do what this machine can do. The new projects look for different things and the ground based systems can't look at a single point in space for a long duration image set. Check out this video, it blew me away:

    1. Re:Why Keep it going? by Juliemac · · Score: 2, Interesting

      www.glumbert.com/media/universe Not included in the previous post

    2. Re:Why Keep it going? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up -- very cool link

      Another good link is "Powers of Ten"
      http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopt icsu/powersof10/

    3. Re:Why Keep it going? by Shag · · Score: 4, Informative

      ground based systems can't look at a single point in space for a long duration image set

      Neither can Hubble. The Hubble Deep Field was pieced together from 10 nights of images. The newer Hubble Ultra Deep Field, from 11 nights.

      Pretty much any half-decent-looking astronomical image you see is a combination of multiple exposures. I'm one of the operators of the 2.2-meter (that's slightly smaller than Hubble) telescope on Mauna Kea, and have been teaching myself the process of getting and combining images in different filters/wavelengths. For example, I made this shot of M76 from about a dozen exposures. (Using, incidentally, the same instrument that was used to discover the Kuiper Belt back in 1992.)

      Just a data point.

      --
      Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
  33. Re:What a huge POS by orkysoft · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That's because if you mention a moderation category (such as Insightful) anywhere in your post, regardless of its relevance, it increases the chance of that post being modded as such.

    --

    I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
  34. Re:Not a troll - legitimate point by bacon55 · · Score: 1

    Would it really cost millions?

    The datastream comes down from the sats, into dishes, and then goes to various datacenters through their network.

    Would it be that difficult to have a live stream for all the projects just like they have for SOHO and the like? It wouldn't JUST be for the nutters either - having the raw data available would allow universities, and other private entities to examine the data as well. The post-processed images are nice, but it would be nice to see the original information right off the sats.

  35. Email notice from STScI by pq · · Score: 3, Informative
    For other astronomers who might get their news from slashdot before other sources:

    HST entered inertial safe mode on Saturday January 27. Preliminary indications are that this event was associated with an ACS anomaly. GSFC and STScI engineers and scientists are still investigating the situation, but it appears unlikely that ACS CCD observations (both WFC and HRC) will be available in Cycle 16. Current indications are that ACS/SBC can be restored using operational workarounds, so observers should assume that the ACS/SBC configuration will be available in Cycle 16.

    The formal Cycle 16 deadline was 8 pm EST on Friday Jan 26. We received a total of 747 proposals, including 498 to use ACS/WFC or ACS/HRC. The latter proposals are unlikely to be viable. In order to ensure that we accommodate the science areas covered by those programs, we are extending the HST Cycle 16 deadline.

    We encourage Principal Investigators who submitted proposals for ACS observations with either WFC or HRC to consider whether those observations could be made with WFPC2.
    The new deadline is Friday 9th Feb, extended from 26th Jan.

    Jargon alert for non specialists: ACS = Advanced Camera for Surveys; WFC = Wide Field Camera; HRC = High Resolution Camera; SBC = Solar Blind Channel; CCD = charge coupled device; WFPC2 = Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 (an older instrument); STScI = Space Telescope Science Institute; and GSFC = Goddard Space Flight Center.

    --
    "I will take the Ring," he said, "though I do not know the way."
  36. Re:Not a troll - legitimate point by pq · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here it is: the HST archive. You can download everything that is over a year old; proposers have exclusive rights for one year. Unfortunately, the data are really raw, so they won't be usable without packages like IRAF (PyRAF). Or were you not really making a legitimate point?

    --
    "I will take the Ring," he said, "though I do not know the way."
  37. Re:Not a troll - legitimate point by bacon55 · · Score: 1

    I know for the most part when something isn't supposed to leak out - it doesn't.

    Tell me there aren't incredibly illegal and unethical things done every day by otherwise good people under the guise of national security and the public good.

    This certainly isn't the case here...they wouldn't need to shut down the telescope to obfuscate the truth of some global stability shattering images...but the possibility remains. I don't really see the point of having images paid for by the US government being subject to copy restictions for any amount of time, nor do I see the need for them to be held onto. I've never seen a reasoning anywhere - maybe someone can enlighten us as to why?

  38. Re:Not a troll - legitimate point by bacon55 · · Score: 1

    (thanks for the link I wasn't aware that they had this available)

  39. Hubble tribute song by Bifurcati · · Score: 3, Funny
    Seems like an appropriate time to post a parody I wrote recently. It's not really up to scratch, but you never know when you might need to sing a Hubble tribute! You can also find other physics songs and humour on my home page :)


    Only Me (A Hubble Tribute)
    To the tune of "Only you"
    By Joel Gilmore, 2007

    Looking at the sky up above
    Taking photos with love,
    Can you fix me?
    Found out only yesterday,
    my orbit's soon to decay
    Can't you boost me?

    Chorus:

    All I needed was a manned space flight
    All I needed for another night
    Since 1993 -
    only me.

    If I lose one more gyroscope
    I don't know if I'll cope,
    Send Discovery!
    Install Wide Field Camera 3,
    Spectrograph, batteries,
    My camera's dying!

    Chorus:

    All I needed was a manned space flight
    All I needed for another night
    Until James Webb, there'll be -
    only ME!

  40. Mustn't forget. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    No Hubble thread would be complete without the Hubble Deep Field, the Hubble Deep Field South and the Hubble Ultra Deep Field.

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  41. Re:Not a troll - legitimate point by pq · · Score: 1

    I don't really see the point of having images paid for by the US government being subject to copy restictions for any amount of time, nor do I see the need for them to be held onto. I've never seen a reasoning anywhere

    Let me address this: space-based astronomy is incredibly competitive. We put a lot of effort into proposals, and student PhD projects take time. A proprietary period just gives the successful proposer a head start on the analysis of their data. If they can publish it in that time, well and good; if not, the wider community of astronomers will pounce on unpublished observations when the period expires.

    There is certainly a case to be made for no proprietary period at all. For some very long observations, or for target of opportunity observations, the data do go public immediately. For the rest, well, having been a PhD student working on HST data once upon a time, I'd certainly have liked a longer proprietary period...

    So basically, the proprietary period is a courtesy, not a conspiracy. And I have to say that, or the Grand Astronomer Cabal will take away my paycheck.

    --
    "I will take the Ring," he said, "though I do not know the way."
  42. it's not all bad news by photontaker · · Score: 5, Informative

    I work at STScI and it sounds like they're going to be able to switch ACS back to the side 1 power supply. Unfortunately, it means that the WFC which is the most used won't be working. A failure of the side 1 supply to WFC is why they had to switch to side 2 this summer.

    The good news is that WFPC2 is still working even if it doesn't have the imaging area or sensitivity of ACS. The telescope allocation committee just re-opened applications for next cycle so lots of people are just going to switch their proposals from using ACS to using WFPC2 (myself included). As a side note: anyone can apply for telescope time since its run with taxpayer money. Just go to the site and fill out the form.

    The other good news is that the servicing mission is going ahead for early 2008 when they're going to put in WFPC3 which is a bit better than ACS and will have much lower distortions and a great new spectrograph called COS. That'll take HST to the end of its life in 2013. At that point, the next space telescope, JWST, will be launched. In case you're wondering though, JWST will have a much shorter life since it won't be possible to service it.

    So yeah, it sucks that ACS smoked itself but it's not the end of the world.

  43. Re:What a huge POS by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

    A good point, except that I'm not certain that Discovery hasn't been refitted since the launch 15 years ago. I have heard similar stories from people people pretty close to HST (other astronomers who have used it), so there may be truth in the rumor that either Challenger or Columbia was intended to bring it down. (And remember, the shuttle has to be able to hold the telescope *and* land with it. It's possible that the remaining craft aren't robust enough to handle the landing.)

    I have yet to see a definitive answer on why they won't retrieve HST, but I do think it's difficult to rule the above out. (Of course, it seems more likely that it's just a mattter of logistics.)

  44. Tragedy by severdia · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This is a tragedy and the first step in the decommission process. NASA is terribly underfunded already (Hey..all those guys NEED $289 toilet seats...) and this will be just one more excuse to cut back more. The Hubble is the best project NASA has right now and for the forseeable future (get it...?) :)

  45. Re:Can we trust NASA? by x2A · · Score: 1

    "are you saying that NASA wants to unlawfully imprison you?"

    Can you be sure that they don't?!!

    --
    The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  46. Re:"Aging" by thousandinone · · Score: 1

    They still age at one second per second. A second is just longer.

  47. Re:Can we trust NASA? by jnik · · Score: 1
    As an astronomer, I'd say it's freakin' inconvenient....

    For even more fun, the instrument hit safing mode literally hours before a solar wind disturbance reached Saturn...and the time was assigned to auroral observations. There was minor wailing and gnashing of teeth around here, but Clarke's being philosophical..."it's better to be lucky than to be good."

  48. Orion testing starts in 2008 by peter303 · · Score: 1

    I heard an update from a Lookheed Martin engineer last week.
    Orion is on schedule, a bit overweight within design tolerances.
    This engineer will be doing a field test of the emergency escape system in 2008.

  49. Re:Can we trust NASA? by jafac · · Score: 1

    Thank you for that.

    I've always be irritated at how scam artists like space.com, spaceflightnow.com, and spacedaily.com can have the gall to try to CHARGE people for imagery that was created using public funding.

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  50. Re:What a huge POS by ToSeek · · Score: 1

    I have yet to see a definitive answer on why they won't retrieve HST, but I do think it's difficult to rule the above out. (Of course, it seems more likely that it's just a mattter of logistics.)

    The bottom line is that they're not going to send up a half-billion-dollar shuttle mission and risk astronauts' lives just to bring HST back (and that's all it would or could do). They had a hard enough time justifying the upcoming servicing mission.

  51. Re:Can we trust NASA? by teridon · · Score: 1

    You're welcome. Unforunately, the hardest part about getting data from the archive is finding the data/picture you are looking for!

    --
    I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing. -- Thomas Jefferson
  52. Re:Can we trust NASA? by jafac · · Score: 1

    Yeah - well, I'm sure that people who are truly interested in this stuff, and determined, and have half a brain, can figure it out.

    I'm not going to pay space.com to spoon-feed me a 640x480 logo-stamped image.

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  53. Re:What a huge POS by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

    That falls under "logistics", I do believe. But I honestly don't think it's the safety or the cost: they're still building ISS, which is just as useless as retrieving HST. It's just a question of which symbolic, political money sink do you fund.

  54. Re:Can we trust NASA? by x2A · · Score: 1

    Their arms must have become tired from knocking on so many peoples doors, cuz they're knocking so gently, i don't hear a thing...

    or maybe being in the UK helps, very few FBI here :-)

    --
    The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  55. Re:Can we trust NASA? by prelelat · · Score: 1

    shit man don't scare me like that. I've been looking out my window for a week watching for them. They say I wouldn't be so paranoid if they weren't always after me. I mean look out there moonanites on mainstreet. Freaking scary man.