Hubble Camera Lost "For Good"

Not really . . . by cashman73 · 2007-01-30 10:01 · Score: -1, Troll

It's not really, "lost for good." They could fix it, probably at a cost about 20 times less than the original one, with new technology. But Dubya needs money for the, "War in Iraq," or the, "War on Terror," instead.

Re:Not really . . . by pizza_milkshake · 2007-01-30 10:04 · Score: 1

Shhhh. This is just a convenient way to resolve the Hubble hub-bub, we have more space nukes that need work.
Re:Not really . . . by CRCulver · 2007-01-30 10:05 · Score: 1, Insightful

Funny, NASA hasn't had problems funding the next generation of space telescope development, even with all of Bush's dealings.

I dislike the current president as much as anyone, but he isn't the cause of all bad things in the world. It makes a poster look juvenile and irrational to blame it all on Bush. NASA has already decided to retire the Hubble since there are new things on the way.
Re:Not really . . . by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2007-01-30 10:07 · Score: 1

Well now, I'm all for restraining Dubya from spending public money on pointless wars and redirecting that money to more fruitful purposes, but one should examine the cost of fixing Hubble in-situ yet again, or launching another one. Since the James Webb is already been worked on and is supposed to be put in orbit in 2013, I don't think Hubble is worth spending the estimated $1.3bn, unless scientists can make a damn good case for a speedy repair.

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Re:Not really . . . by pixelpusher220 · 2007-01-30 10:14 · Score: 3, Informative

the problem I have with the James-Webb telescope is it isn't a *replacement* for Hubble. JW is a non-visible (infrared) scope, and won't produce the type of images Hubble has.

keeping the masses 'in favor' of spending on space involves giving them some of the stuff they want, namely the magnificent pictures Hubble has been providing for years.

If they can't see it, then they won't want to fund it as much.

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
Re:Not really . . . by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-30 10:15 · Score: 0

you've gotta be kidding me. don't get me wrong, im not a fan of bush by any means, but your statement really gets to me. instead of blaming bush, why not blame time magazines 2006 person of the year for not doing anything about it par posting their ill contempt on webpages.

as long as the american people stand by idly nagging nothing will change (for the better, at least).

it never ceases to amaze me how many americans will blame all the problems on one man -- one man that doesn't even wield the power they think he does.

it also never ceases to amaze me at how well the smoke and mirrors have worked on americans, you bicker about all the petty trivial problems of no importance (gay marriage) and let them divide you as a people when, at their base level, they are completely unimportant. (republican vs democrat, liberal vs conservative).

the sad truth is, most people will never come to a knowledge of why these things are really happening, and whos behind them.
Re:Not really . . . by jonfromspace · 2007-01-30 10:15 · Score: 2, Informative

It is not the cost of the instrument, nor the cost of a repair mission that will keep NASA from fixing Hubble, but rather a lack of available mission space to get a crew up there to do the work. The Shuttle fleet is under the gun big time to get the ISS finished before it is decommisioned. There is no other vehicle around that can dock with or, more accurately, "grab" the Hubble, so without a dedicated shuttle mission, a repair is impossible.

Looks like we will in fact be waiting till at least 2013 for any new deep field images. Atleast there is still a ton of science to be done on the existing data... So, in reality, this is much more of a loss for the armchair astronaut than it is to the real science teams.

--
I am become Troll, destroyer of threads
Re:Not really . . . by UnknowingFool · 2007-01-30 10:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

I dislike the current president as much as anyone, but he isn't the cause of all bad things in the world. It makes a poster look juvenile and irrational to blame it all on Bush. NASA has already decided to retire the Hubble since there are new things on the way.

My problem with the administration (and Congress) was that it cut NASA's funding. NASA had budgeted the James Webb to go online in 2013 and the Hubble to be serviced until 2013 so there would not be any disruption in service. With budget cuts, NASA had to make hard choices. At the same time, the administration was pushing NASA to start a program to put a man on Mars--an effort that would cost many times more than keeping the Hubble going. That's where I put the blame on the decisions in policy, not so much the "evilness" but policy.

For those out there who say that there is a replacement on the way, bear in mind the replacement is 6 years away. That's not too far away, right? Tell that to a scientist who has waited patiently for years for some time with the Hubble. He or she is going to have to do something else in the meantime. Science will have to wait.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Not really . . . by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2007-01-30 10:22 · Score: 1

the problem I have with the James-Webb telescope is it isn't a *replacement* for Hubble. JW is a non-visible (infrared) scope, and won't produce the type of images Hubble has.

I'm certainly not a specialist, but while visible spectrum images are more stunning for the general public, maybe IR images are more useful to astronomers? What's more, now the Hubble is demised, perhaps it's possible to give the James Webb the option of imaging in other parts of the spectrum as well as IR as an afterthought.

keeping the masses 'in favor' of spending on space involves giving them some of the stuff they want, namely the magnificent pictures Hubble has been providing for years. If they can't see it, then they won't want to fund it as much.

I'm sorry but not everything can be driven by what people can see or appreciate. If it was, there wouldn't be mathematicians or theoretical physicians. I assume that if astronomers are now building a IR space telescope, it's because they have more use for IR signals (that can't be received on the ground) than visible light ones, and in this case the public should learn to appreciate research for what it is, even if they can't marvel at it on a large poster in the outhouse. In any case, I'm sure NASA has a PR department that'll do a great job colorizing IR images for public consumption.

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Re:Not really . . . by soft_guy · 2007-01-30 10:32 · Score: -1, Troll

My problem with the administration (and Congress) was that it cut NASA's funding. My problem with them is they didn't zero out Nasa's funding (and a lot of other useless agencies). Seriously, they are a waste of money.

--
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Re:Not really . . . by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-30 11:01 · Score: 0

"They could fix it, probably at a cost about 20 times less than the original one"

Oh please. The *total* cost to develop and launch the original Hubble was about $2 billion. Any Hubble servicing mission is estimated to cost an excess of $1billion a pop.
Re:Not really . . . by iamlucky13 · 2007-01-30 11:38 · Score: 1

Your point gets made a lot, but:

1.) You can see in visible light from the ground, and several modern telescopes beat the hubble in that respect.

2.) Ultraviolet (another capability that will be lost with Hubble) isn't as interesting to astronomers as infrared. JWST will far outperform Hubble in IR. Some capabilities you just can't afford, otherwise we'd probably have half a dozen variations on the Hubble in orbit.

3.) JWST will also produce stunning images. They just won't be true color. For that matter, neither are most of the Hubble images. Moot point.
Re:Not really . . . by Erwos · 2007-01-30 12:00 · Score: 1

"There is no other vehicle around that can dock with or, more accurately, "grab" the Hubble, so without a dedicated shuttle mission, a repair is impossible."

Not true. I was directly involved with the plans to send a robot up to service the Hubble. It was definitely feasible - we even worked on various orbit scenarios to make it happen. The fact that it was decided to use a shuttle does _not_ mean there were no other alternatives. (I used to be a contractor at NASA GSFC.)

--
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
Re:Not really . . . by camperdave · 2007-01-30 12:05 · Score: 1

The Shuttle fleet is under the gun big time to get the ISS finished before it is decommisioned.

That makes a lot of sense... Much like "I've got to finish painting the barn before we burn it down", or "Let me plant this last petunia before you rotory-tiller the flower beds", or "I'm sorry, that paper will need to be signed before we can shred it" make a lot of sense.

I think, in a lot of ways, we need to "reboot" NASA.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:Not really . . . by jonfromspace · 2007-01-30 13:07 · Score: 2, Informative

You seem to have misunderstood me.

The SHUTTLE fleet is being decommisioned, NOT the ISS.

--
I am become Troll, destroyer of threads
Re:Not really . . . by jonfromspace · 2007-01-30 13:12 · Score: 1

Is this actually available for launch? I can't find anything online regarding a vehicle/payload that can service the Hubble other than the Shuttle fleet.

Otherwise, there is one opprtunity only to fix the problem, and that is durring the already scheduled (and full) 2008 service mission.

--
I am become Troll, destroyer of threads
Re:Not really . . . by camperdave · 2007-01-30 14:01 · Score: 1

Ah! Right. Now it makes sense. Sorry for the mix up.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:Not really . . . by Aardpig · 2007-01-30 14:20 · Score: 1

If you want to look at massive stars beyond z > 6 (ie, the First Stars), the majority of their radiation will arrive at Earth in the IR. That's one of the reasons the JWST works in the IR.

--
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
Re:Not really . . . by John+Nowak · 2007-01-30 14:37 · Score: 1, Funny

Have any other strong and uninformed opinions to share on matters of importance?
Re:Not really . . . by modecx · 2007-01-30 15:43 · Score: 1

Funny, NASA hasn't had problems funding the next generation of space telescope development, even with all of Bush's dealings.

Hell, all they have to do is make one capable of looking down at Earth and they'll have all the money they never needed.

--
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Re:Not really . . . by Herby+Sagues · 2007-01-30 17:45 · Score: 1

And building a second hubble wouldn't cost a fraction of what building the original one did. If no design changes were made, building a second unit would cost just millions (and they could get the mirror right on the second try). Besides, most technology used has been comoditized since (electronic gyroscopes, microprocessors, high cycle batteries, etc.) so building a new hubble would probably cost little more than building the spares needed. Given than a new launch mission might be doable without using the shuttle (the most expensive transport known to man) and even if the shuttle is used, it should be a much less expensive mission (lower orbit as the hubble2 could include propulsion to get to its orbit, and no dangerous spacewalks needed). All that, and you end up with a superior telescope to the one already up there.
Re:Not really . . . by timtwobuck · 2007-01-31 01:04 · Score: 1

Aren't most of the images we look at false-color anyways?
Re:Not really . . . by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-31 01:07 · Score: 0

Hubble is not set up for serial production. Sure, they can learn a lot from the design of that telescope. But a new space telescope would still have to be a new project with new people, new contractors, new technology that needs to be evaluated and tested, a partially new design that has to be fully tested, etc. They will have to do all the new things and redo almost all of the work that the Hubble project did. It will not be cheap.

Sure, the over-the-shelf hardware will probably cost like 1/10 of the original Hubble hardware, but that hardly matters when you're only going to produce one unit.
Re:Not really . . . by FragHARD · 2007-01-31 05:33 · Score: 1

Actually they could probably fix it for 20X MORE than putting up a replacement knowing how NASA works ;)

--
FragHARD or don't frag at all
Re:Not really . . . by Herby+Sagues · 2007-01-31 17:09 · Score: 1

If it were set up for serial production, one could be built in a week. But nobody is asking for that. With makin gone in two or three years, and testing it for an additional year it would be enough. Since the Hubble is 75% gone now, waiting two years or three for a new view won't make much difference. And the end results will. And you think that the repair parts (which comprise a good portion of the actual hubble, including most of the electrical system, the stabilization system, most computers and now the camera) are off the shelf and need not testing at all? They need probably as much testing as the whole scope. With the difference that they cannot be tested in an integral way, since the rest of the scope is up there in orbit.

Fuck Twofo To The Death by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-30 10:01 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Twofo Is Dying

DC++ hub.twofo.co.uk:4144

It is official; Netcraft confirms: Twofo is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleagured University of Warwick filesharing community when ITS confirmed that Twofo total share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all file sharing. Coming hot on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Twofo has lost more share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Twofo is collapsing in complete disarry, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Student comprehensive leeching test.

You don't need to be one of the Hub Operators to predict Twofo's future. The hand writing is on the toilet wall: Twofo faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Twofo because Twofo is dying. Things are looking very bad for Twofo. As many of us are already aware, Twofo continues to lose users. Fines and disconnections flow like a river of feces.

N00b Campus users are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of their total share. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Twofo sharers fool_on_the_hill and Twinklefeet only serves to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Twofo is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Sources indicate that there are at most 150 users in the hub. How many filelists have been downloaded? Let's see. 719. But 1621 IP addresses have been logged, and 1727 nicks have been sighted connecting to one user over the last term. How many searches are there? 600 searches in 3 hours. The highest sharer on campus, known as "firstchoice", or Andrew.Maddison@warwick.ac.uk in real life, was sharing over 1 TiB, despite working in ITS and not being on the resnet. He's only there so people off campus who think they're too good for bittorrent can continue to abuse the University's internet connection.

Due to troubles at the University of Warwick, lack of internet bandwidth, enforcements of Acceptable Usage Policies, abysmal sharing, retarded leechers, clueless n00bs, and ITS fining and disconnecting users, Twofo has no future. All major student surveys show that Twofo has steadily declined in file share. Twofo is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Twofo is to survive at all it will be among p2p hardcore fuckwits, desperate to grab stuff for free off the internet. Nothing short of a miracle could save Twofo from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Twofo is dead.

Fact: Twofo is dying

Looks like my wallpaper won't be changing for a by CrazyJim1 · 2007-01-30 10:02 · Score: 1

while. I'd always post the latest Hubble image as my desktop wallpaper. I'm sure many other people did this too.

--
God spoke to me.

Re:Looks like my wallpaper won't be changing for a by CommunistHamster · 2007-01-30 10:11 · Score: 1

Well, all good things come to an end. Cheer up, the JW telescope will be able to produce even better images and data thanks to the technological advances of the last twenty years, and the lessons learned from Hubble.
Re:Looks like my wallpaper won't be changing for a by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2007-01-30 10:12 · Score: 5, Funny

while. I'd always post the latest Hubble image as my desktop wallpaper. I'm sure many other people did this too.

You mean this one?

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Re:Looks like my wallpaper won't be changing for a by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-30 10:15 · Score: -1, Troll

"I'm sure many other people did this too."

Why do you assume that just because you like to do something, other people do also?

That's yet another indication of my basic thesis that all humans are little megalomaniacal selfish arrogant pricks.
Re:Looks like my wallpaper won't be changing for a by pixelpusher220 · 2007-01-30 10:17 · Score: 2, Informative

JW is infrared...i.e. non-visible. So I don't think it will be producing the same type of amazing images. A different kind of amazing, but nothing like Hubble.

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
Re:Looks like my wallpaper won't be changing for a by noidentity · 2007-01-30 10:27 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Why do you assume that he/she used such logic? Perhaps he/she thought "Hmmm, putting nice images on the desktop. I'm sure other people do that besides me." I guess if he/she thought otherwise, you could claim he/she consider him/herself unique, another "sign" of a selfish ignorant prick.

Summary: whatever you do, there are probably a few other people who do that as well.
Re:Looks like my wallpaper won't be changing for a by AnotherHiggins · 2007-01-30 10:32 · Score: 1

No, assuming that he is _so_ unique that no one else in the whole wide world would think to use Hubble as a source for backgrounds would be indicative of a "little megalomaniacal selfish arrogant prick".
Your (AC) post, on the other hand, indicates that many humans are idiots whose theses are meaningless because they don't understand big words, much less what they mean.
Re:Looks like my wallpaper won't be changing for a by pilbender · 2007-01-30 10:49 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Does this mean that you're not human? Or does it mean that you're a megalomaniacal arrogant prick?

--
Fresh horses and more whiskey for my men.
Re:Looks like my wallpaper won't be changing for a by CommunistHamster · 2007-01-30 11:06 · Score: 2, Informative

True, but most of Hubbles images are in false colour. All the nebulae and supernova remnants for example are too faint to be seen by the naked eye excepts as greyish clouds, so the iconic images seen on APOD are actually colourised IR or UV images.
Re:Looks like my wallpaper won't be changing for a by Ucklak · 2007-01-30 11:47 · Score: 3, Funny

I know. These images suck from the Spitzer Infrared Space Telescope.

There is absolutely no way that we can extrapolate any color from those images.

--
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
Re:Looks like my wallpaper won't be changing for a by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-30 14:10 · Score: 0

umm... same comment can be apply to you, and unlike yours, correctly applied...

Just because you think a person is a little megalomaniacal selfish arrogant pricks, you think that ALL HUMANS are little megalomaniacal selfish arrogant pricks?

Doesn't that make you a HUGE MSAP??
And I think you're an even bigger than HUGE MSAP cause your comment was wrong in the first place.

G'day...
Re:Looks like my wallpaper won't be changing for a by Herby+Sagues · 2007-01-30 17:48 · Score: 1

Only if you display them in your Infrared monitor ;-) You know, most Hubble pictures are in false color already. Any picture taken by the JW telescope will be converted to visible light for visual analysis and publication, and they are likely as stunning as pictures taken in the visible spectrum.
Re:Looks like my wallpaper won't be changing for a by Genda · 2007-01-30 23:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

True, but most of Hubbles images are in false colour. All the nebulae and supernova remnants for example are too faint to be seen by the naked eye excepts as greyish clouds, so the iconic images seen on APOD are actually colourised IR or UV images.

That's not exactly true... it totally depends on the image and which Hubble camera took the picture. For instance the pictures of mars and the other planets are pretty much spot on (when they haven't been color enhanced to show otherwise invisible physical details.)

It turns out that when objects get really faint, the only cones (color sensing neurons in your retina) that still function are green sensing cones... so faint nebulae and galaxies tend to appear pale green even through rather large telescopes. The red cones in our eyes are just not sensitive enough to pick up the deep reds of ionized hydrogen and sulphur. If you look at picture taken by amateur astronomers using standard color film, of RGB filters, you get true color pictures as a reference for what the true colors of deep sky objects would be if we had eyes sensitive enought to see them.

A common practive for Hubble pictures, is to filter pictures according to ionized chemical species, with low energy ions tending towards the red end of the spectrum, and the higher energy species towards the blue. The results are beautiful full spectrum images that accurately represent energy levels in a given nebulae or galaxy (if not the visually accurate colors.) This is typically true for both visible and infrared images.

Genda
"I am more that a little amazed that at the same time a comprehensive theory that describes the fundaments of the universe (CDT - Causal Dynamical Triangulations)seems to be showing some interesting promise... we as a people (specifically the good people of Kentucky) feel it's necessary to build a $27,000,000 Museum celebrating the 6,000 year old earth/universe complete with people and dinosaurs living together concurrently (as though the Flintstones were a documentary...) If nothing else, we're an interesting lot."

think i can wait... by iamhassi · 2007-01-30 10:03 · Score: 1

"We'll be pining for more of those amazing images until the James Webb launches in 2013. "

I think I can wait...

--
my karma will be here long after I'm gone

Re:think i can wait... by ogre7299 · 2007-01-30 10:20 · Score: 5, Informative

For those of you that don't know, Hubble still has two working instruments, the Wide Field Planetary Camera (WFPC2) and NICMOS. Both instruments are very capable of still doing good science. In fact, until 2002 the beautiful images we see were mostly from WFPC2, ACS wasn't installed until the last servicing mission. NICMOS is a near-infrared camera and still works fine. I would assume that repairing ACS would be a big priority now since its camera provided the best scientific data.

For those of you questioning whether or not Hubble should be serviced or just wait for James Webb, you ought to know that Hubble and James Webb will not cover the same wavelengths. Hubble covers UV, visible, and near-infrared. James Webb will cover Near to mid-infrared. James Webb can't do all the science that Hubble can and vice versa. However, ground-based adaptive optics imaging are hoped to be able to provide image quality as good as Hubble by the time it is ready to be retired sometime in the next decade. Also, because of the atmosphere, from the ground, we cannot observe all the infrared wavelengths that James Webb will be able to.
Re:think i can wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-30 10:36 · Score: 1, Funny

"We'll be pining for more of those amazing images until the James Webb launches in 2013. "
That gives me a thought - has anyone checked to see if maybe the Hubble camera's not dead and is just pining for the fjords?
Re:think i can wait... by shawn(at)fsu · 2007-01-30 11:02 · Score: 1

It's not pining, it's passed on. This camera is no more. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet its maker. This is a late camera. It's a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. If you shot it in to space to the orbit, it would be pushing up the daisies. It's rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. This is an ex-camera.

--
500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
Re:think i can wait... by TigerPlish · 2007-01-30 11:16 · Score: 1

It's not pining, it's passed on. This camera is no more. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet its maker. This is a late camera. It's a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. If you shot it in to space to the orbit, it would be pushing up the daisies. It's rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. This is an ex-camera. You mean....

Can it be...

It's dead, Jim.

--
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
Re:think i can wait... by wwphx · 2007-01-30 11:28 · Score: 1

Unfortunately the James Webb Telescope is an infrared, it's images won't be like what we're used to seeing.

--
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
Re:think i can wait... by Ucklak · 2007-01-30 11:53 · Score: 1

Fortunately, the images will be better.

If the military can colorize the output from infrared goggles realtime to look 'real', I'm sure the brains at NASA can colorize infrared images just like they colorize the Hubble images.

The Spitzer telescope has produced a few pretty images.

--
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
Re:think i can wait... by beetlenaut · 2007-01-30 13:14 · Score: 1

I can wait. The Webb scope won't be a replacement for HUBBLE, but for the SPITZER! The Webb scope is infrared only. It won't be giving us the same cool images. Look at the Spitzer scope images to see what we'll get.
Re:think i can wait... by StikyPad · 2007-01-30 16:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

ground-based adaptive optics imaging are hoped to be able to provide image quality as good as Hubble by the time it is ready to be retired sometime in the next decade.

I thought the Large Binocular Telescope was already doing that, producing images 10 times sharper than Hubble.

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Re:think i can wait... by kaszeta · 2007-01-31 02:42 · Score: 1

For those of you that don't know, Hubble still has two working instruments, the Wide Field Planetary Camera (WFPC2) and NICMOS.
Indeed, having some peripheral involvement with NICMOS (our company designed the replacement cryocooler for it), we get very regular status updates. When the ACS system safed, NICMOS and it's cooling systems went into safe mode as well, but on monday afternoon they restarted the NICMOS cooling system, and, as of yesterday noon, the NICMOS system was almost back down to operating temperature.

No time in the upcoming servicing mission by D'Eyncourt · 2007-01-30 10:05 · Score: 3, Informative

Before anyone asks: the upcoming shuttle mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope is already booked solid with other work.

Re:No time in the upcoming servicing mission by Trikenstein · 2007-01-30 10:22 · Score: 2, Funny

well, can't they postpone *Do Gerbils Crap Spheres In Zero G?* experiments until a later launch?
Re:No time in the upcoming servicing mission by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-30 10:24 · Score: 0

I suppose it's INCONCEIVABLE to change the schedule, eh?
Re:No time in the upcoming servicing mission by Professor_UNIX · 2007-01-30 10:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

I suppose it's INCONCEIVABLE to change the schedule, eh?
This isn't "Armageddon". They need time to certify and train the astronauts for making those repairs and that takes a long time.
Re:No time in the upcoming servicing mission by s20451 · 2007-01-30 10:48 · Score: 2, Funny

Now we'll never know if ants can sort tiny screws in space!

--
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Re:No time in the upcoming servicing mission by Nyeerrmm · 2007-01-30 10:51 · Score: 3, Interesting

They're less likely to send a second mission to Hubble because of safety. From whats publicly available, it was hard to convince the safety guys to agree to one mission without the possibility of the ISS as a lifeboat. Also I think all planned launches except the Hubble repair are ISS construction launches.

I do wonder about that Hubble repair launch. Their not big on changing mission profiles significantly, and I'm certainly no expert on what they're doing to it, but it seems that some of the repairs may not be worthwhile if that camera is down, or if they might decided that not doing as much (i.e. letting it die sooner) but replacing the camera might be worth it. But like I said, I don't know much about how the Hubble works and what the current repair plans are.
Re:No time in the upcoming servicing mission by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-30 11:21 · Score: 2, Informative

The upcoming Hubble Servicing Mission already has two new science instruments on the manifest: the Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3, a replacement for the venerable Wide Field Planetary Camera 2 - WFPC2) and the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph (COS). WFC3 wasn't intended to be a replacement for the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS), but the new instrument should be able to do much of the imaging science that is now lost with the ACS visible-wavelength detectors down.

Information on the Hubble Servicing Mission can be found from NASA's Hubble site:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/servicing /index.html
Re:No time in the upcoming servicing mission by Anonymous+McCartneyf · 2007-01-30 11:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

The rest of the Hubble Telescope is still working. We want the parts that are still working to be maintained: they served us well for twenty years, so we might as well squeeze a little more out of them.
Better just the ACS than the whole telescope.
And hey, if we're fortunate, they might put in another nice camera in 2008 to hold everyone over until that infrared one gets launched. They can make time for it--this was clearly a well-loved camera, and the people and science boards have some voice.
I really think that the safety concerns for space shuttle trips are pushed too hard. We know space is dangerous, we know we're still exploring, so why can't we just accept the risks?

--
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
Re:No time in the upcoming servicing mission by heinousjay · 2007-01-30 12:04 · Score: 1, Funny

Too bad, I just know Ben Affleck could pull it off.

Bonus points for dying in the attempt.

--
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Re:No time in the upcoming servicing mission by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-30 16:29 · Score: 0

Kinda like my cable company...

"Router melted, eh? Sorry, I'm just here to check the outdoor box."

But the guy should be coming sometime next month between 10am and 6pm...

Webb in 2013? by Maury+Markowitz · 2007-01-30 10:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

Riiiiight. Like Shuttle in '79? Or Alpha in '95? Or how about Hubble in '86? *sigh*

Re:Webb in 2013? by forand · 2007-01-30 10:38 · Score: 1

Sure it is funny but it is also true. Funding for science has decreased within NASA with the change in focus towards a manned mission to Mars. While only temporary, hopefully, the US budget being only a continuing resolution means that the people researching technology for James Web will have to spend more time finding funding or not work on the project till funding increases.

With all the people excited about the images that Hubble has given us, let alone the science, hopefully some will begin to realize that the drive to Mars is hurting the science normally performed through NASA.
Re:Webb in 2013? by Dirtside · 2007-01-30 12:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, you've named three NASA projects that ended up running late. Now, can you name three which went live as originally scheduled?

Now that you've done that, can you explain your point?

--
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Re:Webb in 2013? by earthbound+kid · 2007-01-30 22:04 · Score: 1

Can you name three NASA long term projects that ran on schedule since the 70s?

Seriously.

Name them.

And small Mars missions don't count. I'm talking about things that cost at least a billion and were scheduled for 5 plus years in the future. The fact is, 99% of the time, if you can't build it in 5 years, you basically can't build it at all without some breakthrough happening. NASA's planning teams always assume that sometime in the next 10 years we'll learn how to use unobtanium to keep the cost of the heat shields down or whatever, but then that never happens and we've already wasted more than the original budget on the preliminary work.

Let's face it, NASA's glory days are behind them. The agency that put men on the moon is no more. Now, there's just a lot of gossamer dreams, the price tag of which is always rising and the release date of which is always being pushed back.

it's not dead by User+956 · 2007-01-30 10:08 · Score: 5, Funny

We'll be pining for more of those amazing images until the James Webb launches in 2013.

Will those images be of the fjords?

--
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.

Re:it's not dead by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2007-01-30 10:14 · Score: 2, Funny

Norwegian space telescopes stun easily...

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Re:it's not dead by User+956 · 2007-01-30 10:17 · Score: 2, Funny

Norwegian space telescopes stun easily...

I'm sure if we went up there we'd find the only reason it remains perched where it is, is because it's been nailed there.

--
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Re:it's not dead by Anonymous+Cowpat · 2007-01-30 10:45 · Score: 1

Listen to me sonny, I know a dead telescope when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now...

--
FGD 135

My collection by BadERA · 2007-01-30 10:10 · Score: 0, Offtopic

of intergalactic alien porn will surely suffer :(

--
I am, therefore you think.

Damn Sony... by GillBates0 · 2007-01-30 10:12 · Score: 0, Offtopic

...and their poorly made Cybershot cameras. I ruined mine on my recent trip to beautiful Switzerland, and had to make do with a disposable camera.

That, and now the Hubble camera. I wish we'd gone with a Canon.

--
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam

Re:Damn Sony... by acedotcom · 2007-01-30 12:18 · Score: 0

slighty funny...but only because i am a Canon whore

--
they say it is often more relevant then the comment above, all we know is its called the Sig!

Conspiracy theory by LineGrunt · 2007-01-30 10:13 · Score: 0, Troll

Gee...

NASA wants to end the Hubble Mission.

Public demands that it stay on-line.

NASA says that "Hubble is saved."

Main "pretty picture" instrument dies...

Hmmm...

Re:Conspiracy theory by Excelcia · 2007-01-30 10:19 · Score: 1

Not a conspiracy at all. It's a public that gets a value from Hubble, who also happens to be paying for it, demanding to have a say in what they are paying for.

What is wrong with the people making the purchase having a say in what they are buying?
Re:Conspiracy theory by Mr.+Hankey · 2007-01-30 10:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

"NASA" doesn't want to end it per se, there are people who work on that project and use the data who would like to see it continue. The issue is whether there are sufficient funds to keep the Hubble telescope going, while taking care of other ongoing missions and work to prepare for the planned future missions. If congress hands NASA a lump of cash and tells them "This is for Hubble", Hubble will be serviced. Until that happens, there's a lot of work to be done before we have our shuttle replacement and a manned base on the moon. My humble opinion, not the opinion of NASA, legalese blah blah blah, but based on observation.

--
GPL: Free as in will
Re:Conspiracy theory by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-30 10:38 · Score: 0

Reading comprehension. It's a concept you should try once in a while.

Could the NSA help? by yellowbkpk · 2007-01-30 10:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

What if the NSA pointed one of their old drifting recon birds the wrong way and refocused it a few million light years from here?

I realize the optics aren't set up to do far-field imaging, but maybe it'd be cheaper and quicker than waiting to fix the Hubble?

Re:Could the NSA help? by p_trekkie · 2007-01-30 10:46 · Score: 3, Informative

What if the NSA pointed one of their old drifting recon birds the wrong way and refocused it a few million light years from here?

I realize the optics aren't set up to do far-field imaging, but maybe it'd be cheaper and quicker than waiting to fix the Hubble?

An intriguing idea. However, I don't think it will work. The focus would not be the major issue though, as the difference in focussing between 500km and 500pc is relatively minor.

I suspect the main issue would be noise. Hubble's CCDs were specifically designed to have the lowest possible noise, whereas in the case of an NSA satellite, they have so much more signal from Earth (>1000x) than from the next dimmest thing in the solar system that the system might not be physically capable of taking the necessary long exposures. However, they might be able to do some sort of astronomy with a series of stacked images, much as is done with web cam astronomy. Anyway, just some thoughts... there are probably other reasons it hasn't been done yet that I haven't thought of yet....
Re:Could the NSA help? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-30 12:14 · Score: 0

there are rumors among astronomers that the NSA already knows the nature of dark energy, they just won't tell us because of national security reasons...
Re:Could the NSA help? by kindbud · 2007-01-30 13:13 · Score: 1

These spacecraft are probably incapable of tracking celestial objects even with a remote software update (if that's even possible), because they lack the fine guidance sensors Hubble uses to lock onto stars and track the target accurately over the course of a long exposure, which may last many orbits.

--
Edith Keeler Must Die
Re:Could the NSA help? by Millenniumman · 2007-01-30 15:24 · Score: 1

I propose we just throw cameraphones into the air really hard, so they get into orbit.

--
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
Re:Could the NSA help? by Rick.C · 2007-01-31 01:13 · Score: 1

Technical issues aside, it would be 30 years before the images could be de-classified.

--
You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
"Math in a song is good."-Linford

I think I speak for all HST fans with Tourette's by Chris+Burke · 2007-01-30 10:14 · Score: -1, Offtopic

when I say: Fuck fuck fuckity-fuck fuck ass-raping horse fuck shit balls cock fuck fuck fuckity-fushizle-fuck!

--

The enemies of Democracy are

and yet... by Lord_Slepnir · 2007-01-30 10:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

This nation has a serious priority issue. If even a small fraction of the money we're throwing away on Iraq were to go to things like space exploration, we'd probably have a fleet of Hubbles up there watching our first Mars landing. I'd blame this on the politicians, but someone had to vote them in. Maybe when China puts a man on Mars ahead of us will we wake up and start doing our part to advance the human race, even if it's for the wrong reason.

Re:and yet... by susano_otter · 2007-01-30 10:24 · Score: 1, Insightful

Dude, there are horrible genocides happening in Africa. North Korea holds Seoul hostage while it builds nuclear weapons and supplies terrorist networks. World temperatures are rising at the same time as world energy resources are dwindling. Ten thousand other horrors are playing out world-wide. And you want to spend the Iraq war funds on telescopes to watch a robot land on Mars?

Who's got the priority problems?

--
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Re:and yet... by NG+Resonance · 2007-01-30 11:10 · Score: 1

What does the morass in Iraq have to do with Darfur, Burundi, and DR Congo?
Re:and yet... by mibus · 2007-01-30 11:26 · Score: 1

And you want to spend the Iraq war funds on telescopes to watch a robot land on Mars?

He didn't say the whole amount, he said part. There's plenty to go around.

See also: NYT article, "What $1.2 Trillion can buy".
Re:and yet... by AnnoyedDroid · 2007-01-30 11:34 · Score: 0

Most people will admit that, even though we are doing nothing about them, the atrocities in Darfur, Burundi and the Congo are problems that should be dealt with. The difference between them and Iraq is that we actually DID something productive (you know, taking down Saddam). If we moved into Darfur to try and restore some concept of civilized living to them we would suddenly have a problem.

It seems to me like a bunch of big talk. "We should save Darfur!", everyone agrees. But no one is willing to stand up and do it, and if they do, everyone reverses their stand and says "It's not our business."

Iraq under Saddam and Darfur are similar. Not the same, no, but both have/had their reprehensible atrocities.

--
I'm annoyed! The Annoyed Droid!
Re:and yet... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-30 11:56 · Score: -1, Troll

Why the fuck is that our problem? A bunch of stupid niggers who have been historically incapable of building or maintaining civilizations are hardly our concern. Nature will sort them out.

Civilization was built on the backs of evolutionary superiors. We need not go back to banging on bongo drums just because a bunch of evolutionary left-behinds cannot get their shit together.
Re:and yet... by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2007-01-30 12:47 · Score: 1

By your logic, we should decide what the absolute worst problem in the world is at any given time, and focus everything we have on that one thing until it's taken care of. And then move on the next one thing, etc.

Fortunately, in the real world, we're capable of doing more than one thing at once.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:and yet... by Colourspace · 2007-01-30 12:55 · Score: 1

Maybe it wont be hubble that gets us off this godforsaken planet - but its a start. we need to get off of earth. NOW.
Re:and yet... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-30 18:18 · Score: 0

I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic. Where would we go? Mars? Venus? Jupiter? Beyond the Solar system, when we don't know of any other place that's livable, let alone any place within MANY LIFETIMES' JOURNEY where there's even a STAR? Let me guess: we build a "great arcology and travel to the stars!" Without by far our greatest source of energy.

No, we absolutely do not need to get off this planet at this point in time. What we need to do is find ways to preserve this world, THE ONLY ONE WE KNOW OF, indefinitely. We need to stop blowing up little bits of it. We need to find ways to avoid killing off every last one of our kind, the loss of which would certainly make it pointless to care about what happens to Earth.

If you were trolling, you got me. If you were being serious, get your head out of Star Trek, realize that any utilitarian ethicist like Frank Herbert clearly isn't as smart as you think he is, and grow up. It's good to see the big picture, but I think you're seeing the wrong picture in any light. Earth is an absolute paradise in the universe if you're a human.
Re:and yet... by delinear · 2007-01-30 22:22 · Score: 1

Yeah, we can do lots of things badly at once...
Re:and yet... by GerryHattrick · 2007-01-31 03:33 · Score: 1

I'd be grateful for Iraq myself. The British Empire tried and failed, now it's the turn of 'youall' - to the extent that anyone rational (sure you are?) can make any difference at all in these benighted millenia. But Hubble is something else. The greatest public insight on our 'mini'-human existence (yes, all of us) ever. The US in this matter, and it pains me to say it, now represents us all. Just get out there and fix it. Remind me what the ISS is 'for'? Moon/Mars landings so what? Just go on reminding us ALL where we live.
Re:and yet... by susano_otter · 2007-01-31 04:44 · Score: 1

If there's plenty to go around, then why not spend some of it on boondoggles like Iraq or NASA?

It just seems kind of stupid to me, to complain that we're spending our spare change on one luxury item instead of another luxury item, with all the trouble in the world today...

--
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Re:and yet... by susano_otter · 2007-01-31 04:48 · Score: 1

Exactly my point. The logic is absurd.

--
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Re:and yet... by Colourspace · 2007-01-31 08:16 · Score: 1

No I wasn't trolling - I was serious. You have some good points there, and you are right in many ways. But the earlier we start to look elsewhere and invest in it the better, it's like playing roulette. If we are the only real 'life' in the universe then surely we are worth saving. At the moment, without sound knowledge of superior races, we cannot afford to think anyone else will save us. Let's look after number one and not wait anymore, spending billions on pointless wars on earth that will only serve to extend life here in the shortest terms. Why not look at the bigger picture? And, if you're so sure of your point why post AC?
Re:and yet... by mibus · 2007-01-31 10:55 · Score: 1

If there's plenty to go around, then why not spend some of it on boondoggles like Iraq or NASA?

I meant that if the Iraq war hadn't been funded, there would be enough money to fund NASA, improve health-care and education, and still give millions to needy people in other countries, if that's what was desired.

It just seems kind of stupid to me, to complain that we're spending our spare change on one luxury item instead of another luxury item, with all the trouble in the world today...

It's a matter of scale. Billions upon billions of dollars have been spent on an invasion of a foreign country, and NASA seems to have trouble finding the odd million to service Hubble every few years etc.
Re:and yet... by susano_otter · 2007-01-31 11:49 · Score: 1

Since we're already in deficit spending, the amount of actual money available is clearly not a limiting factor.

--
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

but isn't the James Webb technology old by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-30 10:18 · Score: 0

I think the James Webb technology is from the late 1990's when the specs were made. So I don't expect a dramatic difference from Hubble.

The Beeb Disagrees... by drinkypoo · 2007-01-30 10:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

From The Beeb:

Hubble is due to receive a new camera during a planned servicing mission by space shuttle in 2008.

This should recover all of the capability lost in the latest failure.

"The successful completion of [the shuttle mission] and insertion of Wide Field Camera-3 (WFC3) will take us fully back to not only where we are now, but where we want [the telescope] to be in the future," said David Leckrone, Nasa's senior project scientist on Hubble.

So uh, WTF? Who is right? Will this camera be replaced in 2008, or not?

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Re:The Beeb Disagrees... by SpaceLifeForm · 2007-01-30 10:30 · Score: 4, Funny

It's all a 'GO', they are just waiting for a floppy to update the firmware.

--
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Re:The Beeb Disagrees... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-30 10:33 · Score: 1, Informative

Hubble is scheduled to get a new camera (WFC3="Wide Field Camera 3") in the 2008 Servicing Mission 4 (SM4, http://hubble.nasa.gov/missions/sm4.php). The camera that just (mostly) failed (ACS="Advanced Camera for Surveys") would have operated in parallel with the new WFC3 camera. Hubble has yet another camera (WFPC2=Wide Field Planetary Camera 2) that is still operating normally. NASA loves acronyms. Long live Hubble!
Re:The Beeb Disagrees... by CODiNE · 2007-01-30 11:03 · Score: 1

Just waiting for someone to push that floppy in all the way and press the little red button.

--
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
Re:The Beeb Disagrees... by Anonymous+McCartneyf · 2007-01-30 11:48 · Score: 1

The original fine article also mentioned the new camera. Therefore, there will be a new camera.

--
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
Re:The Beeb Disagrees... by Citizen+of+Earth · 2007-01-30 12:13 · Score: 1

WTF? Who is right? Will this camera be replaced in 2008, or not?

No, stop, relax, you're both right. There is a mission planned for 2008 but it will never happen.
Re:The Beeb Disagrees... by kindbud · 2007-01-30 13:04 · Score: 1

So uh, WTF? Who is right? Will this camera be replaced in 2008, or not?

The new WFC3 will be installed in place of the now-inoperative Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS) instrument. The ACS was never scheduled or expected to be replaced.

--
Edith Keeler Must Die

Cry me a river by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-30 10:23 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Boo-fucking-hoo. PEOPLE ARE DYING DUE TO WAR DISEASE AND FAMINE EVERYDAY AND THIS CRAP GETS A PROMINENT FIRST PAGE PLACEMENT ? How about, News for Nerds, Minor Technical Glitches That Don't Matter in the Slightest in The Grand Scheme of Things ?

Hrm. by susano_otter · 2007-01-30 10:28 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Hrm. This is interesting. Very interesting.

--

Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

Space Camera by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-30 10:32 · Score: 0

When I was coming back from San Fran a couple weeks ago (after Macworld) there was a multi-million dollar NASA camera that'll be on the next space ship going through security at the same time I was. You'd think they'd check those things before hand.

Re:Space Camera by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2007-01-30 13:22 · Score: 1

When I was coming back from San Fran a couple weeks ago (after Macworld) there was a multi-million dollar NASA camera that'll be on the next space ship going through security at the same time I was. You'd think they'd check those things before hand.

And let the baggage handlers throw it around and/or put it on the next plane to Botswanaland by mistake? Hardly!

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way

There is hope. by Cyraan · 2007-01-30 10:35 · Score: 2

STS-125 is scheduled to launch in 2008, and is supposed to be conducting the final service mission. Don't think there has been any official word yet on fixing/replacing the camera yet though, but it would seem wasteful not to, unless they just decide to scrub the mission.

--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction." - Blaise Pascal

If all you want is a blurry mess... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-30 10:37 · Score: 0

then go right ahead. I doubt the pictures would be any better than taking a regular camera set to macro mode and turning it skyward.

service it quick by gsn · 2007-01-30 10:39 · Score: 3, Informative

Yes this is very sad but even without ACS Hubble still has WFP2 and NICMOS so its entirely worth servicing it because it can still do bleeding edge science. I don't think there is much hope for servicing ACS. Most of the large ground based telescopes come equipped with atmospheric dispersion correctors (two fancy counter-rotating prisms) and Shack-Hartmann sensors and these along with the larger primary make up a lot of the difference for some science purposes, though ACS will be sorely missed and soon. HST proposals were due recently so they'll probably extend the call for proposals by a few weeks but there will be a lot of unhappy folks who will have to go back to the drawing board so to speak and start from scratch.

If you still want pretty pictures for your desktop - this is not really the point but its astronomy for the soul which is very important - then theres a fairly large collection of ACS images http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/archive/frees earch/acs/viewall/1 and you can get some pretty stunning images from the ground with relatively small telescopes - some of the bigger names in astrophotography like Robert Gendler, Neil Fleming, Ron Wodawski do some stunning stuff.

--
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.

Re:service it quick by Bemopolis · 2007-01-30 12:39 · Score: 1

And honestly, all of the really important work (that is, the nebular astronomy I care about that can't be done with ACS and its crappy filter set) is done on WFPC2. So step aside you galactic-obsessed pinheads, you've monopolized the scope long enough — there's WORK to be done!

--
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
Re:service it quick by gsn · 2007-01-30 13:08 · Score: 1

The really high z Sne were all with ACS from Higher-z Supernova Search and they are very important to a lot of people. C'est la vie. ACS is Dead. Long live ACS.

--
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.

Debris from Chinese tests? by skintigh2 · 2007-01-30 10:40 · Score: 1, Interesting

I read in an article on yahoo news, which I cannot find right now, that some of hubble's electrical shorts may have been related to debris floating in space. Is the HST in the same orbit as the satellite that China recently blew up?

Re:Debris from Chinese tests? by chazzzzy · 2007-01-30 13:01 · Score: 1

I was thinking the same thing. They said that the explosion of that satellite by the Chinese was irresponsible as it could would result in major amounts of debris that could damage other satellites in orbit.

Hubble gone is no real loss by gd23ka · 2007-01-30 10:40 · Score: 0, Troll

Access to Hubble has always been severely limited and imagery and other data
was screened by NASA. Even images transmitted to the ground were encrypted.

Actually... by Transdimentia · 2007-01-30 10:42 · Score: 1

Actually the reason they settled on JW was so they could point it at the ground and learn what channels are being tuned to and when with everybody's remote controls.

Finally, the first step towards the elimination of by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-30 11:00 · Score: -1, Troll

NASA. Hopefully the hubble's orbit will decay crash into the the White House in the USian Capitol to take out the USian dictator. Then the Fucktarded USians will call for the elimination of NASA!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!!!

GO AHEAD, FUCKING FLAME AWAY OR WASTE YOUR GODDAMED MOD POINTS FUCKTARDED SHITDOT SHEEPLE!

Re:Finally, the first step towards the elimination by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-30 11:03 · Score: 0

so i heard u like mudkips

Blame Mike Nelson. by Rob+T+Firefly · 2007-01-30 11:09 · Score: 1, Funny

Mike broke the Hubble! Mike broke the Hubble!

--
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned

Misleading. You will still have great wallpapers by iamlucky13 · 2007-01-30 11:10 · Score: 4, Informative

Actually, although the Advanced Camera for Surveys produces some of the deepest and highest resolution images, especially of distant objects, it is the wide-field planetary camera that produces a lot of the most memorable images, such as the "Pillars of Creation" in the Eagle Nebula.

Hubblesite.org has a good layman's description of the instruments on the Hubble.

Also, we're still getting many fine images of the planets, stars, galaxies, and nebulae around us from the Spitzer and the multitude of ground-based scopes that make great backgrounds. And don't forget the fantastic Mars rovers or Cassini.

James Webb is not a replacement.. by johnny+maxwell · 2007-01-30 11:14 · Score: 2, Informative

..to Hubble, it's merely its successor by NASA. I think it should be stressed that they are different kind of telescopes, James Webb is supposed to be an infrared only telescope whereas Hubble is UV, optical and near-infrared.
Far to often people speak about James Webb as the ultimate replacement for Hubble. However the optical and UV bands will be lost without it.

Hubble pictures are nice 'n' all... by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · 2007-01-30 11:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

...but the excitement of seeing some of those pictures can't compare with what I felt when I first saw this pair of galaxies and the Orion Nebula with my own eyes in my shiny new low cost ($300) 8" reflector (even if they didn't look as spectacular as in those pictures I linked to).

--
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.

Uh oh... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-30 11:20 · Score: 0

It's all a 'GO', they are just waiting for a floppy to update the firmware.

Houston, we have a problem...

Photoshop is your friend? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-30 11:20 · Score: 0

Perhaps we should all pick up Photoshop (or GIMP for all you luddites) and make our own space images?

I've done this on many an occasion, and it turned out pretty well, plus, it wasn't even my idea to start making these kinds of wallpapers...

People like Greg Martin (Google him), or the guy running digitalblasphemy.com have just made their own, to their taste, with what I'd say is higher clarity than Hubble really achieved.

Just a couple of pennies in the /. pot.

HoosierGeek

Play re-runs by EmbeddedJanitor · 2007-01-30 11:26 · Score: 1

Would anyone notice? Random pictures of cosmic gas and dust sure all look pretty similar after a while.

--
Engineering is the art of compromise.

According to the Bad Astronomer... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-30 11:32 · Score: 0

To replaces the ACS, "111 screws have to be taken out, to get to the part to be replaced! Yikes."

Why? by StarKruzr · 2007-01-30 11:34 · Score: 1

Seriously, they are a waste of money.

How is aerospace engineering and basic science a waste of money?

--

+++ATH0

Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-30 12:03 · Score: -1, Flamebait

NASA's aerospace engineering certainly is. How many different ways does the US Military need to drop bombs on people?
Re:Why? by soft_guy · 2007-01-30 14:51 · Score: 0

Because they do very little basic science - they spend most of their money on scams and publicity stunts.

--
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score

the hunger in the world? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-30 11:35 · Score: 0

the hunger in the world?

karma whoring by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-30 11:39 · Score: 0

Top Ten Astonomy images from last year from the bad astronomy site:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/12/27/the- top-ten-astronomy-images-of-2006/

-- An AC.

Re:Hubble gone is no real loss by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-30 11:55 · Score: 0

Access to Hubble has always been severely limited and imagery and other data
was screened by NASA. Even images transmitted to the ground were encrypted.

All Hubble data (note: all Hubble data) is available from the Hubble Archive at
the Space Telescope Science Institute (http://archive.stsci.edu/hst). Scientists who
propose to use Hubble are granted a one-year proprietary period on their data,
but those data are available after that proprietary period.

Incidentally, Hubble is not "gone". There are still two imaging instruments on-board
Hubble that are working fine (the Wide Field Planetary Camera 2 and the Near Infrared
Multi-Object Spectrometer), as well as the Fine Guidance Sensors. Two new
instruments are slated to be installed in the next Servicing Mission in late 2008.

Anyone notice China's cloud of junk? by heroine · 2007-01-30 12:02 · Score: 1, Interesting

The news conspicuously avoided any mention of China and the cloud of junk China sent shooting through space right before all these satellites failed.

MSNBC said the ACS was the primary producer of data since 2002 and it could not be replaced in a single repair mission. MSNBC also said it failed 2 months short of its 5 year mission. People like MSNBC. They like Keith Olbermann. They trust Keith Olbermann more than their own eyes. MSNBC gave quite a bleaker picture than the funded astronomer.

The real fear is they'll cancel the next repair mission because it's a lost cause. Not good if you're living on Hubble grants.

Re:Anyone notice China's cloud of junk? by lxt518052 · 2007-01-31 01:55 · Score: 1

The news conspicuously avoided any mention of China and the cloud of junk China sent shooting through space right before all these satellites failed.
Pointing figers before even remote evidence supports an accusation against someone would hurt the credibility of any decent press, don't you think so?
Politicians in Washington seemed to developed a habbit. When anything bad happens, they always find a way to blame China or someone who's not likely to defend themselves before the general US public. To support the accusation, they could even buy some research to influence the public opinion. Once the public's attention gets diverted, the politicians just go on with their agenda. Isn't it wonderful?
Fortunately, it seems these scientists are more decent than the politicians.

--
People who dislike China tend to mention Tiananmen Square a lot, but they always forget the Tank Man is also a Chinese.

What does NASA by StarKruzr · 2007-01-30 12:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

have to do with dropping bombs on people?

(hint: nothing)

--

+++ATH0

Re:What does NASA by Mal-2 · 2007-01-30 18:51 · Score: 1

Every dollar spent building a bomb is one that cannot be spent on science. Money is going toward destroying wealth, rather than something that is acquiring it? (Knowledge is wealth, and all that.) NASA has to compete with the poorly managed and incompetently used military, when all the incompetents can think to do is throw more money and manpower at the problem. Science goes without, unless it has to do with making better toys for the military.

This is not a slam on the troops, they are a valiant and necessary fighting force. Yes they deserve better gear and I wish the money had been spent on that a long time ago. If it had, a significant number of them would still be alive or more nearly in one piece. It is the people pulling the strings that I have the problems with.

Mal-2

--
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Re:What does NASA by Qso · 2007-01-30 20:19 · Score: 0

Actually wealthy people should support science instead of buying themselves 300mil $ yachts and colossal houses ! What a waste of money.

Fuse Blew? by cmacb · 2007-01-30 12:21 · Score: 3, Funny

Man oh man, they should have used a circuit breaker instead of a fuse. I'd hate to get up there with a bag of those little fuses and find out I had to go back to the service station for the right one.

Re:Fuse Blew? by dodongo · 2007-01-30 18:38 · Score: 1

Yeah, it's bad enough to have to drive 350 relatively-horizontal miles to get a part for something. I can't imagine having to go 350 relatively-vertical ones.
Re:Fuse Blew? by UnknowingFool · 2007-01-31 03:08 · Score: 1

I know NASA engineers are Star Trek fans, but did they have to copy everything from the Star Trek universe. I mean, it's cool to see an Ensign fried when a power surge hits the bridge, but isn't this taking Star Trek too far. ;)

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Fuse Blew? by Ed_Pinkley · 2007-01-31 09:47 · Score: 1

At least with a fuse they can just stick a penny behind it "for now" and replace it next time they happen to be in the area.

--
"Long time listener, first time caller."

To NASA by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-30 12:38 · Score: 0

Just expand the next servicing mission, please?!?!

Re:Hubble gone is no real loss by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-30 12:45 · Score: 0

The only 'serivce mission' the piece of shit hubble deserves is a good de-orbiting.

Oblig. Futurama by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-30 13:15 · Score: 2, Funny

Brannigan: "What the hell is that thing?"

Kif: "It appears to be the mothership"

Brannigan: "Then what did we just blow up?"

Kif: "The Hubble Telescope"

Re:Oblig. Futurama by UnknownSoldier · 2007-01-30 14:05 · Score: 1

Mod parent up!
Re:Oblig. Futurama by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-30 17:17 · Score: 0

thats what /. is all about, btw there bringing out a season 5 that will be cool
Re:Oblig. Futurama by arodland · 2007-01-30 18:10 · Score: 1

Mod parent down (metametametamoderation)!

Re:Hubble gone is no real loss by gd23ka · 2007-01-30 13:16 · Score: 1

Actually it would deserve to be orbiting a better world.

Good idea but not quite the correct question. by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2007-01-30 13:26 · Score: 1

Is the HST in the same orbit as the satellite that China recently blew up?

Correct question: "Is any of the debris from the satellite China blew up now in an orbit that intersects the HST's?"

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way

No, they couldn't. by Eevee · 2007-01-30 14:36 · Score: 2, Informative

Mainly because NSA doesn't have any cameras up there. You're thinking of NGA, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.

Re:No, they couldn't. by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-31 01:44 · Score: 0

And you're thinking of the NRO, the National Reconnaissance Office.

Slightly wrong... by MattHaffner · 2007-01-30 14:40 · Score: 1

The new WFC3 will be installed in place of the now-inoperative Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS) instrument.

WFC3 replaces WFPC2.

COS (UV spectroscopy) replaces COSTAR (the original optics fix package; all the new instruments have this correction built in).

STIS will have an attempted repair to get it going again. It's a tough job, but we astro spectral-types have our fingers crossed.

I just saw this on Adult Swim by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-30 14:46 · Score: 0

"I believe it's the mothership, sir."
"Then what did we just blow up?"
"The Hubble Telescope."

You have just confirmed by StarKruzr · 2007-01-30 15:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

that either you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about or you just hate NASA for some obscure reason. I also notice that you steered clear of commenting on the aerospace engineering research they do, which is top-notch.

I see "exploring the Moon and Mars," and the two rovers which have exceeded their life expectancy by a factor of 16 and gathered a huge amount of valuable data, don't count as "basic science" in your world. Fascinating.

--

+++ATH0

Re:You have just confirmed by soft_guy · 2007-01-30 16:59 · Score: 0, Flamebait

I can think of a LOT of federal programs that should be ended (another one is AmTrak), but NA$A is one that really pisses me off because so much of what they have done is fake and it has absolutely no value.

--
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Re:You have just confirmed by Paradoks · 2007-01-30 17:44 · Score: 1

Wasted money? But... Tang!

Crap by MadnessASAP · 2007-01-30 15:12 · Score: 1

No where am I going to get those high res photos of the nudist beaches.

--
I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.

mod.crack by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-30 15:25 · Score: 0

All right, who the fuck modded a perfectly good Mystery Science Theatre 3000 joke as "troll?"

Costs are relative...A billion $ is alot of money; by Grog6 · 2007-01-30 15:26 · Score: 1

Unless you are pouring it in a war at a billion a day...

I forget, are we Oceana or Eurasia this time???

--
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani

Dead spy satellites don't last long by dbIII · 2007-01-30 15:32 · Score: 1

I may be out of date here - but aren't spy satellites in highly ellipical orbits so they can get down low and actually resolve objects the size of vehicles in the visable wavelength? The problem with this is relatively short lifespans due to actually touching atmosphere at the low point of the orbit - which also prevents them from using large solar arrays for power (air resistance in the far upper atmosphere would be enough to require heavy supports for the arrays). They need relatively large amounts of fuel to stay in their orbits.

Re:Hubble gone is no real loss by Creepy+Crawler · 2007-01-30 15:35 · Score: 1

Also notice how the anony-coward did not address the encryption downlink. All he did was stress that all the data is stored at some website.

What ARE they doing on Hubble?

--

Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thurs, Nov 31, @13:37

And certainly no UV.... by MattHaffner · 2007-01-30 15:36 · Score: 1

Also, because of the atmosphere, from the ground, we cannot observe all the infrared wavelengths that James Webb will be able to.

But even with ground-based AO and JWST, we will have no access to the UV after Hubble signs off. Although Hubble doesn't do a lot of UV imaging (see GALEX for that), the UV spectroscopy from it has taught us a fantastic amount about the composition, motion, and physical conditions of tons of astronomical objects including nearby interstellar gas and hot stars as well as distant active regions inside the cores of galaxies and the tenuous filaments of intergalactic gas that make up the cosmic web.

These kinds of studies will be impossible to do from the ground and JWST will be no help. :(

Re:Hubble gone is no real loss by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-30 16:28 · Score: 0

Also notice how the anony-coward did not address the encryption downlink. All he did was stress that all the data is stored at some website.

From what I could gather doing a simple web search, the Hubble downlink comes down to Goddard Space Flight Center via the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS). It looks as if they have a web site...

http://msp.gsfc.nasa.gov/tdrss/oview.html ...and Wikipedia has an article as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TDRSS

So, unless one can hack into the TDRSS system, I guess you're out of luck in getting the raw telemetry stream from the Observatory. As for the encryption, I would imagine it would come from a requirement that all commands to and all information received from Hubble would have a single point of origin, namely Goddard, and that encryption is to prove the link is valid. After all, you wouldn't want someone else commanding the satellite to do something that could damage it (like point it toward the Sun, for example).

What ARE they doing on Hubble?

As for what is being observed with HST, another simple web search provided the two following links:

http://www-int.stsci.edu/~inr/thisweek1/previous15 .html (abstracts and general info)

http://www.stsci.edu/observing/weekly_timeline.htm l (for detail down to the second)

It's not that difficult, people.

No impact? Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-30 16:31 · Score: 0

"While HST's science capacity is diminished with the loss of ACS, HST lives on and will continue to produce world-class science..."

With all due respect, that statement does not jive with dozens of images posted on your organization's site (http://hubblesite.org/). I'm no rocket scientist, but I did notice that at least 90% of the images in Gallery section are labeled "ACS", "Advanced Camera for Surveys", and other terms that imply most of the current content comes from the ACS. I guess "world-class science" is restricted to the invisible spectrum until Sept 2008? :(

Sincerely,
A Concerned Scientist

Re:Hubble gone is no real loss by Creepy+Crawler · 2007-01-30 16:58 · Score: 1

They could have stayed completely transparent by signing each transaction with a NASA private key. That would allow only operators to command, and everybody else to watch.

PKI is well known, and is proven mathematically. The only reason to encrypt is to hide from "Eve"... Us.

--

Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thurs, Nov 31, @13:37

Go fucking FIX it then !!!!?!?! by unity100 · 2007-01-30 17:26 · Score: 1

Hubble is just one thing that space exploration have provided marginal benefits for us, other than unintended consequences of new materials discovered while doing the research.

It provided unfathomable, invaluable insight to our own universe - take note of this, the universe word here is not some metaphor, synonym, acronym or any crap for anything - it is the REAL thing, what we exist in.

while squandering hoards of taxpayer dollars for crap that not worth, you nasa can neglect maybe the single scientifically most profitable thing that you have ever been able to produce ?

go fucking fix it now

--
Read radical news here

Re:Go fucking FIX it then !!!!?!?! by freedom_india · 2007-01-30 18:42 · Score: 1

NASA would love to fix Hubble, but doesn't have the money to do so, since the money has been spent on "surge" in Iraq.
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories /nation/01/30/30nation.html
Science has taken a back seat in this past 6 years. Instead we have right-wingers spewing Intelligent Design on Fox news.
This congress should stop funding this illegal war, put the money back to Treasury and ask NASA to partner with SpaceShip One to build a reusable space vehicle to replace the Shuttle.

--
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer

Re:Replace the hubble by Herby+Sagues · 2007-01-30 17:30 · Score: 1

Te Hubble is a great piece of equipment that has ended its useful life. It is basically a carcass, a few batteries, computers and chips and optics. The chips are burnt, the computers are obsolete, the batteries are dead and the optics are screwed up since day one. Yes, it can be fixed. You only need to build the parts and send them in a shuttle. But since you need to send a shuttle to that orbit, in a dangerous mission that has no other objectives tha n fixing the Hubble, why don't we send a whole new telescope? Think about the numbers: - A mission to replace the Hubble costs about the same as a mission to fix it, but is less risky as complex spacewalks are not necessary. - Success is more certain, as launching a complete unit has better success chances than attempting to fix something in orbit. There is a probability that a mission to fix the existing telescope would not be successful, and in that case we would end up without the Hubble and without a replacement. - Building a new scope, similar to the Hubble, would be negligible in cost. All the design is done, the machinery is already built, many pieces already exist and it's not like the chips are expensive (all the expensive parts are already scheduled for replacement in the servicing mission). The optics are the only really expensive part to duplicate. And since the optics on the Hubble are less than perfect, it can't be said that building a new mirror is a waste of time, actually most astronomers concur that if building a new mirror to replace the one in the Hubble was feasible, it should be done. - End result: a superior telescope. Not only the optics would be greatly improved, but other parts not scheduled for repair could be improved with the experience and knowledge gained since the Hubble's launch. The only reason not to launch a new telescope similar to Hubble instead of fixing the existing one is politics: obtaining funding approvals to fix an existing piece of equipment is much easier than getting a new telescope approved, even if the cost and risk is lower for the later.

link? by bill_mcgonigle · 2007-01-30 17:51 · Score: 1

my shiny new low cost ($300) 8" reflector

Oh, c'mon, if it's a great telescope, at least pimp it here. Amazon link with associates id welcomed.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

My favourite Pascal by leonbrooks · 2007-01-30 18:26 · Score: 1

“There is sufficient light for those who desire to see, & there is sufficient darkness for those of a contrary disposition.”

That’s normally attributed to Pensees 149, but in all the lists of his Pensees, I see something differnet written. <shrug> it’s the one I like.

--
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing

To clarify that clarification... by Einer2 · 2007-01-30 20:08 · Score: 1

It's very misleading to call WFC3 a successor to ACS. The NIR channel of WFC3 will be a significant upgrade over NICMOS in terms of throughput and field of view (and resolution, compared to NIC3). However, the UVis channel is clearly a compromise between the capabilities of the Wide-Field and High-Resolution channels of ACS, and as such it really can't compete with either (except insomuch as they're dead and it isn't).

WFC3/UVis is a clear step down on high-resolution imaging because the 40 mas pixels of WFC3 are larger than ACS/HRC and will undersample the PSF. It's an even larger step down on wide-field survey work because its throughput and field of view are both markedly inferior to the ACS/WFC (factors of 2/3 and 1/2 respectively). Completing a survey of the same area and depth with WFC3/UVIS will require 3 times as many orbits. Can anybody imagine the TAC approving 1800 orbits on something like COSMOS or the UDF?

This post brought to you by an astronomer who's procrastinating on rewriting his ACS-based HST proposal.

--
Microsoft delenda est!

Re:To clarify that clarification... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-31 04:53 · Score: 0

Yeah, in the interests of brevity, I used "essentially a successor" with the "ambiguity dial" cranked to 11. ;)

Einer makes an important point though, and I hope people don't get the wrong impression from my wording!

You can learn tons more about WFC3 here: http://www.stsci.edu/hst/wfc3

good luck with the proposal Einer!

-Grant
Re:To clarify that clarification... by sasdrtx · 2007-01-31 13:29 · Score: 1

You call that clarification? Now I know how my Mom feels when I try to get her to download an updated driver.

--
Most people don't even think inside the box.

James Webb telescope will be infrared by bheading · 2007-01-30 21:05 · Score: 1

We'll be pining for more of those amazing images until the James Webb launches in 2013.

You'll be pining a lot longer than that. The James Webb telescope will operate in the infrared spectrum. It won't take "visible" pictures, although the pictures can probably be colorized afterwards.

Re:Costs are relative...A billion $ is alot of mon by pipatron · 2007-01-30 21:21 · Score: 1

The good thing is that it doesn't matter! Tomorrow you'll be something else! As long as there is some vague enemy that can't really be defeated, everyone is happy.

--
c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */

Please don't tell me by StarKruzr · 2007-01-30 22:22 · Score: 1

that you're one of those imbeciles who believes the Moon landings were fake.

As for Amtrak, we need a reliable, cheap, fast national rail system, if for no other reason than rail travel is much more efficient than either automobile or airplane travel. Unfortunately, Amtrak has been the victim of bad management and underfunding for many, many years.

--

+++ATH0

Re:Please don't tell me by soft_guy · 2007-01-31 04:38 · Score: 1

that you're one of those imbeciles who believes the Moon landings were fake.

As for Amtrak, we need a reliable, cheap, fast national rail system, if for no other reason than rail travel is much more efficient than either automobile or airplane travel. Unfortunately, Amtrak has been the victim of bad management and underfunding for many, many years. First, I disagree that we need a passanger rail sysem. If we did need such a system, it would exist because it would be economical to run it. And you are right that Amtrak is poorly managed like most government programs including NASA.

I think it is ridiculous that our government is so big and wastes so much money.

The last time I checked the constitution, the purpose of the federal government didn't including space exploration.

--
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Re:Please don't tell me by mfrank · 2007-01-31 09:42 · Score: 1

It doesn't say anything about funding interstate highways, either. What's your point? The phrase "provide for the general welfare" can cover a lot of ground.

Re:Hubble gone is no real loss by gd23ka · 2007-01-30 23:24 · Score: 1

Hi Creepy, good to see people reading the thread even though it got
swatted down with a -1, Troll. As far as the AC is concerned, he is
just feeding us the official line here.

Regarding the encryption angle, again you're right Creepy,
nothing that goes on between Hubble and ground control needs to be
a secret and a cryptographic checksum would have been enough to secure
message authenticity. There is definitely no need whatsoever for encryption
here unless somebody (@NASA) wanted to screen the data first before it gets
released.

No dice, AC.

Re:Replace the hubble by timtwobuck · 2007-01-31 01:01 · Score: 1

Do you realize how long it took to build the HST? They don't come off the shelves at k-mart, not even the parts of it would. It's an extremely complex system, likely more complex than anything 90% of the /. population has worked on. As such, construction, assembly & testing would take a SIGNIFICANT amount of time.

This time frame coupled with that of the James Webb's 2013 launch date make the servicing mission more economical when you consider the entire benefit. (ie 4+ years of continued HST production for 1 billion US$ vs. MAYBE a couple years of service (from a new Hubble) + 1 billion US$)

Should have bought the extended service agreement by bcmbyte · 2007-01-31 02:58 · Score: 2, Funny

I knew it! We should have purchased the extended service agreement. Just as the warranty runs out it breaks.

Re:Hubble gone is no real loss by Creepy+Crawler · 2007-01-31 05:47 · Score: 1

Well, I have a sneaking suspicion that there's military activity going on there. Im not one to spout "i saw teh UFOS" or some of the wacko-shit.

I betcha hubble's a testbed for sat-killers and laser weapontry, along with other tests I cant think of right now. Also, with the right frequency, couldnt the hubble pierce water to "see" submarines? It'd be nice for a high bandwidth viewing of a sub for military data, but Hubble claims they cant aim it as the Earth (yeah right).

--

Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thurs, Nov 31, @13:37

Re:Hubble gone is no real loss by gd23ka · 2007-01-31 07:39 · Score: 1

I don't really think that's the case there. _They_ have in effect a virtually
limitless budget and they could easily build and launch themselves a
dedicated satellite that does exactly what they need it to do. If you don't
already know about it, get Celestia at sourceforge and then get one of the
satellite add-on packages for it. If you load that up you'll see there are in
effect more "military" satellites up there than civilian ones and some of them
have really peculiar orbits.

With amateur astronomers and other sat hobbyists monitoring orbiting objects
I don't think it wouldn't do for them to hijack such a prominent piece of
hardware as especially the sat people could at least detect the amount of
tdrss traffic from Hubble and they'd have to find more excuses for the orbit
monitoring people if they moved the satellite.

I don't know for sure _what_ they are hiding from us but I do know the _why_
of NASA secrecy especially when it comes to screening what should be completely
innocous data like Hubble images: Whatever is potentially out there could
be paradigm shattering and they certainly don't need that.

Re:Hubble gone is no real loss by Creepy+Crawler · 2007-01-31 08:00 · Score: 1

---I don't really think that's the case there. _They_ have in effect a virtually
limitless budget and they could easily build and launch themselves a
dedicated satellite that does exactly what they need it to do. If you don't
already know about it, get Celestia at sourceforge and then get one of the
satellite add-on packages for it. If you load that up you'll see there are in
effect more "military" satellites up there than civilian ones and some of them
have really peculiar orbits.

Well, Celestia isnt terribly good in my opinion for correcting all the kepelerian elements. I prefer orbitron, as it also controls my rotors. (I am a ham who's in satellite). With orbitron, it also tries to narrow out freq's for those "hidden spysats". My worry is that the spysats are uwb or crazy-channel shifting (well, multiple bands sifting).

---With amateur astronomers and other sat hobbyists monitoring orbiting objects
I don't think it wouldn't do for them to hijack such a prominent piece of
hardware as especially the sat people could at least detect the amount of
tdrss traffic from Hubble and they'd have to find more excuses for the orbit
monitoring people if they moved the satellite.

I wonder, is the ISS in the same boat? Is it encrypted links to/from earth?

---I don't know for sure _what_ they are hiding from us but I do know the _why_
of NASA secrecy especially when it comes to screening what should be completely
innocous data like Hubble images: Whatever is potentially out there could
be paradigm shattering and they certainly don't need that.

Well, it could be as simple if they didnt really get to the moon. They'd have to keep the data to themselves, and by that means controlling all ways to "see the moon". What would be neat would be if there was a detection of ETIs.. Then again, it would happen never the less.

--

Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thurs, Nov 31, @13:37

Re:Hubble gone is no real loss by gd23ka · 2007-01-31 09:59 · Score: 1

I just brought up Celestia because it visualizes the situation "military" vs. "civilian" sats best.
Regarding the monitoring of satellite transmissions... I wonder if there is maybe somwhere out there
someone who is "tuned" into Hubble if only to analyze the traffic? I'm sure they're not using
something "shifty" like frequency hopping or UWB to draw people's attention.

"I wonder, is the ISS in the same boat? Is it encrypted links to/from earth?"

I don't know a 100% for sure but I would bet money on it. ISS does have a ham station with packet radio
caps but that wont used be for "official business". Just think of what would happen if amateurs picked
up exclamations like "My God! This thing is HUGE where did THAT come from?"

--"Well, it could be as simple if they didnt really get to the moon. They'd have to keep the data to themselves, and by that means controlling all ways to "see the moon". What would be neat would be if there was a detection of ETIs.. Then again, it would happen never the less."--

There should be two interesting man-made objects to be seen on the moon... a moon buggy and an US flag. It seems that
there are no pictures to be found of them not even taken from moon orbit http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/26/04 32232 "Ask Slashdot: Are There Images of the Lunar Landers from Orbit?"
But then as we all know NASA lost 700 boxes of the footage from the "first" moon landing.

Oh and about the ETs.. most science fiction rotates about the "Take me to your leader" fantasy of hovering over
the White House or landing on the roof-top of the United Nations. What I suppose they really should be worried about are
the ETs that completely _ignore them_ and instead talk to you directly.

Plenty by camperdave · 2007-01-31 11:23 · Score: 1

Have any other strong and uninformed opinions to share on matters of importance?

I have plenty. [grin]

However, in my defense, the sentence "The Shuttle fleet is under the gun big time to get the ISS finished before it is decommisioned." is ambiguous.
"The Shuttles are under the gun big time to get the ISS finished before the fleet is decommissioned." would have been a better way of phrasing it.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!

Re:Replace the hubble by Herby+Sagues · 2007-01-31 17:01 · Score: 1

Yes, it can take time. How much time? Certainly not as long as it took building the original Hubble. Given that the design is already done and most machinery needed to build the scope, and even several actual parts, are already made, probably the time will be ruled by how long it takes to polish a new main mirror. It is not unlikely that it can be ready in less than three years from start, probably two. And what's three years? The universe is not going anywhere. The hubble is, and sending a repair mission IS on a tight schedule, but launching a new scope is not nearly as constrained.

Re:Replace the hubble by timtwobuck · 2007-02-01 05:05 · Score: 1

Don't forget at the Hubble was launched aboard a space Shuttle, not a 'regular' rocket.

Slashdot Mirror

Hubble Camera Lost "For Good"

190 comments