Hubble Stops Sending Data, Mission On Hold

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hubble Stops Sending Data, Mission On Hold

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Monday September 29, 2008 @07:15AM from the try-to-do-as-little-dying-as-possible dept.

mknewman writes to tell us that NASA is no longer receiving data from the Hubble Space Telescope, which could possibly delay the shuttle launch planned just two weeks from now. There is a backup system installed which may be used instead of training the astronauts on the installation of the new component, but that would itself leave no fallback option. "NASA is reviewing whether the mission should be delayed a couple of months so that plans can be made to send up a replacement part for the failed component, said NASA spokesman Michael Curie. It would take time to test and qualify the old replacement part and train the astronauts to install it in the telescope, Curie said. NASA also would have to work out new mission details for the astronauts who have trained for two years to carry out five Hubble repair spacewalks."

141 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Thwack it... by Notquitecajun · 2008-09-29 07:17 · Score: 4, Funny

Ah, just give it good ol' emergency repair plan "A." If that doesn't work, send up Richard Dean Andersen with some duct tape.
1. Re:Thwack it... by Lectoid · 2008-09-29 07:22 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Comon, we all know you have to send Clint Eastwood and Tommy Lee Jones. Space Cowboys was a documentary, right?
  
  --
  Is it just me, or do you hate it when people say "Is it just me..."?
2. Re:Thwack it... by mcgrew · 2008-09-29 07:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'm sure they did the equivalent of "thwacking it". But the "thwack" repair method seldom lasts long.
  "Thwack it" is for things like the martian hoopties Spirit and Opportunity ("Hoopties" because they're WAY out of warrantee) that you can't send a mechanic to fix.
  Or us rednecks with broken cars and even broker wallets; I fixed a heater hose with duct tape on a '74 LeMans, and it still held leak-free when I sold the old junker three years later. You don't fix Rolls Royces or Hubble Telescopes with duct tape!
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
3. Re:Thwack it... by eln · 2008-09-29 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  They only know how to fix old Russian satellites, so they would have to be completely re-trained to handle the Hubble. Besides, we'd have to send a rocket all the way to the moon to retrieve Tommy Lee Jones after he rode the other satellite there.
  Of course, he's probably been captured by the moon men and made to toil in their underground mines by now, so trying to get him may end up being more trouble than its worth.
4. Re:Thwack it... by Chyeld · 2008-09-29 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure they did the equivalent of "thwacking it". But the "thwack" repair method seldom lasts long.
  "Thwack it" is for things like the martian hoopties Spirit and Opportunity ("Hoopties" because they're WAY out of warrantee) that you can't send a mechanic to fix.
  Or us rednecks with broken cars and even broker wallets; I fixed a heater hose with duct tape on a '74 LeMans, and it still held leak-free when I sold the old junker three years later. You don't fix Rolls Royces or Hubble Telescopes with duct tape!
  For that, you use something high quality, like Gaffer Tape!
5. Re:Thwack it... by oldspewey · 2008-09-29 07:36 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  the "thwack" repair method seldom lasts long
  Almost three years ago, our dishwasher (which was only a year old at the time) stopped working. After a bit of troubleshooting I determined that the solenoid valve in the water intake was shot - my multimeter indicated that it was receiving an electrical signal, but the valve wouldn't open so the dishwasher couldn't fill.
  I whacked it with a hammer and it's been working flawlessly ever since.
  
  --
  If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
6. Re:Thwack it... by mcgrew · 2008-09-29 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  key word is "seldom". I have to take my clothes dryer apart; I'm sure it's a relay or solenoid, and I'm going to try the "thwack it" method of repair before shelling out for a new part.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
7. Re:Thwack it... by orielbean · 2008-09-29 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  Or Fonzie to fix the jukebox...
8. Re:Thwack it... by code_monkey_steve · 2008-09-29 08:04 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  If that doesn't work, send up Richard Dean Andersen with some duct tape.
  Wouldn't an F-302 be more useful than duct-tape?
  Wait, which show are we referencing, again?
9. Re:Thwack it... by Linker3000 · 2008-09-29 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  Meh, my washer/dryer started popping and sparking on Saturday and was still doing so as I dived across the kitchen floor to pull the plug.
  I think it's beyond thwackable.
  
  --
  AT&ROFLMAO
10. Re:Thwack it... by kitsunewarlock · 2008-09-29 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  Or just send up McGuyver with a straw, a paperclip and a rubber band.
  
  Everyone knows Duct Tape is just McGuyvers way of saying "Jesus people, I can only be in 5 places at once."
  
  --
  Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
11. Re:Thwack it... by mcgrew · 2008-09-29 08:16 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Probably, but whether the cure is a good thwack or electrical tape, you still have to take the thing apart.
  It sounds like some waterproofing dried up and cracked and caused a short when water got in it. A little duct tape and electrical tape may be all you need.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
12. Re:Thwack it... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2008-09-29 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, just give it good ol' emergency repair plan "A." If that doesn't work, send up Richard Dean Andersen with some duct tape.
  ... sorry, he couldn't get through the airport security checks with his Swiss Army Knife ...
  ... and without that, he's useless ...
  
  --
  Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
13. Re:Thwack it... by Notquitecajun · 2008-09-29 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  That's just about the classic selenoid-repair method for pretty much anything. Works similar on cars - if your battery is good and it won't turn over, thwack the selenoid before heading to the starter.
14. Re:Thwack it... by Mysticalfruit · 2008-09-29 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  Both... Richard Dean Anderson has made several McGyver references in SG-1.
  
  Now to your question: No not really. A F-302 doesn't have any type of airlock. A Tel'tak or an Al'kesh is probably what you'd need.
  
  --
  Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
15. Re:Thwack it... by rev_g33k_101 · 2008-09-29 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  the "thwack" repair method seldom lasts long.
  This is what us northerners call "Percussive Maintenance" this way it sounds like something you would be willing to pay for :D
  
  --
  "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore."
16. Re:Thwack it... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-29 08:36 · Score: 0
  
  We need some Asguard technology.
17. Re:Thwack it... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-29 08:41 · Score: 0
  
  Ah, just give it good ol' emergency repair plan "A." If that doesn't work, send up Richard Dean Andersen with some duct tape.
  It's in mourning over the stock fallout and the unpassed bailout vote in the US House.
18. Re:Thwack it... by code_monkey_steve · 2008-09-29 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  The duct-tape threw me off, and I didn't think Hubble would fit in the transport-rings or ring-room on the Tel'tak. Maybe an Al'kesh or Daedalus would have enough room and could beam it aboard. Or, just duct-tape it to an F-302. ;)
  Good thing we have NASA to figure out details like this.
19. Re:Thwack it... by Mascot · 2008-09-29 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Almost three years ago, our dishwasher (which was only a year old at the time) stopped working.
  One year old and you didn't get a free repair or replacement? I recently had most of the innards of my tumble dryer swapped out free of charge when it failed. That thing was almost four years old.
  Or you were you just looking for an excuse to use a hammer. :P
20. Re:Thwack it... by SmurfButcher+Bob · 2008-09-29 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  That long in space, we'll need assguard technology, too.
  
  --
  
  help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
21. Re:Thwack it... by oldspewey · 2008-09-29 09:12 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Option 1: Phone the manufacturer, arrange for a service call, take time off work to make sure I'm home, make small talk with a technician for 30-60 minutes while he diagnoses the same problem I already found, listen in disbelief when he tells me he doesn't have the appropriate part on hand, arrange for another service call, take more time off work ....
  Option 2: Hit the solenoid with a hammer.
  
  --
  If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
22. Re:Thwack it... by Rorschach1 · 2008-09-29 09:28 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I once saw some old video from one of the Apollo landings where the color wheel on one of the fixed cameras got stuck. Ground control asks one of the astronauts to take a look at it, and he slowly bounces over to it and THWACK - hits it with a gloved hand and gets the color wheel unstuck. If anyone knows where I can find that on the web, let me know... it's one of my favorite Apollo clips.
23. Re:Thwack it... by smaddox · 2008-09-29 09:31 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I'm unaware of any solenoid valves on the Hubble Space Telescope.
24. Re:Thwack it... by KGIII · 2008-09-29 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  Disclosure: Non-active United States Marine.
  I was actually thinking 100 MPH Tape myself. I still have dozens of rolls that somehow ended up falling off a truck at Quantico (I was motorpool) and ended up in my apartment. At one time I had hundreds of rolls. I'm not sure if that's the same stuff there (I suspect that it isn't at that price) but you *can* tape ANYTHING. Not really anything but it is amazing at how strong that stuff is.
  A buddy of mine taped his skateboard with it after it had broken in half. It wasn't perfect but he was still able to ride it for a lot longer than we'd expected. The deer in Virginia are tiny little critters but I've taped one to the front of a humvee and driven across very rough terrain to bring it back for dinner. It has held vacuum lines tight and hydraulic lines sealed (for a little while). It's great stuff.
  Again, I have my doubts as to the authenticity of the tape on the page there but, well, you might be able to find an ex-soldier who's willing to part with a couple of rolls for a small donation to his beer fund and get the real stuff. My first exposure to it was from rolls that had been captured during the Vietnam War by another enterprising Marine though, of course, I wasn't in the Marines then. This stuff was MANY years old by that point. It still worked. Well.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
25. Re:Thwack it... by KGIII · 2008-09-29 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  Meh.. It is petty, I know, but it pisses me off when I see stuff labeled with, "No user servicable parts inside." It started showing up on stuff when the term "Solid State" got added to stuff. They just underestimate the power of the user.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
26. Re:Thwack it... by iamlucky13 · 2008-09-29 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  You don't fix Rolls Royces or Hubble Telescopes with duct tape!
  Quite right. You actually fix Hubble Telescopes with kapton tape. It's not nearly as tough as duct tape, but it also doesn't turn brittle in extreme cold or sublimate its adhesive in a vacuum, and it's a great electrical insulator. The crew of the ISS recently made some unplanned repairs during a spacewalk to one of its solar arrays using tools they jury-rigged with Kapton tape and available utensils.
  You can bet the crew of Atlantis will have a couple rolls of Kapton tape along when they go to service the Hubble. They will have some duct tape, too, but it turns out there actually are situations where the grey tape doesn't quite cut it.
27. Re:Thwack it... by wooferhound · 2008-09-29 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  Is it "Duct" or "Duck" Tape ?
  http://www.ducttapeguys.com/duckvsduct.html
  
  --
  We are Dead Stars looking back Up at the Sky
28. Re:Thwack it... by wooferhound · 2008-09-29 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  I have seen a good many starters restarted with a good swift thwacking . . .
  
  --
  We are Dead Stars looking back Up at the Sky
29. Re:Thwack it... by Chyeld · 2008-09-29 10:30 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Duct tape by any other name, is still so very sweet. As long as you aren't using it on ducts. Which ironicly, it's completely inappropriate for.
30. Re:Thwack it... by KGIII · 2008-09-29 11:14 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I actually used duct tape on duct, once. I was venting the propane gas drier outside for a buddy of mine and had none of the 100 MPH tape. The 100 MPH tape is essentially duct tape on steroids. I could be biased but I have used both commercial and military and, well, I have to say that the difference is obvious to me at least. It is VERY sticky and VERY strong compared to the stuff you get at your local hardware store. Again, that could be observational bias, it's not like I've stress tested the two under various conditions to see the result and measure the result or anything...
  Oddity note: Once I was out of boot I would leave a small piece of this tape on the stock of my rifle. It allowed me to put my face to it and feel where it was and get into a firing position more quickly and accurately. The subtle feel was enough, my rifle was sighted in at 500 yds and, it is hard to explain, to feel where you *should* be without needing to sight in (like you'll have time for THAT in combat) to adjust for a shorter or longer range is... Hmm... Almost like magic except nothing like it.
  Err... I drove maggots around and brought the maggots supplies while they were shitbags in OCS. (Later they'd be my leaders.) It was a near constant that I had to be able to hump 20 miles, show them how to get unstuck without a tow vehicle, bivie with them for a few days, and constantly have to prove how a "Real Marine" was prepared and could fire his rifle better than the maggots and shitbags. (Maggots earned their way in. Shitbags earned their way in but came via nepotism. "You are not your daddy's sperm shitbag! Did you fuck your daddy to make you? Did you fuck your mother? No shitbag? Well the whole platoon is going to fuck her tonight shitbag. While you watch. I'm going first, let's see if you can build some muscles up shitbag. Drop and give me fifty." OCS in the Marines is probably not what people expect.)
  Sorry - I came back before hitting submit in an attempt to see if I should censor the text above. I opt not to. As tempting as it is to not offend I am more willing to ensure that the historical value (if any) remains true.
  We put splints in place with this tape. We held things meant to make loud booms together with it. We taped maggots to hot steam pipes when it was suggested we do so with it. (You can tape a maggot - you can not tape a shitbag. Yes, this is hazing, yes this is the Marines. Yes, I think that this was required. Don't like it, don't serve. 'Snot PC or anything but we need tough people making tough choices at a time when failure is not an option.) There are stories of patched airplanes and there was a story floating around about a patched chopper rotor but, frankly, I don't believe that one.
  Anyhow, I have rambled on long enough but want to continue for a moment. I apologize, ahead of time, for having taken up your time with the post but it seemed as good a place as any to ramble about it. I have some strange (by many opinions) views of how things should be. When we picked up new medals, awards, ranks if you will we had a ritual. The blouse was worn as all Marines wear it but the people getting their medals (think the pins that have backs on them) would stand there. First the issuing officer would give you the backs to the medals. He'd then take the medal and *press* it into you. He was gentle. You would remain at attention for this. The remainder of the squad would then come along and PUNCH that medal into you. Yes, meaning you pried it out of either bone or tissue when they were done. And you did so with pride. And you did so while remaining at attention. You look beyond the people, you look beyond the pain.
  To most who haven't served that would seem barbaric. Indeed it is. Having "punched chests" and had my chest punched enough I can assure you that I never harbored any ill will towards those doing so and, in fact, I believe I am stronger for it. If one can't handle that then it is my belief that they don't belong in the Marines who's job consists of killing, dying, living through pain, and being first and foremost a rifleman.
  This is now way off topic but I figured I'd better explain the latter so that the entirety made sense.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
31. Re:Thwack it... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-29 11:37 · Score: 0
  
  I drove 500 miles and the collar around the universal joint on my truck's driveshaft broke off the frame, and no welder to be found before I had to drive 500 miles back, so I took some metal coat hangers and duct tape and made it so the drive shaft didn't rattle around when I drove it home.
  Doesn't mean that I left it that way. I was lucky to have made it back, and didn't think it worth the risk of having the drive shaft rip thru the bed while lifting the whole truck in a reverse somersault if it happened to drop free while traveling more than 40 mph just so I could say that I fixed it with bailing wire and duct tape.
  Some things are worth fixing right.
32. Re:Thwack it... by jd · 2008-09-29 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  In England, it's called Gaffer Tape. It is also inappropriate to use on Gaffers. Well, except by dubiously-employed women on request.
  
  --
  It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
33. Re:Thwack it... by ColaMan · 2008-09-29 13:25 · Score: 1
  
  I've seen a good many starter motors broken because of a good swift thwacking too.
  Newer reduction drive starter motors have permanent magnets for the field, which are fragile. Thwacking the body of the starter motor generally cracks them and ruins the starter. If you can hold the starter for your V8 in the palm of your hand, it's a reduction drive unit.
  If you're going to thwack a starter, thwack carefully. Aim for the end cap where the brushes are, or the solenoid body and just give it a few firm taps. Don't just go to town with a four-pound hammer.
  Incidentally, your sig gives me a feeling of deja-vu....
  
  --
  
  You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
  There is a lot of hype here.
34. Re:Thwack it... by Notquitecajun · 2008-09-30 00:36 · Score: 1
  
  /raises glass, to the defenders of Freedom.
35. Re:Thwack it... by mpe · 2008-09-30 00:39 · Score: 1
  
  Almost three years ago, our dishwasher (which was only a year old at the time) stopped working. After a bit of troubleshooting I determined that the solenoid valve in the water intake was shot - my multimeter indicated that it was receiving an electrical signal, but the valve wouldn't open so the dishwasher couldn't fill.
  I whacked it with a hammer and it's been working flawlessly ever since.
  
  But it would have been rather more difficult if you didn't have gravity to hold your dishwasher (and feet) to the floor
36. Re:Thwack it... by Notquitecajun · 2008-09-30 00:40 · Score: 1
  
  One of the best "Junkyard Wars" moments - background not in focus, with the team member in front stating, "yeah, we got Bobby here doing some fine-tune adjustments to the motor" - leading to focus on Bobby in the background whaling away on the engine with a sledge hammer...
37. Re:Thwack it... by KGIII · 2008-09-30 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  It's a little early in the morning but I'll drink to that.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
38. Re:Thwack it... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-30 01:46 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  /raises glass, to the defenders of Freedom*.
  *As defined by the current Administration of the United States of America.
39. Re:Thwack it... by Notquitecajun · 2008-09-30 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  Leave off, you idiot. Marines are Marines, and it doesn't matter the when, where, or what administration. You stand free because those REAL men are willing to do violence on your behalf.
40. Re:Thwack it... by meringuoid · 2008-09-30 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  If that's what American soldiers do to each other, I'm amazed that anyone was surprised at all about what they do to their prisoners.
  
  --
  Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
41. Re:Thwack it... by KGIII · 2008-09-30 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  As a Marine, I can assure you that I too am amazed that anyone would put prisoners in the hands of Marines and expect any other sort of outcome. They, we if you will though I'm inactive, are not trained like normal soldiers. We serve only one function. Each and every Marine is first and foremost a rifleman. Our cooks? The office staff? Logistics? Computers? All are first rifleman. It is nothing like the other branches of the service and nothing like the movies.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
42. Re:Thwack it... by KGIII · 2008-09-30 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  Horah. We don't make the policy. We just go kill stuff. We go in and make it safe so that the Army can come in and take pictures. ;)
  Really, as a Marine you're pretty much brainwashed into blindly taking orders. This is a Good Thing® for this purpose. I have a bunch of buddies who are still in. They don't like the war in Iraq any more than you do. They do have a job to do, a commitment that they made, and pride in their work. They have little or no care about who's giving the orders, they care about two things. Look to your left, look to your right. They will kill and die for you and as your brothers they expect the same from you. Marines aren't about being pretty, even in their Dress Blues they are formidable looking. No. No... They're built for killing stuff. Your mother might have made you but the Marines build you into machines.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
43. Re:Thwack it... by mcgrew · 2008-10-01 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  It ised to annoy me too, until I realized that there aren't any parts servicable by the normal user. You and I aren't normal.
  Back in the old days they had things we don't have now, and lacked things we do have now, which is what caused those messages.
  They had tubes, which anyone could diagnose and repair - if a tube was dark, you pulled it out and replaced it.
  They didn't have lawsuits by people too ignorant to know that touching a big can capacitor's leads can kill you even if the TV is unplugged.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
Tagged "oops" by KGIII · 2008-09-29 07:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

Let's see if it sticks.
I dearly love NASA but, well, it is going to get harder to convince the public to continue funding if they have an impression of a high failure rate.

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
1. Re:Tagged "oops" by Detritus · 2008-09-29 07:38 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  High failure rate?! The HST is a very complex spacecraft. Parts wear out and break. That's why spacecraft are designed with redundant systems. HST was designed to be repaired and upgraded in-orbit, and has already exceeded its design lifetime. In the real world, components fail and increased reliability is not free. Spacecraft engineering is a balancing act. You want to accomplish the mission with minimum cost and a relatively high probability of success. Spacecraft projects that can't manage risks and costs get canceled. There is a limited pool of money and NASA has a responsibility to get the most scientific bang for the buck.
  
  --
  Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
2. Re:Tagged "oops" by Volante3192 · 2008-09-29 07:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yeah, cause the HST's just been a fountain of failures since it was lanched in 1990.
  Seriously, outside of that mirror bit early on, we've serviced the Hubble thrice. And it's up there in one of the most extreme environments imaginable. I can't imagine a piece of kit on Earth surviving 18+ years with only five service calls.
3. Re:Tagged "oops" by oldspewey · 2008-09-29 07:42 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  My understanding was that Hubble had a life expectancy of 20 years. It was launched in 1990, so going dark in 2008 is perhaps a little premature but hardly what I'd call a failure.
  
  --
  If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
4. Re:Tagged "oops" by MightyYar · 2008-09-29 07:49 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  just posting to kill the accidental redundant mod that I made... it was supposed to be "insightful"!
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
5. Re:Tagged "oops" by drerwk · 2008-09-29 07:51 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  My understanding was that Hubble had a life expectancy of 20 years.
  
  From where do you understand this?
  Design Life: Designed for a 15 year life with on-orbit servicing. http://www.aerospaceguide.net/hubblespacetelescope.html
  And naturally things would be going better if on-orbit servicing was still considered a regular option.
6. Re:Tagged "oops" by Brett+Buck · 2008-09-29 07:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This is just bullshit. All that has happened is a primary unit had failed, after close to 20 years of flight (not to mention the grossly excessive "shelf life" resulting from the Challenger launch delay). They have a backup, that's what it is there for. And this is hardly a high failure rate, we have already gotten more than it was designed for.
  Brett
7. Re:Tagged "oops" by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-29 08:09 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  HST was scheduled to fly in Oct '86 when Challenger blew up. It sat in a clean room, powered up and purged with nitrogen, for 3-4 years before flight. The wait wasn't so kind to Galileo, her high gain antenna wouldn't unfurl after all that time and there would be no possible servicing mission.
8. Re:Tagged "oops" by Sloppy · 2008-09-29 08:11 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I dearly love NASA but, well, it is going to get harder to convince the public to continue funding if they have an impression of a high failure rate.
  Um, it was launched in 1990. Anyone who thinks NASA is incompetent simply because their stuff doesn't last "enough decades" has an unwinable vote anyway. I love NASA a lot less than you, but I sure as hell don't see this as serious anti-NASA propaganda fuel.
  
  --
  As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
9. Re:Tagged "oops" by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-29 08:19 · Score: 0
  
  K Band Data link to TDRSS appears to have gone "Tits Up". There is a redundant system, but it has not been powered up sense before launch so it might or might not work. When the commands are sent to bring up the "B" side, lots and lots of fingers will be crossed. There's no reason for the redundant "B" side to not work, but HST has been up there a long long time.
  I haven't read where any information related to what failed in the HS link, could be as simple as power supply or as complex as a the Traveling Wave Tubes which give gain to the the link.
  If the Redundant side does not come up, things could get real interesting.
10. Re:Tagged "oops" by mcgrew · 2008-09-29 08:24 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I can't imagine a piece of kit on Earth surviving 18+ years with only five service calls.
  The Panasonic portable TV I left in a house I moved out of in 2004 or 5 (Paxil withdrawal, home foreclosure, bankrupcy, it's diaried at K5 somewhere) was the same one I watched Niel and Buzz land on the moon with!
  It had two repairs, despite falling out of moving vehicles, dropped, and suffering other indignities: The insulation on the power cord cracked and caused a short (fixed with electrical tape) and the tuner knob broke (fixed by using pliars to change channels).
  They don't make 'em like they used to.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
11. Re:Tagged "oops" by KGIII · 2008-09-29 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  "impression of" -- key words
  Impression of doesn't mean that they have a high fail rate. Only that Joe Sixpack only notices the bad news on the television. Somehow I got modded flamebait 'cause people don't actually read so very well.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
12. Re:Tagged "oops" by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-29 08:44 · Score: 0
  
  They don't require you to manually tune channels like they used to either.
  An increased feature set denotes an increase in complexity. There's not that many things that can go wrong with a cathode ray tube in a chunky box.
13. Re:Tagged "oops" by KGIII · 2008-09-29 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  Please re-read my post. All of it. It isn't long or complicated or anything. "Impression of" -- those would be the key words. Not that they're high rates, only that people only get fed the bad stuff on their nightly news or morning radio talk show and that means that NASA doesn't sound so good to the uninformed.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
14. Re:Tagged "oops" by sorak · 2008-09-29 08:48 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I can't imagine a piece of kit on Earth surviving 18+ years with only five service calls.
  The Panasonic portable TV I left in a house I moved out of in 2004 or 5 (Paxil withdrawal, home foreclosure, bankrupcy, it's diaried at K5 somewhere) was the same one I watched Niel and Buzz land on the moon with!
  It had two repairs, despite falling out of moving vehicles, dropped, and suffering other indignities: The insulation on the power cord cracked and caused a short (fixed with electrical tape) and the tuner knob broke (fixed by using pliars to change channels).
  They don't make 'em like they used to.
  So you're saying we should send that television into space?
15. Re:Tagged "oops" by KGIII · 2008-09-29 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  "impression of"
  Seems /. is having issues with the whole sentences today. It isn't that I think it has a high failure rate. It is that when Joe Sixpack only gets the news of bad things concerning NASA and sees the debt that the country is in he's going to start getting antsy.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
16. Re:Tagged "oops" by KGIII · 2008-09-29 09:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The masses aren't very bright and they're allowed to vote and call their congress critters. Hell, look at all the people who responded somehow managing to conclude that I thought that this was a high failure rate. I worry about NASA in this day and age. With the impending lapse of manned flight and a potential to not have access to the space station I worry that we're falling behind. If, for no other reason than moral, we needed the space program at first. Today we need it just to keep up.
  When I was a kid the entire family or the entire school would gather around to watch the launches live. Today you seldom get those launches on your major channels and the only coverage is failure. I don't know how many people who've said stuff like, "We don't need a space program." Granted, these are likely the same people who say stuff like, "Let's bomb Iran next, serves them Arabs right." The problem is that they vote and are allowed to.
  I hold a special place in my heart for NASA or space programs in general. You ask a kid what they want to be today and they want to be a rap star. When I was young we all wanted to be astronauts. The only time they see or hear about space is when goes wrong or, worse, blows up and kills people.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
17. Re:Tagged "oops" by paazin · 2008-09-29 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  I modded it +1 insightful (before I opted to respond) and, really, I expected that the slashdot community would pick up on that subtlety.
  
  It's exactly cases like this that opponents of NASA call upon when they want to cut its budget (and have done so successfully for years - it's been getting better but it's still not even as high as it was in the early 90's). It's not fair in the least, of course, and one should retort with facts - but sadly that's not how American politics works.
18. Re:Tagged "oops" by KGIII · 2008-09-29 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  Our politics work in that the general populace actually votes quite well for a country that doesn't mandate voting by law. By quite well, I mean turns out to vote. Unfortunately they tend to remain woefully ignorant so long as they have their beer and sports on television or celebrity gossip. As far as subtlety goes, I didn't really think it was subtle at all? I'm not sure how almost everyone misconstrued it to conclude that I was somehow postulating that the failure rate was in fact high. Hell, I have the karma to spare surely but still... I'd have hoped for better reading comprehension.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
19. Re:Tagged "oops" by dpiven · 2008-09-29 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  And all they have to do is to send Frank out there with a replacement AE-35 unit.
20. Re:Tagged "oops" by caluml · 2008-09-29 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  it's up there in one of the most extreme environments imaginable.
  Is it? I thought it was in space. You know, no wind, no rain, no monkeys, no bacteria.
  Now - on the surface of Venus - that's inhospitable. Inside a volcano - same. But in the silent, floaty calm of space?
  
  --
  Get your own free personal location tracker
21. Re:Tagged "oops" by CheshireCatCO · 2008-09-29 10:17 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  As has already been noted, NASA's failure rate isn't really that high. If anything, it may be the reverse: NASA has become so risk-adverse (it's argued) that the public has forgotten how *hard* space is and it starts to seem boring. (And like a good idea to raid the NASA budget for other projects because they appear to have more than they need.)
22. Re:Tagged "oops" by KGIII · 2008-09-29 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  Pardon my frustration at this point but, as has already been noted... I'm aware of that and that's my concern exactly. The "average" person only gets their news from what is spoon fed to them via their broadcast media. They only hear about the bad generally. When your average citizen is under the IMPRESSION OF the NASA being a series of failures they are going to whine, vote, and call their congress critters. This is just one more thing that can be seen as a failure to the general public. This is just one more thing to make people disinterested.
  It isn't NASA's fault. By all accounts the telescope was a grand success. That it still works today is amazing. It sat in the equivalent of NASA mothballs for years before it even was launched. It started off as a huge failure needing immediate repair. We managed that. That, right there, is amazing in and of itself. That we did it and it returned so much data over the years is astonishing to anyone who understands the logistics involved. Unfortunately the masses have no idea of the difficulty.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
23. Re:Tagged "oops" by jackbird · 2008-09-29 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  Extreme thermal cycling every few hours, hard radiation all the time, the occasional micrometorite, and extreme difficulty removing heat from your electronics. Not to mention the odd things various materials might do unexpectedly after a decade or two of microgravity.
24. Re:Tagged "oops" by totally+bogus+dude · 2008-09-29 18:24 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You ask a kid what they want to be today and they want to be a rap star. ... The only time they see or hear about space is when goes wrong or, worse, blows up and kills people.
  To be fair, that's when we normally hear about rap stars, too.
25. Re:Tagged "oops" by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-29 20:01 · Score: 0
  
  Neil and Buzz took your old portable TV to the moon with them?
  I guess the lack of hills and trees meant they got a better picture than I do.
Congress Bail out the Hubble *NOW* by FireStormZ · 2008-09-29 07:22 · Score: 5, Funny

After all the Hubble is less responsible for its state than Wall street is for where it ended up!

--
"Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
1. Re:Congress Bail out the Hubble *NOW* by rhsanborn · 2008-09-29 07:30 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Unfortunately, Congress dropping 700 Billion on Wall Street might end up cutting into NASA's budget, along with several other programs.
2. Re:Congress Bail out the Hubble *NOW* by rhsanborn · 2008-09-29 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  I hadn't caught up with the headlines, perhaps with the defeat of the bail out bill, my previous post will be moot.
3. Re:Congress Bail out the Hubble *NOW* by lgw · 2008-09-29 07:55 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  OT, but thank goodness for the sudden breakout of common sense in the congress. Sadly, I expect the corporate welfare will eventually happen, saddled with a workable mix of 10s of billions to the pockets of Democratic supporters, and 10s of billions to the pockets of GOP supporters. This is the biggest cookie jar since social security, and I can't imagine the congresscritters keeping their hands out of it.
  I don't usually use the phrase "corporate welfare" but there's no other way to describe this. Yeah, the government should act where it can to stop market panicks from taking out the good companies with the bad, but the bad companies need to die here. There are (relatively) honest and responsible banks out there, and they need to come out way ahead from this mess, to send the proper lesson to corporate officers industry-wide.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
4. Re:Congress Bail out the Hubble *NOW* by eclectro · 2008-09-29 07:58 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Yes, but the Hubble still needs a bail out.
  
  --
  Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
5. Re:Congress Bail out the Hubble *NOW* by rhsanborn · 2008-09-29 08:16 · Score: 1, Offtopic
  
  Agreed. I'm nervous about what the ramifications are of letting these companies fail. If we can let them fail, let the stock market adjust reasonably, and not dry up the credit markets, then I fully support this.
  
  Unfortunately, most of the "experts", most of whom support this bill, also have significant stakes in getting the government to pump 700 bil into the market.
6. Re:Congress Bail out the Hubble *NOW* by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-29 08:16 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Wow, there must have been a double helping of crack with the mod points today. "Offtopic" certainly, but "flamebait" does *not* mean "I disagree". Flamebait looks like this, you foul-smelling pigfuckers of dubious ancestry.
7. Re:Congress Bail out the Hubble *NOW* by lgw · 2008-09-29 08:20 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I particularly like Warren Buffet's reasoned analysis: "I just sank billions into Goldmen Sacks - we need moar bailout nao!!!"
  The panick over motgage-backed securities has largely subsided. The only reaosn there's no market for these securities today is that no one wants to sell them at market value when they expect the government to step in and buy them up at significantly above market value.
  My bank isn't in trouble - is yours?
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
8. Re:Congress Bail out the Hubble *NOW* by TorKlingberg · 2008-09-29 08:23 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  As a comparison the entire Apollo program cost about 135 Billion (in 2005 Dollars).
9. Re:Congress Bail out the Hubble *NOW* by rhsanborn · 2008-09-29 08:36 · Score: 1, Offtopic
  
  Their stock certainly isn't doing well. But, you are correct. There are market forces that should be allowed to play out here. Some poorly run companies need to be allowed to fail, and the market will adjust to move around these securities.
  
  The question is how much damage it'll do to the market in the interim. That said, it'll do far less damage if the government makes their position clear and allows the market to do it's thing, rather than the limbo we're in now.
10. Re:Congress Bail out the Hubble *NOW* by BAM0027 · 2008-09-29 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  The government's abilities to use finances in creative ways of thwarting science (in particular) continue to amaze me. I was just listening to a broadcast this morning on NPR (KPBS) of "These Days" which discussed various ways, both active and passive, of manipulating research counter to progress.
  If you get the chance to listen to it, lemme know what you think.
11. Re:Congress Bail out the Hubble *NOW* by Trent+Hawkins · 2008-09-29 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, Congress dropping 700 Billion on Wall Street might end up cutting into NASA's budget, along with several other programs.
  Not to worry. We can always print more money!
12. Re:Congress Bail out the Hubble *NOW* by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-29 09:55 · Score: 0
  
  So..a little more than $700 Billion now?
13. Re:Congress Bail out the Hubble *NOW* by jd · 2008-09-29 12:04 · Score: 1
  
  Then save humanity at cut-price - ship Wall Street to the moon at a fraction of the cost of repairing it.
  
  --
  It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
14. Re:Congress Bail out the Hubble *NOW* by rufty_tufty · 2008-09-30 01:21 · Score: 1
  
  Hang on, I've missed something:
  The market expects the securities to be bought at above market value any day now. Therefore they aren't selling.
  Similarly I'd expect people to want to buy these securities in the expectation of them raising.
  Therefore there is a lack of supply and an increase in demand. Yet the price falls?
  There must be another effect here then...
  
  --
  "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
This only means one thing... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-29 07:22 · Score: 5, Funny

Invasion.
1. Re:This only means one thing... by jfbilodeau · 2008-09-29 07:39 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  I for one welcome our new Hubble-Telescope-Disabling overlords!
  (Please forgive me...You know that someone had to say that!)
  
  --
  Goodbye Slashdot. You've changed.
2. Re:This only means one thing... by MrPloppy · 2008-09-29 15:03 · Score: 1
  
  What you mean the Iraqis did it?
God damnit by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-29 07:23 · Score: 0

who the hell kicked out the Hubble's ethernet cable? You damn well better go up there and fix it!
Better to have it fail now... by casualsax3 · 2008-09-29 07:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

... than after the repair mission.
1. Re:Better to have it fail now... by Zymergy · 2008-09-29 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  Sorta lowers expectations doesn't it?
  Makes me wonder about that near-future 5-year gap where the US will have no way to get up there and repair our assets in space (like the Hubble)??...
  Maybe China and their space program are rising to the challenge so we can outsource out space program to them (as well as manufacturing, etc...) ...At least I can say that I was made in the USA!
2. Re:Better to have it fail now... by jd · 2008-09-29 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  Well, arguably you are correct, assuming they can fix the problem on a single repair mission. There is now so much that needs fixing that they may need to make two missions to Hubble. (The fact that NASA claims this is the "final repair mission" and yet is going to insist on installing a docking port... That's a strong hint to me that they see nothing final about this at all. Why add a docking port if there's nothing in future that is going to dock with it?)
  The current updates from NASA suggest that module A is unrecoverable from the ground and that they are having serious problems accessing module B. The only spare module they have, apparently, is in storage and hasn't been tested or maintained. (This repair mission should therefore be called Murphy's Wakeup Call And Coffee Service.)
  My concern is that if module B can't be used, or has deteriorated severely under radiation, they will be utterly dependent on a single backup system which might not even work. Hubble's instruments can only be accessed if at least one module is up and running. Really, under such conditions, both modules should be replaced with fully tested and burned-in modules from Earth, but NASA doesn't appear to have that many spares.
  My other concern is that the delay in the repair mission (which is unnecessary since the failure doesn't impact any of their other operations, there's a good chance they couldn't add the replacement operation to their current list of activities) is for political reasons. If enough bits stop working or fall off, they don't need to repair it at all. The upper echelons never wanted the repair mission, they were forced into it, so permanently delaying the mission is the best way to look like they're complying without having to do so. (Oh, they SAY they want to repair it, now, but they're now in the position where they must either do two repair missions or abandon Hubble completely, and they're showing no signs of opting for the former.)
  Besides, if ground control can't switch to module B then getting an astronaut up there to see why would be obviously better than sitting around philosophizing over whether to dust off the spare. No point in taking the spare up if it isn't the module itself that has failed but the junction to it, and you need an on-site tech to find things like that out. The problems with switching over would actually hint at a problem in the system prior to the modules themselves. Once you know what needs replacing, THEN send out a mission to do that. Duh.
  
  --
  It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
3. Re:Better to have it fail now... by ckaminski · 2008-09-29 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  The docking port/module is for the expected automated de-orbiting robot that will send Hubble to it's fiery Pacific Ocean doom sometime in the "future"!
4. Re:Better to have it fail now... by Sloppy · 2008-09-29 08:13 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Why add a docking port if there's nothing in future that is going to dock with it?
  To increase its sale value, silly.
  
  --
  As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
5. Re:Better to have it fail now... by darkmeridian · 2008-09-29 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  I was just thinking that it was so lucky the part failed TWO WEEKS before the last repair mision ever was going to be launched--and lucky that the part was not needed for the safe operation of Hubble. It would have sucked if Hubble had to be de-orbited right before the repair mission. Hopefully, the gyroscopes and other parts necessary to keep the Hubble safely in orbit hold out until the makeup repair session.
  
  --
  A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
6. Re:Better to have it fail now... by jav1231 · 2008-09-29 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  OH SHIT that's funny!
7. Re:Better to have it fail now... by osu-neko · 2008-09-29 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  Makes me wonder about that near-future 5-year gap where the US will have no way to get up there and repair our assets in space (like the Hubble)??...
  
  Virgin Galatic? SpaceX?
  I'm thinking a five-year downtime for government run space launches is a wonderful idea. A lot of people seem to think private companies would do a much better job of it. I don't know that that's true, but let's see what happens. We may look back on the five-year NASA downtime as the best thing that ever happened to the US space industry...
  Virgin Galactic has done successful manned space flights, albeit only sub-orbital. SpaceX has now successfully done orbital launches, albeit unmanned. Manned orbital spaceflight is within reach. The private sector isn't quite ready to service a satellite in orbit -- but it ain't that far off...
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
8. Re:Better to have it fail now... by mpe · 2008-09-30 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  Well, arguably you are correct, assuming they can fix the problem on a single repair mission. There is now so much that needs fixing that they may need to make two missions to Hubble. (The fact that NASA claims this is the "final repair mission" and yet is going to insist on installing a docking port... That's a strong hint to me that they see nothing final about this at all. Why add a docking port if there's nothing in future that is going to dock with it?)
  
  At what point would it be cheaper to replace the whole thing? (Parts of this machine must be close to 30 years old.) Remembering to get the mirror right this time.
With apologies to The Bard by davidwr · 2008-09-29 07:30 · Score: 2, Funny

Hubble, Hubble, toil and trouble, watch starfire burn with excitement bubble.

--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Oops? by MrNiceguy_KS · 2008-09-29 07:30 · Score: 1, Funny

Overheard at NASA:
"Dammit, who's turn was it to pay the Dish Network bill?"

--
Redundancy is good And also good.
HST might still live... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-29 07:37 · Score: 0

HST is not quite dead yet, there is a possibility that on-board backup electronics can be activated. The only problem these backups have not been used in its 18 year lifetime. Hope for the best however...
Oh What the Heck by Dripdry · 2008-09-29 07:39 · Score: 0, Troll

I have Karma to burn...
Mike broke the Hubble, Mike broke the hubble!

--
-
1. Re:Oh What the Heck by dkarma · 2008-09-29 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  Into the weenie mobile...weenie man awaaaay!!!
2. Re:Oh What the Heck by silgaun · 2008-09-29 07:50 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, let's escape under cover of the afternoon in the biggest car in the county
3. Re:Oh What the Heck by Rob+T+Firefly · 2008-09-29 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  Then I ram my ovipositor down your throat, and lay my eggs in your chest. But I'm not an alien!
  
  --
  Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
4. Re:Oh What the Heck by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-29 10:31 · Score: 0
  
  Why mod this Troll? It's funny.
5. Re:Oh What the Heck by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-30 01:29 · Score: 0
  
  Why mod this Troll? It's funny.
  Slashdot lacks a (-1, didn't get the joke) mod.
Bandwidth overload? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-29 07:40 · Score: 2, Funny

Maybe too many people were using the Hubble's bandwidth once they figured out that was cheaper than text messaging.
30 posts and only one truely insightful one by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-29 07:49 · Score: 0

the rest are jokes. gotta love slashdot.
1. Re:30 posts and only one truely insightful one by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-29 10:20 · Score: 0
  
  the insightful one got modded as flamebait. go slashdot!!1!
press conference at 6pm EDT by ChrisCampbell47 · 2008-09-29 07:54 · Score: 4, Informative

Press conference at 6pm EDT, more info then. Bill Harwood at CBS Spaceplace usually does good writeups, as does Chris Bergin at nasaspaceflight.com , so look over there tonight.

--
One simple rule for its versus it's
Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-29 08:02 · Score: 0

A communications disruption can mean only one thing...
Invasion.
Privacy Policy changed by root777 · 2008-09-29 08:11 · Score: 1

Maybe the Aliens changed their privacy policy to prevent external sources from snooping
OMFG! They hobbled the Hubble by DaveRexel · 2008-09-29 08:16 · Score: 1

Who was up there spacewalking about recently?
No, seriously, shouldn't such venerable hardware get parts-exchange and new firmware-loving from time to time? So a little downtime is acceptable now and then considering the logistics involved...

--
# ~: no sigs today
In case anybody was wondering, because I was. by apodyopsis · 2008-09-29 08:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

In case anybody was wondering, because I was...

It was launched in 1990 for a 15 year mission, extended to 20 after some servicing. It was expected to last until 2010 (the year we make contact? sorry I could not help it) so its already done its job very well.

As I understand it Interferometry can largely do a better job from the surface, please correct me if I am wrong...

And as pointed out elsewhere they are short on shuttle flights and 700Bn down, so its not looking good for Hubble.
1. Re:In case anybody was wondering, because I was. by tomz16 · 2008-09-29 09:00 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  (polite correction)...
  Saying "Interferometry can do better" makes no sense... similar to saying "RISC can do better" for you computer geeks. It's basically jargon + the phrase can do better. Meaningless without a problem statement and a lot of background info.
  In reality, very few optical telescopes can operate in an interferometric mode, and there's a specific class of problems where it's actually useful. Furthermore, I think it would hard to define "better" in this context. FYI there are also preliminary plans out there for formation-flying interferometric space telescopes (none are currently on the map for real funding AFAIK).
  In terms of absolute resolution over a small field with just a single telescope (non-interferometric), ground-based Adaptive Optics *can* do better (under certain conditions)... in the near future, they will be able to do significantly better than the Hubble over a much larger range of conditions... -But- there are still PLENTY of things that ONLY a space telescope can do, a buttload of things it does "better", and tons of interesting science that remains to be done.
2. Re:In case anybody was wondering, because I was. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-29 09:14 · Score: 0
  
  Ground-based methods like interferometry or adaptive optics only work well at long wavelengths, e.g. infrared. In the optical part of the spectrum, HST is the best we've got.
Suspended operations by MrNougat · 2008-09-29 08:41 · Score: 4, Funny

The Hubble Space Telescope has suspended operations so that it can focus on solving the financial crisis.

--
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
Mike Broke The Hubble! by MuscaDomestica · 2008-09-29 08:46 · Score: 2, Funny

Damn you Nelson Destroyer of Worlds!
1. Re:Mike Broke The Hubble! by KGIII · 2008-09-29 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  Pfft... The USA was issued a DMCA takedown notice by the Martians who had previously provided the footage for the rover so that they could remain in peace. As the laws go they had no choice but to take it down but were also handed a gag order from the TMSA (terrestrial martian security agency) and so had to come up with this as an excuse. The launch isn't to fix it but to seek a resolution to enable continued operation of the telescope but because the martians would like to come out from under the ground once in a while they'll likely make us filter the images with images that they provide.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
Limited pool of money by Peaker · 2008-09-29 08:51 · Score: 1

There is a limited pool of money
The pool of money is limited, but only by the level of debt. NASA could simply burrow some more :-)
Satellite of Love spotted in the area? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-29 08:56 · Score: 0

That is what you get for not letting Gypsy drive.
!deadbeef by condition-label-red · 2008-09-29 09:13 · Score: 1

Sounds like there are redundant systems in place. From the NASA release:

The malfunctioning system is Hubble's Control Unit/Science Data Formatter - Side A. Shortly after 8 p.m. on Saturday, Sept. 27, the telescope's spacecraft computer issued commands to safe the payload computer and science instruments when errors were detected within the Science Data Formatter. An attempt to reset the formatter and obtain a dump of the payload computer's memory was unsuccessful.
Additional testing demonstrates Side A no longer supports the transfer of science data to the ground. A transition to the redundant Side B should restore full functionality to the science instruments and operations.
The transition to Side B operations is complex. It requires that five other modules used in managing data also be switched to their B-side systems. The B-sides of these modules last were activated during ground tests in the late 1980's and/or early 1990, prior to launch. The Hubble operations team has begun work on the Side B transition and believes it will be ready to reconfigure Hubble later this week. The transition will happen after the team completes a readiness review.
Hubble could return to science operations in the immediate future if the reconfiguration is successful. Even so, the agency is investigating the possibility of flying a back-up replacement system, which could be installed during the servicing mission.

--
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.
Pad 39B by Titoxd · 2008-09-29 09:15 · Score: 1

What I wonder is what are they going to do with Endeavour on LC-39B. It is not necessary to have it there anymore as STS-125 is postponed, but was still going to go up soon for STS-126. Since they can't scuttle the pad now (as they'll need it for the rescheduled STS-125 flight next year), will they just launch from LC-39B? or are they going to do a weird rain dance, moving Atlantis back to the VBA, and Endeavour to LC-39A?

Also, the Constellation folks won't be pleased about Yet Another Delay(TM)...
Sell it by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-29 09:18 · Score: 0

There are plenty of countries with an interest in space science that might like to buy it. The U. S. could then take the money it made from the sale, and roll it into more subsidies for "moneyed interests" so it might soon trickle down to the rest of us!
It would be win-win-win, good science would still continue, the ultra-rich would get to buy a few more ivory backscratchers, and when they drop an ice cream cone in the streets, the non-ultra rich would get to lick up the trickled down cream!
The truth is... by Bunderfeld · 2008-09-29 09:20 · Score: 1

NASA hasn't just lost communication with Hubble, it's no longer there. An intergallactic Spaceship has entered our system and is currently use other satellites to coordinate a world wide attack. Where's Will Smith when we need him!
Why not just declare the Hubble a loss by hansoloaf · 2008-09-29 09:27 · Score: 1

and build another one and send the new one up.
Test your backup systems! by MavEtJu · 2008-09-29 09:38 · Score: 1

Work has begun to switch the telescope to the backup channel. It is a complicated process; the backup channels on the various modules that must be switched over have not been turned on since the late 1980s or early 1990, right before Hubble was launched. The Hubble team hopes to complete the job by the end of the week.
I would get in so much trouble if I don't regularly test my backup and failover systems...

--
bash$ :(){ :|:&};:
1. Re:Test your backup systems! by KGIII · 2008-09-29 12:12 · Score: 1
  
  Though, for you, it is probably a much shorter distance.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
2. Re:Test your backup systems! by rufty_tufty · 2008-09-30 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  I would get in so much trouble if I don't regularly test my backup and failover systems...
  I don't think it's that simple. If your redundancy systems fail on earth then you can walk up to them and fix them.
  If they fail on a remote spacecraft in orbit then you know you have problems. But suppose during the test you couldn't swap back to the known working systems. On an eartbound system you can plan for this and if needed force the redundancy swapover system to swap back to the working system. You can't do this for a system in orbit if you have both lost contact and have no physical access to the system.
  Or at least that is my guess as to why they haven't tested this.
  
  --
  "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
Where were those Chinese astronauts by Tired+and+Emotional · 2008-09-29 09:53 · Score: 1

Could not they have wacked it with a hammer while they were up there?
Or perhaps they did ...
BTW, cnn seems to be slashdotted at present! Slashdot brings cnn to its knees (or perhaps not)

--
Squirrel!
Or instead of sending up a repair mission... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-29 09:55 · Score: 1, Insightful

...Send Endeavour up empty, and bring Hubble back home for the Smithsonian Museum.
Don't build another single big space telescope, instead, build a shitload of smaller ones that are still high-powered but can all be networked together and group-focused on distant objects and use today's computational power and interferometry technology to get superior pictures thru parallel data gathering and processing. Launch all these replacements on cheaper, single-purpose individual rockets, and if one or two of the new telescopes fail, it won't kill the whole project, just reduce distance and resolution until replacement units can be launched.
I hope the NASA engineers... by billybob_jcv · 2008-09-29 10:01 · Score: 3, Funny

...can find their Windows/386 boot disk...
Send Discovery, not Endeavour. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-29 10:21 · Score: 1, Insightful

After all, Discovery was the shuttle that put the HST up there in 1990. It would only be proper that Discovery be used to bring the HST back home.
I say it should be saved for the very last flight ever for Discovery too. Re-fit the shuttle so it can be do the retrieval mission unmanned, remote controlled from the ground, because it will be a risky mission indeed. That way if something goes badly, only the machines will be lost. If it goes well, we'll gave two very nice museum pieces to be cherished for generations.
It's a trap! by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-29 11:04 · Score: 0

Just a moment... just a moment...
I've just picked up a fault in the AE-35 unit.
It's going to go 100% failure within 72 hours.
Totally wrong! by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-29 11:07 · Score: 0

Not Michael, but Maria.
Not Curie, but Sklodowska-Curie.
And she was a woman, you insensitive clod!
Grafitti found on the vandalized telescope by Arancaytar · 2008-09-29 12:51 · Score: 1

"Respect our privacy! Stop peeping, Earthlings!"
Not "oops" - Intentional by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-30 00:30 · Score: 0

Get ready for tinfoil hat time!

Maybe this "failure" is a last minute way to push the repair mission off to the next administration, so they can get the blame if human lives are lost fixing Hubble.
1. Re:Not "oops" - Intentional by KGIII · 2008-09-30 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  That is a good theory. A bit far out there but I could see that happening. The current administration is already hated by so many that they should be at least attempting to stop making people hate them more.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."