Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Challenges Ahead In Final Hubble Servicing Mission

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the good-luck-up-there-guys dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "Space shuttle Atlantis is slated to lift off Monday on the fifth and final servicing mission to Hubble with four mission specialists alternating in two-astronaut teams will attempt a total of five spacewalks from Atlantis to replace broken components, add new science instruments, and swap out the telescope's six 125-pound (57-kilogram) batteries, original parts that have powered Hubble's night-side operations for nearly two decades. 'This is our final opportunity to service and upgrade Hubble,' says David Leckrone, senior project scientist for the Hubble Space Telescope. 'So we're replacing some items that are getting long in the tooth to give Hubble longevity, and then we'll try to take advantage of that five- to 10-year extra lifetime with the most powerful instrumental tools we've ever had on board.' Some of the upgrades are relatively straightforward and modular: yank out old part, put in new. But they're big parts: The 'fine guidance sensors' sound delicate but weigh as much as a grand piano back on Earth. But what's different this time is that the astronauts will also open up some instruments and root around inside, doing Geek Squad-like repairs while wearing bulky spacesuits and traveling around the planet at 17,000 mph. 'We have this choreographed almost down to the minute of what we want the crew to do. It's this really fine ballet,' said Keith Walyus, the servicing mission operations manager at Goddard. 'We've been training for this for seven years. We can't wait for this to happen.'"

130 comments

  1. Uh Oh by MyLongNickName · · Score: 5, Funny

    This all sounded good until they said they would be doing "Geek Squad style repairs". Does this mean they will recommend the Norton Anti-virus suite be installed and send a $500 bill?

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    1. Re:Uh Oh by GrifterCC · · Score: 5, Funny

      And steal Hubble's pr0n!

    2. Re:Uh Oh by amazeofdeath · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe Hubble's registry has been clogged up, and a fresh OS installation is needed.

      --
      U+F8FF
    3. Re:Uh Oh by mc1138 · · Score: 4, Funny

      They're actually going to use pirated navigation software... and charge you full price!

      --
      The musings of just another geek and his junk.
    4. Re:Uh Oh by RazzleDazzle · · Score: 0

      Hopefully Atlantis isn't this vehicle or else I might not be able to resist any longer the urge to knock these people off the road.

      --
      ZERO ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ONE! Just brushing up for my next big invention: Ethernet over Voice (EoV)
    5. Re:Uh Oh by Presto+Vivace · · Score: 1

      These are all pretty funny, but this one of the funniest.

    6. Re:Uh Oh by tech_fixer · · Score: 0

      Or it may have experienced a Kernel Panic when a faulty driver tried to KILL init.

    7. Re:Uh Oh by mc1138 · · Score: 1

      I'd love to take credit for it... but really the Geek Squad isn't making it too hard to come up with decent material...

      --
      The musings of just another geek and his junk.
    8. Re:Uh Oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI, none of us recommend Norton....EVER. I practically beg people not to buy it or McAfee. Next time you bash me or my fellow agents, please know what the fuck you are talking about. Do we make mistakes? Yes, even the experienced agents. But, being the only agent at my store that actually has PC repair experience, it's not my damn fault that they keep hiring no-nothings forcing me to do all the work. Anyone would get worn down and make an error in that situation, particularly when I was working two jobs and working 14 hour days 3 and 4 days a week. So kiss my ass, if you are so much better, come take my job.

    9. Re:Uh Oh by MadnessASAP · · Score: 0, Troll

      So what, we're supposed to suddenly supposed to treat the geek squad as a talented group of well meaning computer experts rather then the talentless, lying, salesmen shills that they are becasue a few good people get lumped in with the rest of the crap? Tough fucking shit buddy, you work for a crappy company which employs crappy people and I'm not sorry at all that you get lumped in with the rest of them. Furthermore judging by your choice of wording and how forcibly you tried to defend yourself I'm bettign that you aren't nearly the hot shit that you think you are and really are deserving of all the connotations that comes with the dorky yellow shirt that you wear. I used to work as an installer in a Canadian Tire garage and in case you don't happen to live in Canada, Canadian Tire is the Best Buy of the automotive world and you know what I did good work and so did most of the other mechanics in the garage, we didn't even have the cavalier attitude towards mistakes that you seem to have. Unfortunately our garage was the exception to the norm where most Canadian Tire garages did very poor work and I had absolutely no fantasies about the very well deserved image the rest of Canada had of our garages and I knew exactly what to expect when I said that I worked for Canadian Tire. In short get off that high horse you seem to have gotten yourself on and take an honest look at yourself and the company you work for.

      --
      I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
    10. Re:Uh Oh by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Did you ever think that maybe there is a REASON why they have to hire "no-nothings" for Worst Buy? Maybe because it is a shitty McJob? If you want to work repair get a job at a Mom&Pop. There is one in every town. The hours are better, you can wear what you want, hell I sat in the back smoking while I worked. No crappy hours or crappy clothes required. That is why you were being worked into the ground dude. It is because anybody with any experience avoided Worst Buy like the clap. Too much like working at McDonald's. That is why they came up with that whole "agent" crap, hoping that a cool title would make up for the lousy hours and crappy pay. No thanks.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    11. Re:Uh Oh by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe they were hoping that they could meet a hot CIA agent while working at Geek Squad.

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    12. Re:Uh Oh by alc6379 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      hell I sat in the back smoking while I worked.

      Dude if my computer came back smelling like smoke, I'd be asking for a refund, as well as a replacement of every component that smelled like smoke.

      Not that I would need to take any of my machines to a repair shop, but if I did, I'd take it to Geek Squad before I would take it into a place that reeked of smoke in the back room.

      Totally willing to be modded off-topic here-- my karma can stand the hit.

      --
      I don't moderate anymore. Karma penalty for 90% fair mods? Can I mod that unfair?
    13. Re:Uh Oh by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Go right ahead, then you would be bring it back to me to fix what they fucked up. Here is just a small list of what I have found when opening up a box that Geek Squad "fixed"- Floppy plugged in backwards, HDDs jammed into the drive case so hard it bent the case, broken RAM slots where they literally yanked the RAM out without bothering to release the pins, a "new" DVD ROM that was brown on the case from age and had something rattling around in it, a PC that left with 512MB and came back with 128MB, a 400Gb HDD that magically became an 80GB, an expensive Geforce that magically became a shitty old Geforce MX 4000.

      And that is just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Of course if you take it back and complain they will claim it "wasn't them" or that is how it came in. But you go right ahead and avoid the shop where the minimum repair experience is over a decade for the McDonald's worker. But don't be surprised when you find out why we guys in the repair biz call Worst Buy "A REALLY expensive way to throw away your computer".

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    14. Re:Uh Oh by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      No, it means they're going to fail and give up after an hour, then send the telescope out to someone else and not be able to tell us when it will be back, or whether it will be fixed when it returns.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    15. Re:Uh Oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good troll. I give it a 7 out of 10. I wanted to respond, until I released that I was being played. I see someone else didn't get the joke, which is evidence to your effectiveness. Keep up the good work, I need a laugh from time to time.

    16. Re:Uh Oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because you are petty, ignorant, and quick to anger. You wouldn't have your block of metal serviced by smokers? Fuck you. This isn't hair or fabric, it's not going to reek of smoke, as you say. It's not like there is any harm caused to you or your equipment. So seriously, take your facist rhetoric and stick it up your ass.

    17. Re:Uh Oh by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      That's your own failure, for *asking*. What do you think you get, when you say "Please, can you do this?". A "no". You have to declare and expect/demand.
      You say: "I give you this computer, on the signed contract, that you will give it back to me in 14 days, and guarantee for its safe return with the sum of $5000."

      If they say "No", you now *know* that there is a big chance that they will fuck it up. So you say "Sk, then fuck you. Bye."

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    18. Re:Uh Oh by sunnyflorida · · Score: 1

      Somebody needs to tell the author that speed is relative and 17,000 MPH is no big deal. It is actually slow depending on the reference point.

  2. butter fingers by jaggeh · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Lets hope they have a secure hold of their toolbags this time.

    --
    I would give everything i own for a little bit more.
  3. 17,000 mph sounds like it's fast by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When you drive on the highway, if you are going 85mph passing a car going 80mph, you only really experience a 5mph velocity differential with that car. Given that both of you are traveling at similar speeds, maneuvering around each other should be relatively simple as you only have to gauge the distances with regard to the 5mph differential and not the 80mph absolute velocity.

    So 17,000mph may sound fast, but given that the satellite itself is traveling the same speed, the astronauts don't really have to think about that.

    1. Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Informative

      When you drive on the highway, if you are going 85mph passing a car going 80mph, you only really experience a 5mph velocity differential with that car. Given that both of you are traveling at similar speeds, maneuvering around each other should be relatively simple as you only have to gauge the distances with regard to the 5mph differential and not the 80mph absolute velocity.

      Sure. But then, I rarely repair my car while driving down the road at 85 MPH, although you are pointing out that I could.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    2. Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast by GreenTech11 · · Score: 1

      So 17,000mph may sound fast, but given that the satellite itself is traveling the same speed, the astronauts don't really have to think about that.

      But 17 000mph sounds SO cool!

      Anyone know how much this mission is costing? I think it is great, but I really like big numbers....

      --
      Laughter is the best medicine, except if you have a broken rib.
    3. Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you not change the radio while driving?

    4. Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast by Bakkster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So 17,000mph may sound fast, but given that the satellite itself is traveling the same speed, the astronauts don't really have to think about that.

      Of course, there could be debris also moving at 17,000mph... in the opposite direction. Traveling at 34,000mph (relative), even a paint chip can do some serious damage to delicate electronics or the relatively soft astronaut.

      Here's hoping everyone stays safe up there.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    5. Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast by necro81 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thankfully, it's not like anyone will need to actively "drive" the shuttle while at the same time repairing the Hubble. There's some station-keeping to do, and the craft's overall health to monitor, but a lot of that can be done by autopilot. There's also about a hundred people at mission control that are doing nothing but driving and checking the shuttle, so the astronauts and do their job.

    6. Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your bad analogy is more like this (skip to 3.30).

    7. Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast by IcePop456 · · Score: 1

      It is more like getting something out of the glove box while driving around. There's no wind out in space...oh and there's no one else on the road so you don't really have to "drive".

    8. Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast by AndrewNeo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is more like changing the car battery.. while driving.

    9. Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast by pjt33 · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, he's pointing out that you could repair someone else's car while driving down the road at 85 mph.

    10. Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast by sam0737 · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, I am walking, sitting, eating, and coding on a ground that's actually spinning at 229km/h everyday. (Assuming I am at 30 degree North)

    11. Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast by Aqualung812 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No this it like changing the car battery while it is on a flatbed truck that someone else is driving, but with BIG EFFING GLOVES on.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    12. Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast by PlatinumRiver · · Score: 1

      Do you not change the radio while driving?

      I change the "stations" ON the radio. I don't actually change the radio itself, which is more what these guys are doing.

    13. Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast by codegen · · Score: 1

      More like changing the car battery while it is inside a transport truck but with big gloves on.

      --
      Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
    14. Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast by rts008 · · Score: 1

      Trivially easy if you can run beside your car at 85mph, Steve Austin.
      Be careful opening the hood/bonnet at those speeds though...

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    15. Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast by mea37 · · Score: 4, Funny

      That is, assuming you carry things with the mass of a piano in your glove box, and wear a space suit while driving.

    16. Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Informative

      Of course, there could be debris also moving at 17,000mph... in the opposite direction.

      No.

      That would require a retrograde orbit, which noone uses.

      Of course, if Hubble were in a polar orbit, this could happen. But it's not, so it won't.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    17. Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      So 17,000mph may sound fast, but given that the satellite itself is traveling the same speed, the astronauts don't really have to think about that.

      Of course, there could be debris also moving at 17,000mph... in the opposite direction. Traveling at 34,000mph (relative), even a paint chip can do some serious damage to delicate electronics or the relatively soft astronaut.

      Here's hoping everyone stays safe up there.

      Pfft, whatever. It's like getting hit by an invisible bus. Not much you can do to avoid it, and it will suck if it happens, but it's not like it's a distraction unless you get unlucky. The far bigger issues (so far as mission success) are the clunky outfits, the massive objects they have to handle, and the fact that there's no easy place to put something down for a second. So stop falling for the big-number hype, and realize that this is not much more dangerous than any other EVA - and none of that extra danger comes from their orbital velocity.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    18. Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast by node159 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Going by the mortality rate (I think its like 4%) being an astronaut is more dangerous than being a solider on active deployment at the moment.

      No guts, no glory I say :).

      --
      GPLv2: I want my rights, I want my phone call! DRM: What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak?
    19. Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast by C0vardeAn0nim0 · · Score: 1

      radios today are pretty straight forward to replace. 2 shills on the sides, pull it off, unplug the (standard) cables, plug the new one, slide it into the dash.

      easy for the passenger to do while someone else is driving. remember, atlantis has a crew of 7. a couple of guys will be flying the ship, the spacewalkers will have to worry only about the repairs.

      --
      What ? Me, worry ?
    20. Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast by rufty_tufty · · Score: 1

      So actually quite straightforwards then?

      If that's true then all these impossibly difficult things that NASA keeps talking up suddenly seem even more suspect

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
    21. Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast by icebrain · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, there are a few satellites in retrograde orbits. Some are nearly polar (sun-synchronous orbits, for example), but others are truly retrograde. I believe Israel does it (even despite the disadvantage of fighting earth's rotation by launching west) because that's the only way they can launch their own stuff without overflying populated areas and/or pissing off unfriendly neighbors.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    22. Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast by EkriirkE · · Score: 1

      Don't forget your diapers.

      --
      from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
      to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
    23. Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "There's some station-keeping to do, and the craft's overall health to monitor, but a lot of that can be done by autopilot."
      Actually no it's not on autopilot. You don't want the attitude thrusters firing off when the astronauts are in the wrong place. Not that you may burn them, unlikely but you could. You can also contaminate them with fuel residue, those spacesuits aren't rubber you can hose off. Then also cause them to lose footing, lose tools etc. All maneuvers are very carefully choreographed when they are outside. It really is a team effort.

    24. Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep in mind that there are a lot of things in orbit that nobody chose to put there. Debris from explosions, collisions, and outer space can have almost any velocity (meaning combination of direction and speed). Worst case is coaxial and anti-parallel, but any collision can ruin your day - Jy@

    25. Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast by rackserverdeals · · Score: 1

      But Hubble is about 100 miles higher than the international space station which makes a misstep dangerous. That's a long way to fall. And on the way down they have to worry about a missing tool bag.

      The EVA may not be too unusual compared to other EVAs, but an EVA isn't a walk in the park.

      In addition, the preparation is very difficult. If you forget something or break something along the way, you can't run to Home Depot and if you drop a screw good luck getting those fat gloves in tight spaces isn't easy. With this being the last contact anyone will have with hubble until it crashes on their house, this is a very important mission.

      Just because something similar has been done before doesn't make it any less difficult or impressive.

      --
      Dual Opteron < $600
    26. Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast by jobst · · Score: 1

      *MOST* of the parts of your car CANNOT be repaired while driving ... try taking a wheel off ... then continue taking the motor out and/or replace the exhaust under your car ... change the cooling fluid ...

      --
      to code or not to code, that is the question.
    27. Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you drive on the highway, if you are going 85mph passing a car going 80mph, you only really experience a 5mph velocity differential with that car. Given that both of you are traveling at similar speeds, maneuvering around each other should be relatively simple as you only have to gauge the distances with regard to the 5mph differential and not the 80mph absolute velocity.

      So 17,000mph may sound fast, but given that the satellite itself is traveling the same speed, the astronauts don't really have to think about that.

      When you drive on the highway, if you are going 85mph passing a car going 80mph, you only really experience a 5mph velocity differential with that car. Given that both of you are traveling at similar speeds, maneuvering around each other should be relatively simple as you only have to gauge the distances with regard to the 5mph differential and not the 80mph absolute velocity.

      So 17,000mph may sound fast, but given that the satellite itself is traveling the same speed, the astronauts don't really have to think about that.

      I'm a documentary filmmaker doing a film on this mission; I asked several of the astronauts now on the flight about this very question.

      It turns out that there is enormous variation in the trajectories of all the various (thousands) pieces of debris and space junk. In fact, a great many of them are moving in completely different directions than the shuttle, so the relative velocity actually can be thousands of miles per hour. And (as another reader pointed out), at that speed even a paint chip can do tremendous damage.

      Micro-meteorite and orbital debris impacts are a huge problem for them, and getting worse with time.

    28. Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1

      Timeliness is next to Cleanliness is next to Godliness.

    29. Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      How does this have any relevance with what I said? Moreover, where did I say this EVA was less dangerous than going outside the ISS to turn a nut, for instance? What I said was that the fact they're moving 17,000mph relative to the surface of the planet is almost (only almost) as relevant as how fast they're moving relative to the sun or the centre of the galaxy. It's just a big number to make the layperson say "Oooh."

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  4. Foreshadowing by Agent00Wang · · Score: 3, Funny

    'We've been training for this for seven years. We can't wait for this to happen.'

    Cue heartbreak and disaster.

    --
    NINJA SPIRIT - The Ancient Art of Insanity
    1. Re:Foreshadowing by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think you have misread the title. It reads "Challenges Ahead...", not "Challenger Ahead...".

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Foreshadowing by patch0 · · Score: 1

      ouch

    3. Re:Foreshadowing by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      'We've been training for this for seven years. We can't wait for this to happen.'

      Cue heartbreak and disaster.

      Really, is he trying to sabotage the mission? That's like an astronaut saying:

      "It's my last mission before retirement. Here's a picture of my wife, and here's the cabin on a lake we just bought to live out our golden years. She can't wait until I get back so we can move in."

      I mean you might as well shoot him on the spot once he's said that.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  5. Best of Luck guys by twiddlingbits · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is a heck of an undertaking and I wish the crew all the luck in the world. If something doesn't work or doesn't quite fit it will be interesting to see if NASA has planned workarounds or lets the astronauts engineer on the spot solutions. Duct tape, baling wire and chewing gum have been fully supplied on the STS :) It will be nice to see instrument (WFC3 and COS) upgrades I worked on in 2001-02 finally get installed. I'm not too sure about the 10yrs extra life claim, as some of these upgrades have already been around 5 or more yrs in the powered off state and stored in an inert environment and over time electronics degrade regardless. Last time any of the were powered up was Thermal Test in 2004 so I hope they have done a Power On Self Test before they stashed them on board the STS. I have no idea where this 10 more years of service comes from, as NASA's web site for the mission says "warranty good till 2013" maybe longer. Perhaps this is based on the prior performance of items which far exceeded expectations (See we CAN build good stuff in the USA..just not cheap!) Battery technology has come a long way since the last update so the new batteries should have great power to weight ratio. The upgraded detectors should provide better data gathering but the technology isn't cutting edge as the WFC3 is 2K x 4K (8M) pixels in UV and 1K x1K i(1M) in IR. HST does not operate in the visible light range and images you see are colorized from data gathered from several instruments. Still pretty good data gathering capability and maybe the best we get for a long time as NASA is in such disarry right now who knows if JWST will get up by 2013 as planned.

    1. Re:Best of Luck guys by decsnake · · Score: 1

      WFC3 went thru a full thermal vac test last summer, right before SDO went into the SES.

    2. Re:Best of Luck guys by MachineShedFred · · Score: 3, Informative

      "or lets the astronauts engineer on the spot solutions."

      Like the first time they serviced it, and couldn't get the damn doors closed without using a come-along strap.

      (Yes, this happened)

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    3. Re:Best of Luck guys by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      the HST web site at GSFC and STSI says Thermal Vac was in late '04 so it must be out of date?

  6. Ping pong balls on your finger tips by kulakovich · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sure it sounds like an easy swap, but imagine trying to do something like changing dipswitches and installing a PCIe card with ping pong balls on your finger tips - even with big clunky milspec connectors, everything you twist tries to twist you, everything you pull tries to pull you. Arduous work at best, and they are doing five 6 hour sessions. Amazing, truly. I hope they have Story Musgrave available for commentary, the man is a national hero in my opinion.

    ~kulakovich

    1. Re:Ping pong balls on your finger tips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish you could give a story (not a comment) +1 epic undertaking

    2. Re:Ping pong balls on your finger tips by bit01 · · Score: 1

      Sure it sounds like an easy swap, but imagine trying to do something like changing dipswitches and installing a PCIe card with ping pong balls on your finger tips - even with big clunky milspec connectors, everything you twist tries to twist you, everything you pull tries to pull you.

      You're right, what they're doing is not easy but that's in part due to poor design by the people on the ground. They're sometimes just way too conservative and bureaucratic, and not in a good way, with many design elements.

      As just one example off the top of my head they could've used an unpowered "Canada arm", a light truss where the joints can be tightened and loosened, attached to the telescope to hold them in a fixed position while they're working. Another example is designing replaceable modules and connectors that don't require fine hand coordination. They already do this to a degree but I see no reason why the astronauts should need to use their fingers at all.

      It's easy to understand why the designers are conservative, they only get one chance, however maybe they need to think in terms of good/optimal solutions and fallbacks if they don't work, instead of "this is the one true, will always work not matter what" way.

      I've watched the astronauts working on the ISS and there's a huge amount of bureaucracy and complexity for what should be very simple lego-style plugin-and-leave jobs while on space walks. To put it another way the complexity perhaps should be more in the design work on the ground, not in the procedures to implement the designs in space.

      Reminds me of house design, the last bastion of bespoke, non-factory, non-prefabricated design.

      ---

      Don't be a programmer-bureaucrat; someone who substitutes marketing buzzwords and software bloat for verifiable improvements.

  7. I want to go! by NetNinja · · Score: 1

    Talk about an excitng job! I want to go also! I will carry the tool box :)

    Seriously. :)

    1. Re:I want to go! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Welcome to NASA! We're glad to have you on our crew! :)

      Now let's get you measured for your spacesuit. You'll be the first to get a red one! :)

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  8. Why not build another one ... by Jumperalex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm curious, can anyone tell me why a good, cheap, quick solution to replacing the current Hubble isn't to take that same design + upgrades that are even too complicated to accomplish in space, and launch it? I mean sure it might not be as spiffy as a completely new blank-sheet design but I have to believe it wouldn't cost that much more money, if at all, than a shuttle launch + a shuttle on standbye as a life boat. I mean what am I missing that makes building Hubble-2 a bad option compared to a risky/costly repair mission? It can't take that long to build another.

    --
    If you can't be good, be good at it!
    1. Re:Why not build another one ... by mangu · · Score: 3, Interesting

      can anyone tell me why a good, cheap, quick solution to replacing the current Hubble isn't to take that same design + upgrades that are even too complicated to accomplish in space, and launch it?

      You're absolutely right and, ironically, it would cost less to launch it with a non-reusable rocket like the Ariane 5. Unfortunately, real life doesn't work like that.

      The problems is with that "upgrades" thingie. They would never get a team of experts to agree on a sensible list of upgrades and launch that. There would always be one more thing, one more feature and the final cost would be, well, "astronomical" is the only word that comes to my mind.

      Nasa's problem is that they have to be innovative, it's their mission. They can never let good enough alone. If they had just kept making small improvements to their systems, maybe we would have all the space colonies Popular Mechanics predicted fifty years ago by now.

    2. Re:Why not build another one ... by trav242 · · Score: 1

      See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JWST

    3. Re:Why not build another one ... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Yes.
      It is all custom parts it would take years to build a new one so yes it can take that long to build a new one. By that time the Hubble replacement will be ready to launch and the current Hubble will long since be dead. Also it would take a good % of what the Hubble replacement will cost and will not be as good.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    4. Re:Why not build another one ... by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      You cannot just rebuild the Hubble because many of the original contractors are out of business. You would have to rebuild the space telescope from scratch, which involves validating all of the changes you made. Putting it all together along with logistical support costs a few billion dollars. For a frame of reference, Hubble cost $2.5 by 1992.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    5. Re:Why not build another one ... by rgarbacz · · Score: 1

      As far as I know one of the goals is to attach a deorbit module to Hubble, which is needed to safely end its life, so there has to be this mission anyway. Non of the other existing spacecrafts can perform this task. There were plans to send a robot, but finally they made a bold decision to send humans and repair/improve the telescope besides just solving the problem of a safe deorbitation. And I am thankful for that, the HST served not only the scientific community, but had a great influence in popularizing science as well. The only said thing is that it is too expensive to take it down to a museum, or to send it to a more stable orbit in case in the future the technology is cheap enough to put it in a museum.

      The followers of Hubble are scheduled, and lets hope we will see images they will take soon.
      Besides the JWST there is also the Harschel Space Observatory scheduled to be launch coming days (May 14). It is an infrared telescope with a mirror larger than Hubble.
      I hope everything will be OK with all the space observatories. Those in orbit, and those coming. Their scientific value is astonishing.

    6. Re:Why not build another one ... by Jumperalex · · Score: 1

      custom parts sure, ok, I get that. But, but, but ... there still has to be savings in time and cost to not having to come up with a completely new design, isn't there? I mean take all the time and money spent to spec and design the replacement parts (which are also custom themselves I'm sure), and then to figure out how to do it in space and train the astronauts etc etc etc and instead spend the time and money to spec and design Hubble 2 and launch it with an unmanned. [shrug]

      And for that matter, just how far along is the current replacement?

      I will say this though, I find it amusing that there is all this concern about not having anything up there for some given time frame. I mean yes I know it would leave a lot of people without new data for some time (not that there isn't enough old data to plow through) but let's put this in a cosmic perpective: 1 year, 2, 5, 10 ... is not even a drop in the bucket of time. Somehow I doubt we're going to miss some fleeting once in a universe's-lifetime event that would give us the answer to everything. But I do think it would be a shame not to have something out there collecting the type of data Hubble and its successor collect.

      --
      If you can't be good, be good at it!
    7. Re:Why not build another one ... by pnewhook · · Score: 2, Informative

      As far as I know one of the goals is to attach a deorbit module to Hubble, which is needed to safely end its life, so there has to be this mission anyway.

      Actually they are not attaching a full deorbit module, but a docking interface that can be used in the future for a deorbit module to grapple onto.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    8. Re:Why not build another one ... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Not as much as you might think. First of all you will have modify the design. Old suppliers are gone. The standardized parts may have changed so you will have to do some redesign for that. And the big problem is that odds are pretty good that they Hubble design isn't available in SolidWorks, AutoCad, ProE or even IGES format. So it will probably have to be redrawn on a modern CAD system. You will want to completely update all the electronics so those will be different as well.
      About the one only thing you would want to keep unchanged would be the basic structure and maybe the optics. Everything else you would want to update just because it would be cheaper than than trying to rebuild 20 to 30 year old parts.
      The replacement for the Hubble has a much larger collecting mirror and will really out preform the Hubble. http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    9. Re:Why not build another one ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't they already have a second Hubble in the engineering mock-up. Apply and test all the upgrades , load up the shuttle, deliver it and bring home the original to be the new mock-up.
      Repeat as required.

    10. Re:Why not build another one ... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      And maybe the second time they could get the primary mirror right before they launch it.

    11. Re:Why not build another one ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy, there is no cheap or quick solution...

      Repairing Hubble with the shuttle is cheaper than building a new one (with the same or enhanced capabilities), and both time and money too. This is the fifth repair/upgrade mission to Hubble. In some instances instruments are on their 3rd generation. I dont think there is an original instrument up anymore. Building a new space telescope is expensive and takes time, go look at JWST. If the shuttle remained in service for future Hubble missions it would be easy to upgrades/repair the spacecraft every 3-4 years. Using the Shuttle has saved lots of money!

  9. I hear that they're rebooting Hubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently, an angry astronomer will travel back in time and prevent Challenger from exploding. This will completely alter Americans' attitudes towards space, and set in motion a different chain of events. Somehow Hubble Prime will be able to travel back in time, too, but too late to prevent the changes.

  10. Last by DinZy · · Score: 1

    Just curious. How do they know this is the last mission to Hubble. The telescope was supposed to be set out to pasture before and recently got this reprieve. Even if we eventually have a bigger and better space telescope, Hubble is still a valuable instrument.

    1. Re:Last by JamesP · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because there won't be much more Space Shuttle missions, it's being retired, and none of the future vehicles can do this kind of visit.

      Yes, Orion can dock with the ISS but that's "much easier" than going after Hubble

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
  11. Actually it's 370 km/s towards Virgo by mangu · · Score: 1

    If you want to quote big speeds against something, that should be something *near* you, something that runs the risk of crashing. 17000 mph against the earth that's hundreds of miles away is totally meaningless.

    Now, if you want to quote some "absolute" velocity, then the only reference that can be considered valid, according to Mach's principle would be against the "fixed distant stars", which means cosmic microwave background.

    Then we can say we are all moving at 370 km/s towards the Virgo constellation (note the link says the whole Milky Way galaxy is moving at 600 km/s towards Centaurus but we have to subtract the speed of the earth relative to the galaxy as a whole. Longer explanation here).

    1. Re:Actually it's 370 km/s towards Virgo by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      From the link you sent

      If we were somehow able to see ONLY this dipole contribution [...] by removing the average brightness (or temperature) from the preceding diagram and amplify the contrast by approximately a thousand, the sky now looks like the figure at the right.

      Did they not realize that this is the Taoist symbol of yin and yang? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TaoismSymbol.PNG

      And since the Taoist believe in universal evolution, I guess the creationists can finally admit they are wrong.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    2. Re:Actually it's 370 km/s towards Virgo by radtea · · Score: 1

      Did they not realize that this is the Taoist symbol of yin and yang?

      I hear there's a face on Mars, too, and a picture of Jesus on a fish stick, and quite a few other natural accidents that look a lot like things people have a big emotional investment in if you squint hard and click your heals together at exactly the same time.

      The really curious thing is how ancient Taoists knew about dipole moments. I've studied the tao te ching pretty carefully and don't recall seeing a single spherical harmonic, Legendre polynomial, or anything similar.

      In any case, I'm pretty sure if you subtract out the dipole and look carefully at the higher moments you'll find a pattern that looks suspiciously... noodly.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  12. That's nothing by drooling-dog · · Score: 1

    The Earth is zipping around the sun at something like 66,000 mph (unless I screwed up my calcs). It's all I can do to hang on...

    1. Re:That's nothing by camperdave · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
      And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,
      That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,
      A sun that is the source of all our power.
      The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
      Are moving at a million miles a day
      In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,
      Of the galaxy we call the 'Milky Way'.
      Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.
      It's a hundred thousand light years side to side.
      It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick,
      But out by us, it's just three thousand light years wide.
      We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point.
      We go 'round every two hundred million years,
      And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
      In this amazing and expanding universe.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:That's nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you quoted Monty Python verbatim. And you chose one of their songs that has no humor content. Kudos!

    3. Re:That's nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you quoted Monty Python verbatim.

      Amazing what you can do with Google and the ability to cut and paste, isn't it?

    4. Re:That's nothing by elronxenu · · Score: 1

      You forgot the punch line:

      And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space,
      'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth!

    5. Re:That's nothing by shuz · · Score: 1

      Ah lighten up Mrs. Brown... I like Jim Post's rendition better than Eric Idle's.

      --
      There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principle
  13. Geek Squad... by kannibul · · Score: 2, Funny

    So, you mean they'll copy off all the space-porn to a central repository and do nothing?

  14. Attach it to the ISS? by sherriw · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't understand why they don't grab Hubble and attach it to the International Space Station? It seems a waste to eventually let a great piece of equipment, into which so much money has been invested, to eventually just drift off into space/crash to earth. Servicing it would be much easier if it was attached to the ISS and we could continue getting stunning images, which I think goes a long way to creating interest in astronomy.

    1. Re:Attach it to the ISS? by ogre7299 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sounds nice but it would not work for a few reason.

      1. The orbits are very different, Hubble is higher and at a different inclination.

      2. The sharp images need excellent stability of the spacecraft. Hubble's resolution of 0.1" is the equivalent to spotting a dime 40 miles away. Astronauts and all the equipment running on the ISS would cause lots ot stability problems for sharp imaging.

    2. Re:Attach it to the ISS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      A nice thought but unfortunately it would be impossible to prevent vibrations from the ISS blurring every image, no matter how well damped the tether/mount. I do not know but suspect that the ISS is in a lower orbit.

      If they had a Federation style Tractor Beam they could use once a month to keep it localised, that might be a different matter ;-)

    3. Re:Attach it to the ISS? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      1. It is in a very different orbit. You just can't call AAA and tow it to the ISS. The shuttle doesn't have the capability to do. No current system has the ability to do it. We would have to build a space tug.
      2. The orbit the ISS is in isn't as good as the one the Hubble is in for doing Astronomy.
      3. You don't want to attach the Hubble to anything since even the motion of people moving around will throw off it's aim.
      4. You don't want all the stuff that comes off and out of the ISS near Hubble. Like the exhaust from it's thrusters.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    4. Re:Attach it to the ISS? by kulakovich · · Score: 1

      In addition to everyone else's points, and to elaborate on something in the last response - yes, indeed, there is a giant cloud of stuff in orbit with the ISS, whether it is washers, filings, toolbags, thruster exudate, water vapor, dings of micro meteorites, etc. Not an environment we want to put Hubble in.

      ~kulakovich

    5. Re:Attach it to the ISS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The shuttle could do it the way Hubble was deployed initially, bring it down and launch again to ISS's orbit.

    6. Re:Attach it to the ISS? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      That "bring it down" part is the problem. It's the size of a school bus, and the idea of re-entry vibration on it's delicate systems would likely make it a very heavy piece of useless junk by the time you got it back down.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    7. Re:Attach it to the ISS? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Even if you did then you left with problems 2,3, and 4. Not to mention that the Hubble would probably be damaged by the trip home. Plus I am not sure that the Shuttle can get the Hubble to the ISS's orbit. It is at a much greater incline than the Hubble's orbit so it takes more fuel. I think it is lower so it may be possible but I would have too look up a lot of stuff to be sure.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    8. Re:Attach it to the ISS? by pnewhook · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't understand why they don't grab Hubble and attach it to the International Space Station? It seems a waste to eventually let a great piece of equipment, into which so much money has been invested, to eventually just drift off into space/crash to earth.

      Nice idea but it's physically impossible to do this with the shuttle. Even with no payload, the fuel required to shift the shuttles orbit when it's at Hubble to be able to rendezvous with the ISS is almost equal to the mass of the space shuttle itself. It simply can't be done. Thats why there's a second shuttle being prepped for launch in case there's a problem with Atlantis - the ISS cannot be used as a safe haven because it cannot reach it.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
  15. Grand pianos by operagost · · Score: 1

    But they're big parts: The 'fine guidance sensors' sound delicate but weigh as much as a grand piano back on Earth.

    Could someone help me convert this into something sane, like Volkswagens or Libraries of Congress?

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  16. Send Bartowsky, he 'knows' kung fu now! by rts008 · · Score: 1

    I'm glad to see someone here that 'gets it'.
    One thing everyone seems to gloss over is the fact that you and what you are working on are both 'falling around the earth' at 17,00 mph. It's not like having it on the ground in a garage.
    Your body and mind constantly battling each other over what 'up and down' really are; mass is still mass, so those 'heavy' pieces still take effort to move in-out of position, etc.

    We've already seen that you can't just set your toolbag down on the workbench for one thing...

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  17. No, you don't by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    it is the toolbag, nuts, insulation, and even paint coming in the OPPOSITE direction that you think about. Of course, not much to worry about. If it hits you at 34000 mph in the core or helmet, I doubt that you would even know it.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:No, you don't by Binestar · · Score: 1

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

      Essentially, there is very little in orbit going the wrong way because it's more expensive and energy intensive to do it that way. The chances of a 34,000MPH collission are extremely low.

      --
      Do you Gentoo!?
    2. Re:No, you don't by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      You are talking about LAUNCHING a sat in retrograde. I am talking about parts coming off other launches, explosions, detonations, etc.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:No, you don't by Binestar · · Score: 1

      Going from 17,000MPH around the earth in one direction to 17,000MPH around the earth in the other direction requires that you give a 34,000MPH speed change. Good luck having that happen with a part coming off, an explosion or a detonation. 34,000MPH is in the realm of speeds that are achieved with gravitational slingshots. You don't change your orbit direction with a gravitational slingshot, although I suppose it's possible you could slingshot from around the moon into a reverse orbit around the earth. You'll have to have someone else do the math though.

      --
      Do you Gentoo!?
    4. Re:No, you don't by icebrain · · Score: 1

      And what we're telling you is that no mere explosion or part off a launch is magically going to wind up in a retrograde orbit. It just can't happen. An explosion (or even a significant collision) isn't going to impart a 14km/sec delta-V.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    5. Re:No, you don't by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      ok; thanx for the update. not a physicist.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  18. piano : Earth :: ? : in orbit by mkcmkc · · Score: 1

    weigh as much as a grand piano back on Earth

    I'm not a physics expert, but if it weighs as much in orbit as a grand piano does on Earth, wouldn't that give it the mass of, say, the Titanic?

    --
    "Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
    1. Re:piano : Earth :: ? : in orbit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not a physics expert, but if it weighs as much in orbit as a grand piano does on Earth, wouldn't that give it the mass of, say, the Titanic?

      There's your answer right there.

    2. Re:piano : Earth :: ? : in orbit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently you are not an English expert either.

  19. "...doing Geek Squad-like repairs..." by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    Let's hope not.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  20. Did you mean "not JUST the visible light range"? by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 4, Informative

    HST does not operate in the visible light range and images you see are colorized from data gathered from several instruments.

    How's that again? I'm seeing that it handles wavelengths from 110nm (hard UV) to 1100nm, or maybe 2300nm, or maybe deeper IR than that. Visible (400-700nm) is smack in the middle of that range, and well-covered by the instrumentation.

  21. Typo in NAV by antdude · · Score: 1

    As a spelling Nazi, it's spelled "Norton AntiVirus" -- http://www.symantec.com/norton/antivirus ... :P

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    1. Re:Typo in NAV by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      My attitude on companies who insist on weird capitalizations in their name is "fuck them". Same for E*Trade.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:Typo in NAV by antdude · · Score: 1

      Then, fsck your "mylongnickname". :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    3. Re:Typo in NAV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ROFL :)

  22. Re:Doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Is this mission designed to fail from the start, so that Obama can blaim its failure on Bush, like everything else that goes wrong?

    Not likely, it's probably a combination of two things. First, NASA is making preparations for worst case scenario, like all organizations that work in hostile environments should. Second, the media generally likes sensational reporting because it boosts ratings and circulation, so they hype the "What if it all goes horribly wrong?" angle of the story.

    See no conspiracy theory involved!

  23. T minus 140 minutes by T+Murphy · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you aren't already, follow the mission on the nasa website http://www.nasa.gov/

    --
    My webcomic
  24. Why is the Hubble so badly built? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All these upgrades, repairs, etc. I swear a $10K daily driven Geo Metro has better reliability than the Hubble. Doesn't it seem troubling that the multi million $$$ Hubble breaks down constantly just being in empty space?

  25. 125 pounds (57 Kg) each! by monkeySauce · · Score: 1

    They better be careful up there lifting shit like that! I don't know whether OSHA has an jurisdiction in space, but either way those astronauts better be using good team lift practices with those batteries because the last thing we need is for one of them to throw their back out up there!

  26. Re:Doomed by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's a very tricky thing to get to Hubble. It's orbit and inclination puts it in a position that takes roughly half of Shuttle's fuel to get to it. They burn a bit wrong, and they're screwed; or perhaps never get to Hubble in the first place.

    Either way, if they get there, and have a Columbia-type event with foam / ice / etc, the ISS is not an option as a lifeboat - they couldn't get there with the amount of fuel they have.

    This mission is as dangerous as it gets in Earth orbit (currently).

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  27. Lets hope for a safe repair by physburn · · Score: 1
    and ten more years of observation from Hubble.

    I'm also hoping that the James Webb Telescope, Hubbles inferred younger brother, goes to plan, and gets launched on its target 2003.

    -- Astronomy Feed @ Feed Distiller

  28. Re:Did you mean "not JUST the visible light range" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe it was a misstatement. If I remember correctly, the problem isn't what wavelengths it observes, but the fact that the CCDs onboard can only register certain wavelength sections at once, so in order to construct color images, they have to overlay several CCD exposures.

  29. Bollocks by smoker2 · · Score: 1

    You know, I wanted to comment on this thread, but it's so full of shit already, I can't be bothered. The powers that be have already said that I can choose to not have ads, but that isn't enough anymore. I want them to pay me to participate, as the general state of comments is so bad as to make me walk away silently.

    Why don't you fucking grow up ! Bunch of fucking losers. The funny thing is, you all consider yourselves intelligent - twats. I looked at a thread the other day, and fully 90% of the comments were off-topic. What is the point of having titles to this shit ? May as well say, Oi, prick, and seeing what results. Maybe I've been redirected to science.digg.org ...

  30. To boost ratings further by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    doing Geek Squad-like repairs while dribbling basketballs and while wearing bulky spacesuits and traveling around the planet at 17,000 mph. Points for behind-the-back dribbling will be awarded.

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  31. Tard Squad by Zotdogg · · Score: 1

    "Geek Squad style repairs" probably means that when they upgrade the batteries, they will forget to connect the main leads and not realize it until everyone's back on the ground trying to use it again.

    "Geek Squad style repairs" probably means that when they are done working on the it, there will no longer be solar panels attached. When questioned later the responsible astronaut will simply say that he misread the instructions while doing the work.

    "Geek Squad style repairs" probably means that when they are done working on it, it will stop functioning, it's orbit will degenerate, and it will land on it's owner's (NASA) house (ground control).

    Fucking Tard Squad.

  32. "root around inside" by gfim · · Score: 1

    I certainly hope that's not the Australian meaning of "root"!

    --
    Graham
  33. a very DANGEROUS mission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And it will be televised... the pre-launch interviews... the buildup to the launch ...the launch ...with a surprise twist that you won't believe ...the zero-G hot tub scene ....followed by the RISKY EVA in which three astronauts will journey to the telescope ...and only TWO will come back! The event of a lifetime, tune in 9pm tomorrow!

  34. Re:Did you mean "not JUST the visible light range" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Very few of the Hubble pictures you see are of visible light. Color is added for each wavelenght that is non-visible to the human eye. I beleive the only instrument that can do visible light is ACS, which is not working very well at the moment either. If all goes well during the servicing mission it will be fully operational again, but it is a very complex on-orbit repair.