Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Atlantis Links Up To Hubble For Repairs

Posted by timothy on from the hey-baby-I-see-the-stars-in-your-eyes dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Space Shuttle Atlantis has finally caught up with the Hubble Space Telescope after following it for several hours. The 'link up' between the Space Shuttle and Hubble was a very delicate one as the two were flying through space at 17,200 MPH, 300 miles above the Earth's surface. The robotic arm of the shuttle grappled the telescope at 1:14 PM EDT today. The telescope will be latched to a high-tech Lazy Susan device known as the Flight Support System for the duration of the servicing work."

5 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. Obsolete Already? by Plekto · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just in the last 24 hours we got a story on Slashdot about the new 30 meter telescope being built. Given the cost to fix Hubble and the non-zero danger that is present, why are we even bothering with it any more? The new 30 meter telescope will have 100x the power of Hubble and allow us to do everything we ever wished, including make upgrades and repairs as needed - all less than for the cost of the launch to repair Hubble(The 30 meter telescope is projected to cost 700-800 million versus 1.3 billion for just one Shuttle launch).

    http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/13/2010241&from=rss
    Hubble's already outclassed by Keck as well - so ground-based telescopes already make it almost entirely redundant.

    1. Re:Obsolete Already? by Plekto · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Except if you actually follow the links and read the comments - you find that at best the Keck merely equals the performance of Hubble, it doesn't even remotely outclass it.

      Equaling Hubble but not costing 1.3 billion for a Shuttle launch to fix it is a big deal to me. It's not only that newer ground based telescopes are catching up with it. It's also about the insane cost to keep it running. That we can almost build two of those 30 meter telescopes for the cost of this one Shuttle launch makes me wonder why we bother.

      It's not like we're rolling in money, either. Hubble was great when it was launched, but it's just to expensive to run any more. And God help us if we need to launch a rescue mission due to the damage that the Shuttle has sustained. 2.6 Billion, then.

      That's a lot of money. I bet JPL would love to have even the cost of one Shuttle launch added to its funding for next year.(note - that would nearly double their budget for 2010!)

      P.S. the 30 meter telescope will have technology in it to filter out virtually all of the distortion caused by the atmosphere. It's a very well thought out and high-tech design. For Infrared, though - the JWST is going to replace Hubble anyways in 2014.

      http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/

      I'd have rather saved the billion+ dollars and just had no IR space telescope for 4 years. I honestly don't think most of the people would have noticed.

  2. Re:Relative speeds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think you have it backwards. He understood that there is no actual fixed reference. He just meant that choosing the earth as a reference point didn't help one determine whether the linkage was difficult or not. Short answer: cut him some slack.

    Delta-V, FTW!
    -l

    No slack today, sorry.

    It DOES matter. The relative velocity is very important until you leave the Earth's gravity well.

    Relative velocity to the center point is important if the distance to the center of the orbit is small (on a relative scale of course). For example, if they were attempting to synch up while in orbit around the Sun (but not in the Earth's field) then the velocity relative to the Sun would be rather unimportant, since both objects can adjust speed to match without much worry about falling into the Sun or breaking out of the solar system.
    But in Earth's orbit, since there is such a small margin between falling to Earth and escaping altogether, you must be much more careful about any changes to speed as these will change the orbit.

  3. Re:Not an issue at these time scales. by ColaMan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This was delicate because the instrument they're linking up with is massive and fragile. No hard bumps during grabbing or thruster exhaust spraying the device is acceptable.

    Exactly.

    Here's a simple question for those who say this is easy to work out:

    You have an orbiter with a mass of 80,000kg drifting towards a telescope with a mass of 11,000kg in an essentially frictionless environment, just like your physics teachers used to say and love. They are directly approaching each other at 10 millimeters per second and collide at that speed whilst the orbiter is attempting to grapple the telescope.

    Assuming an inflexible contact point via the orbiter's arm and a 100 x 100mm contact point on the telescope that deforms a total of 10 millimeters in the one second it takes for the two to come together (and stay together - assume that the orbiter has gripped the telescope), calculate the contact force applied to the telescope in Newtons and deceleration of the telescope in mm/sec over the 1 second period as the two meet. For simplicity, also assume that their centre of mass is in line with their relative velocities, to avoid any tumbling effects.

    Quick mental calculations tell me the forces would be large (bend-your-telescope type large) and the deceleration, whilst minor, would not be good for sensitive instruments and gyros aboard the telescope.

    --

    You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
    There is a lot of hype here.
  4. Re:17,000 mph by whyde · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've told this story before on slashdot, but once--about 10 years ago--the shuttle flew over Austin, TX on descent to land in FL not long after sunset. We went outside to see the boiling plasma trail it left in the atmosphere, then went back inside to see it touch down 9 MINUTES LATER.

    Fast, indeed.