Slashdot Mirror
Atlantis Links Up To Hubble For Repairs
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."
Is that like an epileptic version of a lazy susan? I don't even know how you make a typo like that without having some sort of seizure.
Why do these articles always tell us how difficult it was to do something in space because they are going so ridiculously fast? When taken relatively, they were practically sitting still while docking.
I know there are all kinds of other factors and I know it takes a lot of math to even get to the right orbit at the right time and speed to even see the Hubble, but after that, it ought to be relatively simple considering the lack of any unwanted or unexpected force on the crafts. I'm pretty sure it's much more difficult to land a jet on an air craft carrier, but I wouldn't know for sure.
If Slashdot allowed image posting, this is where I'd post that picture from "UHF" where all the Asian dudes come out of the closet and yell "SUPPLIES!"
But I can't do that, so the point is probably moo.
Do people just look for big numbers to sound impressive??
The important number is the relative speed between Hubble and the shuttle. From my very precise calculation it was zero.
So they're going 17,200mph relative to the surface of the Earth? How fast are they going relative to some arbitrarily fixed point in the universe? Relative to another galaxy, we're hurtling towards it at some million mph, so maybe count that in as well.
I am reaching for my pop can while we travel at over 1 million miles per hour. SUCCESS! POP CAN LINKUP COMPLETE!
I can't do that, so the point is probably moo.
t
Hi, you dropped this while typing your post. I thought you might want it back.
I used to bullseye wamprats in my T16 back home and they're not much bigger than the hubble
"flying through space at 17,200 MPH, 300 miles above the Earth's surface. " Not impressive.
Then let's see you do it.
You make it sound as if it was simple.
Of course, relative speed from the Shuttle to Hubbles is tiny.
But to match their relative speed from the ground is still pretty hard. Getting the shuttle from zero MPH to 17,000+MPH within inches of the Hubble so that their own relative speed nears zero for a dock is by all means, pretty neat stuff.
And for that, I go Oooh.
Last fall during the run-up to the original launch date, NASA conducted their usual round of press briefings on this mission, 30 days prior to launch. The briefings included the usual information about the mission, the crew, the scheduled spacewalk work, etc.
In addition to those briefings typical for any shuttle flight, they conducted a "science briefing" to explain what the work of this servicing mission was going to do for the scientific capabilities of Hubble. In the briefing was an all-star cast of astronomical scientists:
Each of them made a short speech and then the rest of the briefing was turned over to questions from the press. I would encourage anyone with even a fleeting interest in science or astronomy to take the time to download and watch the entire briefing, as it is truly fantastic stuff they're talking about, and these guys do a great job of explaining it to regular people. Certainly science could use a bit of a pep talk after weathering the last 8 years of the Bush administration's hostility to science and objective truths.
In particular, the last person on the dais, Dr. Hammel, give an impassioned 10-minutes speech on the impact of Hubble on science and indeed on culture. It's an astonishing and beautiful statement on where we are in astronomical science and where we may be headed if this shuttle mission goes as planned. I'm surprised the press room didn't erupt in applause when she finished.
Dr. Hammel's speech starts at the 38:50 mark in the first half of the briefing that I've linked below. If you don't have time to watch the entire 90-minute briefing, at least watch her 10 minutes.
download page for first half of briefing
download page for second half of briefing
The above is adapted from an entry that I made to my personal blog back in September (not linked here). Sadly, I see that the above download links no longer work. I have not been able to find the briefing on Youtube, and the repeat briefings from a couple weeks ago did not include Dr. Hammel. FORTUNATELY, I did find most of Dr. Hammel's speech incorporated into a nice 5 minute video right here. Please check it out!
One simple rule for its versus it's
Do you have a U.S. government that I can borrow for awhile?
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Sure! Take mine. It's not being used for its original purpose right now anyway.
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
Joey: Because if he doesn't like you, this is all a moo point.
Rachel: Huh. A moo point?
Joey: Yeah, it's like a cow's opinion. It just doesn't matter. It's moo.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa80/austolyso/motivation/1196539615059.jpg
There's a free (beer) spaceflight simulator available at http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html that lets you try these sorts of approaches.
Just in the last 24 hours we got a story on Slashdot about the new 30 meter telescope being built.
Hubble works, and has worked, for years now. Why abandon something we have right now for something that we might have in 2018 assuming it's finished on time? While we're waiting, we should also demolish all ground based telescopes that will be inferior and just put science on hold until then.
Hubble's already outclassed by Keck as well - so ground-based telescopes already make it almost entirely redundant.
Hubble can see ultraviolet, Keck can't. Even if it could, Hubble doesn't have to worry about the atmospheric turbulence.
this is my sig
"Firstly, the only way to match altitudes is with speeds - the faster you go, the higher up you go. ..."
That's only an issue if your drift time between velocity adjustments is an appreciable fraction of a quarter-orbit. For significantly shorter times the orbital mechanics of the goofy accelerated reference frame is no big deal.
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.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Although the HST has clearly had a significant impact on astronomical research, the financial cost of this impact has been large. A study on the relative impacts on astronomy of different sizes of telescopes found that while papers based on HST data generate 15 times as many citations as a 4 m ground-based telescope such as the William Herschel Telescope, the HST costs about 100 times as much to build and maintain.[83]
Making the decision between investing in ground-based versus space-based telescopes in the future is complex. Even before Hubble was launched, specialized ground-based techniques such as aperture masking interferometry had obtained higher-resolution optical and infrared images than Hubble would achieve, though restricted to targets about 108 times brighter than the faintest targets observed by Hubble.[84][85] Since then, advances in adaptive optics have extended the high-resolution imaging capabilities of ground-based telescopes to the infrared imaging of faint objects. The usefulness of adaptive optics versus HST observations depends strongly on the particular details of the research questions being asked. In the visible bands, adaptive optics can only correct a relatively small field of view, whereas HST can conduct high-resolution optical imaging over a wide field. Only a small fraction of astronomical objects are accessible to high-resolution ground-based imaging; in contrast Hubble can perform high-resolution observations of any part of the night sky, and on objects that are extremely faint.
In short, Hubble does high-resolution photos and photos of faint objects well because it does not have to deal with the atmosphere.