Helium Depleted, Herschel Space Telescope Mission Ends

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Helium Depleted, Herschel Space Telescope Mission Ends

Posted by timothy on Tuesday April 30, 2013 @12:43AM from the say-goodbye-in-a-squeaky-voice dept.

AmiMoJo writes "The billion-euro Herschel observatory has run out of the liquid helium needed to keep its instruments and detectors at their ultra-low functioning temperature. This equipment has now warmed, meaning the telescope cannot see the sky. Its 3.5m mirror and three state-of-the-art instruments made it the most powerful observatory of its kind ever put in space, but astronomers always knew the helium store onboard would be a time-limiting factor." Reader etash points to a collection of some infrared imagery that Herschel collected.

204 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Orbital pickup truck by mabhatter654 · 2013-04-30 00:47 · Score: 5, Interesting

If only we had a plan for recurring orbital missions... A "space pickup" that would launch on a regular basis to make pit stops for things like extra helium.
To think how many multi-decade projects like this will "rot on the vine".
1. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 00:52 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  It'd have to be more than orbital. Herschel is out at Earth-Sun L2. That's not exactly a short trek.
2. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 00:55 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  A pickup truck that can get to L2 and back. Whatever you're thinking of, it isn't the shuttle.
3. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Alex+Pennace · 2013-04-30 00:58 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  If only we had a plan for recurring orbital missions... A "space pickup" that would launch on a regular basis to make pit stops for things like extra helium.
  To think how many multi-decade projects like this will "rot on the vine".
  The Herschel Space Observatory is 1,500,000 km away at a Lagrangian point. Servicing missions of any kind are out of the question.
4. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 01:02 · Score: 0
  
  Nice try, but the space shuttle does not fly to Lagrange points. It take a tiny wee bit more fuel to get there.... and back...
  Now if you had a one way vehicle it would be much cheaper....... :)
5. Re:Orbital pickup truck by TWiTfan · 2013-04-30 01:07 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Hey, Bruce Willis and James Bond taught me that the Space Shuttle can go anywhere!
  
  --
  The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
6. Re:Orbital pickup truck by mrsquid0 · 2013-04-30 01:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The Earth-Sun L2 point is out of reach with the old Space Shuttle, but the original point is a good one. It is too bad that we do not have the capability to repair and restock the consumables on spacecraft in the inner Solar System. It has been nearly 45 years since we first went to the Moon. We should be able to move around in our band of the Solar System by now.
  
  --
  Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
7. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Virtucon · 2013-04-30 01:12 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  space shuttle does not fly to Lagrange points
  
  Rumour spreadin' a-'round in that Texas town
  'bout that shack outside La Grange
  And you know what I'm talkin' about.
  Just let me know if you wanna go
  To that home out on the range.
  They gotta lotta nice girls ah.
  Have mercy.
  A pow, pow, pow, pow, a pow.
  A pow, pow, pow.
  - ZZ Top...
  
  --
  Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
8. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  Why not have the cooling system in a closed loop and use solar power to chill the helium back down - keeping the satellite dormant until it could operate again? It seems like a waste of $billions to not think of such a system. Even if it could only operate 10% of the time, it could provide decades of additional science.
9. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 01:34 · Score: 0
  
  It has been nearly 45 years since we first went to the Moon.
  The current sorry state of our space faring capabilities really makes it hard to believe that's true. Maybe the space age indeed is over.
10. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 01:38 · Score: 0
  
  They must just not have thought of that. Too bad you weren't on the team.
11. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Electricity+Likes+Me · 2013-04-30 01:39 · Score: 2
  
  You could launch an ion-drive craft from the ISS which would take a long slow orbit to the telescope, refill the liquid helium, then orbit back to the ISS for resupply.
12. Re:Orbital pickup truck by jekewa · 2013-04-30 01:41 · Score: 2
  
  Robots? I'm sure the limiting factor is that no one considered sending unmanned missions with supplies. Surely something akin to refueling USAF planes in flight could have been considered and a giant "put it here" port could have been exposed for injecting more Helium as needed.
  To be fair, unmanned drones weren't as good as they are now when the telescope was launched, so it probably seemed much more impossible than I think it might seem today.
  
  --
  End the FUD
13. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 01:46 · Score: 0
  
  If only it weren't cheaper just to build more disposable rockets and telescopes. Technology moves forward you know, what's the point in maintaining a twenty year old space telescope?
14. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Grizzley9 · 2013-04-30 01:47 · Score: 2
  
  If only we had a plan for recurring orbital missions... A "space pickup" that would launch on a regular basis to make pit stops for things like extra helium.
  To think how many multi-decade projects like this will "rot on the vine".
  I'm going to assume due diligence was done and that with it being so far away, a refillable port and a small, single-use robotic craft to accomplish that would be more expensive than just creating a newer satellite to replace it.
15. Re:Orbital pickup truck by xhrit · 2013-04-30 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  I am pretty sure the telescope itself fits the definition of an unmanned drone.
  
  --
  Dungeon Tactics : Free Open Source SRPG
16. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  Soon we may. There are multiple organizations working to solve this problem.
  http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/TTO/Programs/Phoenix.aspx
  http://ssco.gsfc.nasa.gov/
17. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Megane · 2013-04-30 01:55 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  It has been nearly 45 years since we first went to the Moon.
  We only went there because of a super stretch effort that went to the limits of our technology and budgets. It was an anomaly in the progression of space exploration, and the extreme effort involved probably even set us back by a couple of decades. We are currently on a more normal progression of space exploration, with the possible exception that we (the western world, as opposed to the Chinese) may bypass the moon this time around because we've already been there and it's not really very interesting.
  Actually, I'm surprised that we've sent hardly any robotic missions to the moon in the past 45 years. There's a lot less need for humans when communication delays are only a few seconds, and maybe we could find out something interesting enough to want to go back there.
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
18. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Megane · 2013-04-30 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  Why would you even need it to return unless there are humans aboard? Especially to the ISS, of all places, where a mistake in approach or docking could trash the station. Too much focus on "reuse" is what made the Shuttle so flawed.
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
19. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 02:01 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  The "Ages" system refers to "cutting edge" technology - the technology used to kill each other. Given this, I don't think we ever really entered the space age. Silicon age is more descriptive of current weapons.
20. Re:Orbital pickup truck by DragonTHC · 2013-04-30 02:02 · Score: 2
  
  more of a sailing vessel with a significant hold.
  We will also need an orbital platform capable of storing the materials.
  
  --
  They're using their grammar skills there.
21. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 02:05 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  A pow, pow, pow, pow, a pow.
  A pow, pow, pow.
  Ah, their lyrics were like poetry. So intelligent.
22. Re:Orbital pickup truck by MrMickS · 2013-04-30 02:08 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Why not have the cooling system in a closed loop and use solar power to chill the helium back down - keeping the satellite dormant until it could operate again? It seems like a waste of $billions to not think of such a system. Even if it could only operate 10% of the time, it could provide decades of additional science.
  If you read one of the linked articles it explains that they did think of this but at the time it was too risky so went for a simpler solution with a known maximum operational life. A new telescope is being designed that will incorporate mechanical cooling and be able to operate for longer.
  "You were made as well as we could make you."
  "But not to last."
  "The light that burns twice as bright burns for half as long - and you have burned so very, very brightly"
  
  --
  You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
23. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Golddess · 2013-04-30 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  Because the mechanics of cooling something in space are not the same as cooling them on earth.
  
  On earth, in your typical home AC unit, the freon or whatever runs in a sealed, continuous loop, with one end of the loop being where heat is absorbed, and the other end being where the heat is expelled. This works because at that other end, a fan is blowing air across the radiator, ensuring a fresh supply of cool air to absorb the heat from the AC unit.
  
  But in space, there is no air. So instead, as I understand it, they just dump the hot liquid out into space.
  
  --
  "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
24. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 02:17 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yeah, but just remember, then he crushed his head. :)
25. Re:Orbital pickup truck by The+Grim+Reefer · 2013-04-30 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  If only it weren't cheaper just to build more disposable rockets and telescopes. Technology moves forward you know, what's the point in maintaining a twenty year old space telescope?
  Except it isn't. Hubble has been in operation since 1990 and will not be replaced for at least another 5 years. Hopefully it will stay operational until then. There have been 4 or 5 missions to repair/upgrade it since its launch. Don't you think they would have simply replaced it if it would have been cheaper?
26. Re:Orbital pickup truck by FrankSchwab · 2013-04-30 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, despite decades of wishful thinking, the laws of physics haven't changed much in the decades since we went to the moon.
  
  --
  And the worms ate into his brain.
27. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 02:22 · Score: 0
  
  I am pretty sure the telescope itself fits the definition of an unmanned drone.
  I'm pretty sure the phrase "unmanned drone" is redundant.
28. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 02:23 · Score: 0
  
  You could launch an ion-drive craft from the ISS which would take a long slow orbit to the telescope, refill the liquid helium, then orbit back to the ISS for resupply.
  Ion drives aren't very useful for start-stop type operations, they work best as a continuous thrust drive where you don't ever plan on slowing down.
29. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Runaway1956 · 2013-04-30 02:27 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  We pissed away more than two decades with that stupid ass "space plane" thing. It's like America said, "Well, we were the first on the moon - we'll never beat that, so we'll just give up now. Oh - launch that space plane thingy occasionally, to give lip service to exploration and research."
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
30. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 02:28 · Score: 0
  
  Why not have the cooling system in a closed loop
  What do you plan on doing with the excess heat?
  
  and use solar power to chill the helium back down
  WHAT????
31. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Runaway1956 · 2013-04-30 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  Just send a super model. Hundreds of thousands of men will start searching for ways to get there.
  Better yet - get Avon to hint to the world that moon dust is the new wonder ingredient in the fight against aging. Instead of the men, millions of women will be racing to the moon!
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
32. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Runaway1956 · 2013-04-30 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  It returns for more helium? As for those humans - just tell them to get the docking procedure right the first time. I mean, you don't have to hand off the final approach to a computer, do you?
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
33. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Pinky's+Brain · 2013-04-30 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  If you make the radiator hot enough it can dissipate whatever wattage you want ... that said, there might be some practical problems with that.
  If cooling the system at peak power consumption isn't an option you might be able to store the gaseous helium for a while in a balloon before cooling. So at the start you just vent like they did now, once the helium almost runs out you go into a low duty cycle operation where you dump expanded helium in the balloon during operation and then slowly recover it ... this way the cooling system can work at much lower wattage.
34. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 02:34 · Score: 0
  
  But what if it runs into Klingons?
35. Re:Orbital pickup truck by wagnerrp · 2013-04-30 02:36 · Score: 2
  
  What about a pickup truck with an extra JATO bottle?
36. Re:Orbital pickup truck by wagnerrp · 2013-04-30 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  So the scientists are telling me that rubbing myself down with moon dust was a bad idea... and that I now have cancer...
37. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 02:40 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  We'll just scrape 'em off.
  
  .
38. Re:Orbital pickup truck by mabhatter654 · 2013-04-30 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, what about Buck Roger's Deep Space Shuttle?. We were supposed to launch that in 1999... Like 20 years after the ones we just retired.
39. Re:Orbital pickup truck by MightyYar · 2013-04-30 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  In "Footfall" they strap the whole fleet of shuttles to a single nuclear rocket and use them as fighters against alien invaders.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
40. Re:Orbital pickup truck by MightyYar · 2013-04-30 02:48 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I have to disagree. Just last night I was marveling at how we have rovers cruising around mars, orbiters and probes strewn all over the place, and how the technology is now at hand to create "tugboats" for asteroids. Maybe manned missions have been disappointing, but robotic missions are amazing too.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
41. Re:Orbital pickup truck by MBGMorden · 2013-04-30 02:49 · Score: 2
  
  Any robot that could go out that far is going to have to be pretty sophisticated - to the point that its probably cheaper to just build and launch another telescope (and then we get to benefit by replacing it with a better one).
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
42. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Runaway1956 · 2013-04-30 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  That reminds me of a story -
  Some woman had joint pains. Someone told her that WD-40 would help to ease the joint pains. Instead of asking "how much", or doing any research, the woman supposedly BATHED in a tub of WD-40.
  I really don't know how true the story is. My wife told it to me, she swears it's true, yada yada yada . . .
  Anyway, please, when you get your moon dust cosmetics, follow the guidelines that Avon and Maybelline publish and distribure with every 3 gram bottle they sell.
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
43. Re:Orbital pickup truck by mabhatter654 · 2013-04-30 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  Call Japan and PSY! Gundams fly to Lagrange points! JarJar is already there in style!
  Seriously, if we want to explore just the solar system, we need to start building tools in space. The Moon was an obvious choice, more because we need a place to PRACTICE stuff and the Moon is nearby. We WASTED thirty years on the Shuttle because we let the project die on the vine back in the 1980's and never progressed. We should have had Orion or whatever was next a DECADE ago. And just kept improving craft to go "a little further" each mission. We should have MULTIPLE IIS bases at the L points... Then we are halfway building a safety net to MARS!
44. Re:Orbital pickup truck by thrich81 · 2013-04-30 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  "the extreme effort involved probably even set us back by a couple of decades" -- I've heard that more than a few times. While it sounds plausible, it often seems to come from either the (dwindling few) old timers who thought we could go to space via the X-15 and later spaceplanes (seems unlikely in retrospect), or from NASA apologists trying to excuse the stagnation there since the ISS and STS ate up the budget for real exploration -- not to assign you (parent poster) to either class. In any case the STS really set us back by a couple of decades so we'll never know what would have happened had we continued the use of Apollo hardware through the 70's and 80's.
45. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 03:20 · Score: 0
  
  helium escapes out of everything.
  you figure out a way to keep helium in a cryostat, and the medical imaging industry will be screaming "Shut up and take my money"
46. Re:Orbital pickup truck by alexander_686 · 2013-04-30 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  If I remember correctly, it’s 100s of nuclear bombs under a battleship. Space Shuttles are then strapped on like fighter jets. (A single nuclear bomb might have enough force to send a space shuttle to orbit, but I am not sure if a space shuttle has sufficient structural integrity to survive. You want a lot of mass for a ship like this. )
  A bit off topic, but have we had the Freeman Dyson interview yet – the guy who came up with this idea?
47. Re:Orbital pickup truck by necro81 · 2013-04-30 03:31 · Score: 2
  
  Thank you for bringing in the Blade Runner reference - very appropriate. Take it to its logical conclusion...
  
  "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe....All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die."
48. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Blaskowicz · 2013-04-30 03:39 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  So in the Middle Ages we killed ourselves with middles?
49. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Virtucon · 2013-04-30 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  So what you're frustrated with is the fact that politics constantly plays havoc in a government agency? That's why we have no long term planning in the government outside of the military. With every new NASA administrator and the Executive Branch there are new priorities for the organization. It's sad but true, yes having worked in that field for a time I can tell you that it's full of graft, politics and lots of pent up stupid management who can't see beyond this years' budget.
  Anyway, as long as our government constantly changes direction in our space endeavors we'll just sit back and watch the Chinese do it because for some reason, they seem to be able to do long term planning.
  
  --
  Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
50. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 03:52 · Score: 0
  
  That reminds me of a story -
  Some woman had joint pains. Someone told her that WD-40 would help to ease the joint pains. Instead of asking "how much", or doing any research, the woman supposedly BATHED in a tub of WD-40.
  I really don't know how true the story is. My wife told it to me, she swears it's true, yada yada yada . . .
  Anyway, please, when you get your moon dust cosmetics, follow the guidelines that Avon and Maybelline publish and distribure with every 3 gram bottle they sell.
  Considering that WD-40 comes in a spray can, I can pretty much guarantee that never happened. At least not in the "filled up a bath tub and jumped in". Sprayed herself all over instead of taking a shower maybe.
51. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Githaron · 2013-04-30 03:52 · Score: 0
  
  When life gives you lemons, don’t make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!
  -- Cave Johnson
52. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 03:53 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It was not really an anomaly, it has happened time and time again.
  Columbus might have 'found' the Americas for Europe, but people had voyaged there by ship many years prior. There was quite a large gap between when knowledge of the Americas and the ability to get there and back was established and when full exploration and settlement/trade happened.
  The same thing also happened with Euro-China trade, with Rome and the northern areas of Europe and the British/Irish isles.
  Same with ocean floor exploration, Antarctica, etc.
  Even the same happened in many ways in computers. There is a very large gap between Babbage and the WW2 code breakers in Briton, and then again between early isolated computer systems in government and business and the computer revolution of the 70's/80's.
  Often, due to obsession, singular mental ability, or politics some frontier is found physical or knowledge wise, is 'conquered' and then promptly forgotten about until there is better reason for further exploration or utilization.
  There always seems to be a gap of a a generation at least between the frontier being 'conquered' and the frontier being mastered and becoming simply part of the larger world.
  See where we went to space, and now as our first astronauts reach the end of their life we now have private space companies selling tickets to the wealthy for joy rides and the actual prospect of a private moon mission.
  We are doing exactly the same thing as always.
53. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 03:58 · Score: 0
  
  There are professor out there that, by their existence, would prove you wrong. Although...
54. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Alex+Pennace · 2013-04-30 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  Some woman had joint pains. Someone told her that WD-40 would help to ease the joint pains. Instead of asking "how much", or doing any research, the woman supposedly BATHED in a tub of WD-40.
  I really don't know how true the story is. My wife told it to me, she swears it's true, yada yada yada . . .
  Considering that WD-40 comes in a spray can, I can pretty much guarantee that never happened. At least not in the "filled up a bath tub and jumped in". Sprayed herself all over instead of taking a shower maybe.
  Not to confirm the grandparent post's legend, but WD-40 is also available in handy gallon jugs: http://wd40.com/products/one-gallon/
  Supposedly they offer 55 gallon drums of it too.
55. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Microlith · 2013-04-30 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  We are currently on a more normal progression of space exploration
  Normal? Relative to what standard?
56. Re:Orbital pickup truck by h4rr4r · 2013-04-30 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  Too bad the last space pickup we had was a dangerous rusty heap of crap.
57. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 04:18 · Score: 0
  
  Don't you think they would have simply replaced it if it would have been cheaper?
  No. The government rarely does anything logically.
58. Re:Orbital pickup truck by trazom28 · 2013-04-30 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/household/wd-40.asp
  They reviewed the list with the company.. arithritis is not on the list as far as I can see.
  
  --
  {} ------ When I think of a good sig, I'll put it here
59. Re:Orbital pickup truck by quintus_horatius · 2013-04-30 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think the moon stretched our technological limits by any means. All the basic technology required for a moon landing existed before the goal was announced - no new and revolution computer or rocket design required. It was more of a project-management problem - how to engineer rockets powerful enough, how to ensure reliablity, how to guarantee the trip went off without a hitch. The decade from announcment to landing was spent training people and figuring out how to build bigger.
60. Re:Orbital pickup truck by quintus_horatius · 2013-04-30 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  Ion drives aren't very useful for start-stop type operations, they work best as a continuous thrust drive where you don't ever plan on slowing down.
  So you accelerate half-way there, turn around, and accelerate in the opposite direction for the remaining half. The engine never needs to shut down and bam! you're parked right where you need to be.
61. Re:Orbital pickup truck by X0563511 · 2013-04-30 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  Even today that would be incredibly difficult. It would have to be nearly (if not totally) autonomous because of the communications delay.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
62. Re:Orbital pickup truck by mpe · 2013-04-30 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  The Herschel Space Observatory is 1,500,000 km away at a Lagrangian point. Servicing missions of any kind are out of the question.
  
  A robot tanker resupply is rather different from the kind of EVA service performed on the HST.
63. Re:Orbital pickup truck by 0123456 · 2013-04-30 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  Don't you think they would have simply replaced it if it would have been cheaper?
  To be cheaper, they would have had to design it for replacement rather than refurbishment, and the shuttle was supposed to be so cheap that doing so would have been a dumb idea. In the real world each refurbishment mission turned out to cost well over a billion dollars, so building new Hubbles on a production line would almost certainly have been cheaper.
64. Re:Orbital pickup truck by X0563511 · 2013-04-30 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  OK, so you fit reaction drives as well for the stop/start.
  You know, you can even use RCS thrusters for that, in a pinch.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
65. Re:Orbital pickup truck by X0563511 · 2013-04-30 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  You'd have to rely on large (read: heavy) radiators and black-body radiation, OR as you state, pass some kind of medium over the radiators to collect the heat, and expel that.
  Helium happens to be very light and excellent for the purpose.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
66. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 04:39 · Score: 0
  
  >watch the Chinese do it because for some reason, they seem to be able to do long term planning.
  That's because they don't have that thing we call "elections". (not really)
  It makes politics very untidy.
67. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Khashishi · 2013-04-30 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  So, are you saying that ICBMs aren't used to kill people?
68. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 04:56 · Score: 0
  
  I think the problem with "Set us back a couple of decades" is the inherent assumption behind that comment that somehow technological progress is both linear and increases at steady rate. Science and technology actually tend to expand in multiple directions and in leaps and bounds followed by slow periods of stagnation and constant refinement.
69. Re:Orbital pickup truck by advocate_one · 2013-04-30 04:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  or from NASA apologists trying to excuse the stagnation there since the ISS and STS ate up the budget for real exploration
  no it bloody didn't... what ate up the budget for anything is the monstrous amount being spent on fancy weapons and research into killing people more efficiently...
  
  --
  Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
70. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 04:58 · Score: 0
  
  We pissed away more than two decades with that stupid ass "space plane" thing.
  Spy plane. The only thing the Shuttle could do that rockets could not do was deorbit a satellite intact. Rockets performed every other task more cheaply and more reliably. Why would we want to deorbit a satellite, since it's never economical to do repairs that way? To capture a foreign one.
  The Space Shuttle was just the next iteration of the U-2 and the SR-71. Unfortunately, NASA was forced to use it for *everything*, and that retarded the science of space exploration by about two decades.
71. Re:Orbital pickup truck by AC-x · 2013-04-30 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  Has an ICBM ever actually been used to kill someone? (and don't say V2 because they're only short-range ballistic missiles).
  Or did you mean "designed to kill people"?
72. Re:Orbital pickup truck by AC-x · 2013-04-30 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  In 1972 all the "basic technology" existed to create a smartphone (microprocessors, LCD matrix displays etc.), that doesn't mean that if you went back in time it would just be a "project management problem". Even if the base level of a particular technology exists it still takes a lot of R&D effort to refine it.
73. Re:Orbital pickup truck by JTsyo · 2013-04-30 05:22 · Score: 2
  
  Today's NASA post is relevant
  http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html
74. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 05:33 · Score: 0
  
  not a cure for aging, but a cure for erectile dysfunction. THAT will get things moving...
75. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 05:44 · Score: 0
  
  James Bond took a space shuttle to LEO. Bruce Willis wasn't flying the space shuttle. Get your fictional facts straight before you make snide comments.
76. Re:Orbital pickup truck by MightyYar · 2013-04-30 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you, that is really cool.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
77. Re:Orbital pickup truck by spire3661 · 2013-04-30 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  We CAN, we choose instead to drop bombs on each other.
  
  --
  Good-bye
78. Re:Orbital pickup truck by MightyYar · 2013-04-30 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  They mentioned that they could lift a battleship with it, but they ended up making something brand new. They did use parts from battleships, though. Basically, they welded on anything they could muster. I remember looking into it after I read the book, and the most fanciful part is designing a shock absorber that could make the impulse from a nuclear explosion survivable for a human.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
79. Re:Orbital pickup truck by wagnerrp · 2013-04-30 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  There is one other thing. The Shuttle could de-orbit itself and its engines intact. Each launch consumed about a million dollars worth of liquid hydrogen, and a couple hundred thousand worth of oxygen. The three SSMEs were around fourth million each. A fully reusable spacecraft with modest maintenance costs would be an incredible boon to the space industry. Just because the Shuttle had too high of maintenance costs to make it economical does not mean it is a bad idea we should simply give up on. It just means we go back to the drawing board and try again.
80. Re:Orbital pickup truck by SB9876 · 2013-04-30 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  Look up Project Orion. It turns out that making that kind of shock absorber is actually quite technically feasible. Somewhat ironically, riding to orbit on a stream of nuclear fireballs is a lot simpler than how we're doing it now. One big advantage is that you are no longer mass-limited and so you don't need to make as many compromises to the system design to keep things light.
81. Re:Orbital pickup truck by wagnerrp · 2013-04-30 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  You use radiators to dump the heat, and solar power to run your compressors. It's doable, but will be an extremely complex and heavy system, and easier to just take up a several years supply of liquid helium.
82. Re:Orbital pickup truck by edi_guy · 2013-04-30 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Since it's a lost cause already, why not bid out a helium re-fill job to one of those private asteroid mining companies like Planetary Resources. If they can send one of their little robots out and refill the telescope they get a few hundred million $$$'s. If the mission isn't successful they get a lesson on the difficulties of space travel.
83. Re:Orbital pickup truck by bware · 2013-04-30 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure the limiting factor is that no one considered sending unmanned missions with supplies.
  
  Yes, I'm sure that no one considered the economics of making an entire earth-L2 robotic transport. Perhaps all the rocket scientists on this thread should apply for jobs at NASA instead of writing CSS code.
84. Re:Orbital pickup truck by bware · 2013-04-30 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  Got it in one.
  Shuttle launches cost approximately $1 B each (just the launch, not the mission). Delta IV launches run about $0.6B. The Ariane 5 is listed as $0.2 B, but I wonder how much of that is subsidized.
  How much does it add to the cost to make the mission refillable? The reliable lifetime of reaction wheels and thrusters isn't much more than a half decade (yeah, some last longer, but you can't plan on it). You could put more backups, but they might not work after sitting for several years unused, and now you've got a much heavier satellite to launch.
  Doesn't take much of that kind of calculation before you decide it's cheaper to launch another telescope using the information from this one to improve it. And thus Planck succeeds WMAP which succeeds COBE.
  Space X does not have launch capability beyond LEO yet, though the Falcon Heavy looks promising, and the cost is listed at $0.15 Bish.
85. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 06:47 · Score: 0
  
  Ranger 3.
  If you're going to play the nerd game, you gotta have the trivia memorized....
86. Re:Orbital pickup truck by ttucker · 2013-04-30 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  Nice try, but the space shuttle does not fly to Lagrange points. It take a tiny wee bit more fuel to get there.... and back...
  Now if you had a one way vehicle it would be much cheaper....... :)
  More fuel to get there anyways....
87. Re:Orbital pickup truck by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-04-30 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  But what if it runs into Klingons?
  Then you'll eat some gagh. What's the problem?
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
88. Re:Orbital pickup truck by demonlapin · 2013-04-30 07:01 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  At the time of Apollo, the program was consuming half the IC manufacturing capacity of the entire world. The ships were essentially all one-off constructions built by hand. Go read How Apollo Flew to the Moon. Yes, the physics of it were understood. Yes, as experience showed, we had all the technological pieces to make it happen, in much the same way that we almost certainly could conduct a manned mission to Mars if we really wanted to. But doing so required an enormous amount of blood and treasure.
89. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 07:57 · Score: 0
  
  A more civillised solution.
90. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Shadowmist · 2013-04-30 08:07 · Score: 2
  
  Look up Project Orion. It turns out that making that kind of shock absorber is actually quite technically feasible. Somewhat ironically, riding to orbit on a stream of nuclear fireballs is a lot simpler than how we're doing it now. One big advantage is that you are no longer mass-limited and so you don't need to make as many compromises to the system design to keep things light.
  Since then, Mr. Dyson no longer thinks it's a good idea to explode a a bunch of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere.
91. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Shadowmist · 2013-04-30 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  If only we had a plan for recurring orbital missions... A "space pickup" that would launch on a regular basis to make pit stops for things like extra helium.
  To think how many multi-decade projects like this will "rot on the vine".
  The Herschel Space Observatory is 1,500,000 km away at a Lagrangian point. Servicing missions of any kind are out of the question.
  Given how far away Herschel is, it would be more economical to simply send up a new one, than a manned mission to service it.
92. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Shadowmist · 2013-04-30 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  The Earth-Sun L2 point is out of reach with the old Space Shuttle, but the original point is a good one. It is too bad that we do not have the capability to repair and restock the consumables on spacecraft in the inner Solar System. It has been nearly 45 years since we first went to the Moon. We should be able to move around in our band of the Solar System by now.
  Technology doesn't change physics. It's highly unlikely that space travel will ever be the casual affair that air travel is now.
93. Re:Orbital pickup truck by maestroX · 2013-04-30 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  It was an anomaly in the progression of space exploration, and the extreme effort involved probably even set us back by a couple of decades.
  
  Please explain
94. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 08:24 · Score: 0
  
  The Herschel Space Observatory is 1,500,000 km away at a Lagrangian point. Servicing missions of any kind are out of the question.
  A robot tanker resupply is rather different from the kind of EVA service performed on the HST.
  Also keep in mind that the Herschel was probably not designed for inflight refueling. It's more like the case of the freon leaking out of a faulty fridge, you just can't hook up a hose and feed it that way .
95. Re:Orbital pickup truck by MaskedSlacker · 2013-04-30 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  No, but beyond the Earth's atmosphere and magnetic field it is STILL the best design we have for travel into deep space.
96. Re:Orbital pickup truck by cyn1c77 · 2013-04-30 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  The Earth-Sun L2 point is out of reach with the old Space Shuttle, but the original point is a good one. It is too bad that we do not have the capability to repair and restock the consumables on spacecraft in the inner Solar System. It has been nearly 45 years since we first went to the Moon. We should be able to move around in our band of the Solar System by now.
  Was it not possible to put enough fuel into Herschel for it to return to near earth orbit for a refueling capability?
97. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 11:25 · Score: 0
  
  No, you ride them
98. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Shadowmist · 2013-04-30 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think so. Ion drives are considerably more efficient, and I'm not sure how the shock absorber arrangement would hold up under prolonged use.
99. Re:Orbital pickup truck by alexander_686 · 2013-04-30 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  Ion drives have a high impulse but a low thrust. If you have time, such as a unmanned probe there great. If you got humans – maybe not.
100. Re:Orbital pickup truck by MaskedSlacker · 2013-04-30 13:58 · Score: 1
  
  Ion drives can be more efficient, but efficiency isn't everything (and in this case it really depends on how you define efficiency)
  Ion drives are either low thrust or low specific impulse. They cannot have high both be high. The Project Orion design idoes. This makes it substantially superior for TRAVEL into deep space. Travel meaning, people going from A to B in relatively low time spans.
101. Re:Orbital pickup truck by RubberDogBone · 2013-04-30 23:00 · Score: 1
  
  The Herschel Space Observatory is 1,500,000 km away at a Lagrangian point. Servicing missions of any kind are out of the question.
  Well, the telescope GOT there somehow so it's possible to GET there again with a robotic resupply vehicle. Couple of manipulator arms, hoses and fittings and a load of helium transferred in no time flat.
  Refueling telescopes is not as sexy as rovers finding more rocks ("They're still rocks -beige this time!") or astronauts bobbing around doing whatever the heck they DO on the ISS, but a service mission to L2 is certainly doable. The telescope would need to have been designed with this idea in mind, which did not happen, so it's all moot anyway.
  Nobody wants to bother with stuff like this. Ultimately that's the real answer why it's not done.
  
  --
  Sig for hire.
102. Re:Orbital pickup truck by david_thornley · 2013-05-01 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on the details. A big-boom drive is dependent on the number of nukes it can carry, and they're likely to be expensive. A low-thrust ion drive might be able to accelerate for much longer, and even very low but constant acceleration can be good for interplanetary distances.
  (Actually, I don' t know enough details of either sort of drive to be sure, but I do know s=(1/2)at^2, and speculate from that.)
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
103. Re: Orbital pickup truck by chris.evans · 2013-05-01 04:53 · Score: 0
  
  I don't want nukes going off in atmosphere,
104. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-01 08:15 · Score: 0
  
  This looks like a job for Elon Musk.
105. Re:Orbital pickup truck by MaskedSlacker · 2013-05-01 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  A big-boom drive is dependent on the number of nukes it can carry
  No, it's really not (at least not in the sense you mean). It's only limited by the amount of relevant raw materials you have on hand (there are no limitations on weight or size with this kind of drive), and no other (currently achievable) propulsion tech can match the thrust/power of a nuclear pulse rocket. In other words: the same limitations apply to an ion drive (which is limited by the power-generating facilities you carry on board, and no, solar power won't work in INTERSTELLAR travel) without the other advantages.
106. Re:Orbital pickup truck by Shadowmist · 2013-05-01 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  A big-boom drive is dependent on the number of nukes it can carry
  No, it's really not (at least not in the sense you mean). It's only limited by the amount of relevant raw materials you have on hand (there are no limitations on weight or size with this kind of drive), and no other (currently achievable) propulsion tech can match the thrust/power of a nuclear pulse rocket. In other words: the same limitations apply to an ion drive (which is limited by the power-generating facilities you carry on board, and no, solar power won't work in INTERSTELLAR travel) without the other advantages.
  An Orion drive won't work for interstellar travel either, not to any practical sense. You simply can't carry enough explosives to accelerate to any usable fraction of C. Quite frankly, interstellar travel does not really seem to be an option for biological man.
107. Re:Orbital pickup truck by bluegutang · 2013-05-01 20:02 · Score: 1
  
  Well, in the Dark Ages we certainly killed ourselves with (intellectual) darkness...
See? See? by pushing-robot · 2013-04-30 00:47 · Score: 3, Funny

I'll bet you feel stupid for filling all those party balloons last week.

--
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
1. Re:See? See? by PPH · 2013-04-30 01:06 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  "What party balloons?", he replies in a squeaky voice.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
2. Re:See? See? by Grizzley9 · 2013-04-30 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  I'll bet you feel stupid for filling all those party balloons last week.
  Party balloons? "Those are my everyday balloons." -Kramer
3. Re:See? See? by Kaenneth · 2013-04-30 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry, ballon helium is impure used helium from MRI machines and other uses.
  Yes, party ballons are filled with medical/industrial waste.
  Have fun inhaling it.
4. Re:See? See? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 09:08 · Score: 0
  
  I make my own helium for balloons by punching lithium.
  So there.
How hard can it be to send up some more? by michelcolman · 2013-04-30 00:57 · Score: 1, Funny

Come on, even school kids can send balloons filled with helium up into space. Surely that can't be the problem?
It doesn't look at the sky... by gblackwo · 2013-04-30 00:58 · Score: 3

That's my nitpick of the day.
1. Re:It doesn't look at the sky... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 01:06 · Score: 0
  
  I'm looking at the sky, and it's looking at what I'm looking at...
Worked for 4 years. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2013-04-30 00:59 · Score: 1, Insightful

They knew at some point helium will be gone and the telescope will become useless. It ran for four years more or less. Not as bad as the summary made it sound like.
They are in deep space, so they have an infinite sink at nearly zero deg kelvin. It should be possible to design a closed circuit cooling system that just uses energy from solar panels to pump the refrigerant. But in space applications the weight of such a system of compressors, radiators and pumps might prove to be prohibitive. Still feel sad such a fine piece of machinery is rotting away. Well, may be a better design next time.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
1. Re:Worked for 4 years. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2013-04-30 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  Looks like the reliability concerns were the reasons why they did not use an active cooling system, not weight.
  
  --
  sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
2. Re:Worked for 4 years. by kav2k · 2013-04-30 01:07 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It's not exactly an efficient sink, is it? Your only option for heat transfer "outside" is infrared radiation, since vacuum does not exactly support conduction/convection.
3. Re:Worked for 4 years. by mmcxii · 2013-04-30 01:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Another problem with the system you mention is that heat doesn't radiate away efficiently in space. While such a system may be possible I'm sure that the up-time of the scope would suffer greatly from it.
  
  Do we have any thermal dynamic geeks here with something a bit more insightful?
4. Re:Worked for 4 years. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 01:12 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Actually, strangely the inverse is true.
  In space, there are very few particles, which means that heat transfer is almost non-existant when away from the atmosphere. This causes a problem in that if you generate any heat, it dissipates extremely slowly, which was why the Helium was important. If this piece of equipment was in the sun, it would have been even worse.
5. Re:Worked for 4 years. by IndustrialComplex · 2013-04-30 01:20 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  They are in deep space, so they have an infinite sink at nearly zero deg kelvin.
  What exactly could it 'sink' that heat into? While we consider space to be 'cold' the reality is that it is less 'cold' and more 'generally won't make things warm.'
  The vacuum is both a benefit and a problem. When you want to keep things a certain temperature, the vacuum is great as you don't have to sorry about convection/conduction altering the temperature. But when you want to cool things off, that vacuum is a problem because you can't use convection/conduction to remove that heat from your system. You can certainly move the heat from one part of your system to another part of your system, but it takes a long time to take that heat OUT of your system.
  You would have to move the heat to a massive radiator and wait a long time for it to cool due to radiation. Whatever you are using to move that heat will have to work the entire time, (and may have to be cooled as well!). Even then, the temperatures involved mean that such a process would take a very long time to get as low as they needed to conduct the experiments.
  Don't think of space as cold, think of space as very effective insulation.
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
6. Re:Worked for 4 years. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2013-04-30 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks, I did not realize things are different in space. So how would one design an active cooling system to dissipate heat in space?
  
  --
  sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
7. Re:Worked for 4 years. by xiox · 2013-04-30 01:25 · Score: 2
  
  The forthcoming ASTRO-H X-ray observatory mission will have a cooling system that will be able to run without coolent. The X-ray microcalorimeter detectors must be cooled down to 50 mK in temperature. ASTRO-H should be launched in 2014.
8. Re:Worked for 4 years. by tgd · 2013-04-30 01:27 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  They knew at some point helium will be gone and the telescope will become useless. It ran for four years more or less. Not as bad as the summary made it sound like.
  They are in deep space, so they have an infinite sink at nearly zero deg kelvin. It should be possible to design a closed circuit cooling system that just uses energy from solar panels to pump the refrigerant. But in space applications the weight of such a system of compressors, radiators and pumps might prove to be prohibitive.
  Still feel sad such a fine piece of machinery is rotting away. Well, may be a better design next time.
  No, they have near perfect insulation. The only heat they can get rid of has to happen by radiating it away.
  Go step outside.
  Notice how warm it is in the sun?
  There's no way you can radiate much heat if you're in direct sunlight -- that's why the space shuttle flew upside down in orbit. It kept the heat shield towards the sun, so it had a chance to radiate heat away from the other side.
  "So, put a big sun shade and block the sun", you might say... well that's easier said than done, the solar wind would apply a lot of pressure to it, and (for that matter) the solar wind itself is well above the operating temperature of the telescope.
  But by all means, I'm sure you're smarter than the experts to designed it.
9. Re:Worked for 4 years. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 01:28 · Score: 0
  
  What? Heat radiates just as efficiently in space as it does anywhere else.
  It doesn't convect away, of course.
10. Re:Worked for 4 years. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 01:33 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Some parts of Herschel's detectors had to be chilled to 0.3 K, others to 1.7 K. There's no way to get that low with radiative cooling; indeed, it's below the temperature of the cosmic microwave background. Virtually all known materials except for helium freeze solid at those temperatures; no standard refrigerant can do it.
  The only technologies we have that can get that cold are all based on liquid helium, and they inevitably lose trace amounts of it over time. They could have given it a bigger dewar vessel, but that would have been heavier, and therefore needing a bigger rocket, and therefore more expensive.
  (Ref: http://herschel.esac.esa.int/Docs/Herschel/html/ch02.html )
11. Re:Worked for 4 years. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  What you guys are talking about is a Cryocooler. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryocooler
  These have been used in space since the mid 70s. JWST will be using a cryocooler to cool the MIRI instrument to near 7K.
  Obviously the Herschel mission made some system level trades to choose a cryostat over a cryocooler, such as mass, cost and schedule.
12. Re:Worked for 4 years. by delt0r · 2013-04-30 01:42 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Radiating heat goes to the 4th power. So at 273K (0C) a panel in space radiates 314 watts per m2. However at 4K we radiate a mere 14.5 micro watts. So to radiate 1 watt we would need a square panel 262 meters a side (69000m2). Even worse space is radiating the same amount of heat back at you. So you in fact would not get rid of any heat. In fact i think this particular system needed to be colder than 4K. So no passive system can do it.
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
13. Re:Worked for 4 years. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-04-30 01:51 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Thanks, I did not realize things are different in space. So how would one design an active cooling system to dissipate heat in space?
  I am not a rocket scientist; but my understanding is that the space-equivalent of a 'heatsink' is a fin, with a surface that approximates a black body as closely as engineering constraints allow, aligned so that as much surface area as possible(the flat faces) receives as little incoming light as possible, with as little as possible exposed to the sun(so, in practice, the alignment is pretty much the opposite of a solar panel, where you want as much surface area getting sunlight as you can and as little being wasted by facing into deep space as you can). Depending on the orbit, and whether your thermal load is constant or can accept variations, this may or may not require the fins to move.
  If you need active cooling(as you probably would here, since ultrasensitive IR hardware generates some heat on its own and works less well for every additional kelvin) you use a heat pump of some sort, just as on earth; but your 'sink' is thermal radiation from the fins, rather than conduction from the fins into the atmosphere or coolant water.
  The real problem(in addition to the fact that solid-state heat pumps are miserably inefficient, and ones with moving parts have mechanical levels of reliability in an area where you can't just schedule a tech visit), is that thermal radiation alone is miserable compared to conduction/convection into air, which is weak compared to conduction into forced air.
  If you have a large enough payload budget, it isn't necessarily insurmountable, all it takes is more surface area radiating heat; but the engineering challenges of having a cryogenic heat pump capable of keeping the instruments at liquid helium temperatures and enough fin surface area to dump the waste heat from both the instruments and the heat pump's own inefficiencies are significant.
  Liquid helium isn't cheap, and relying on a consumable cuts mission lifespan; but "just let the helium boil off where you need things to be colder" simplifies the engineering considerably.
14. Re:Worked for 4 years. by arkhan_jg · 2013-04-30 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is also the heat sink. Without convection and conduction, you're left with heat radiation, which is pretty damn slow. Worse, any such heat sink would actually pick up more heat due to being in direct sunlight - the existing solar shield on it to protect the instruments was at 400k! Would depend on the design, but I imagine it would be tricky to even break even against solar heating - that's a lot of energy headed your way all the time (and solar panels only convert a small part of it). So if you packed some kind of big folding heatsink to get it in the launch vehicle, you'd also need a folding shield to protect that too. Complex and heavy, and that's before you even start on the active heat pump system, which is a nightmare engineering job in space in and of itself - you really can't afford it to fail.
  Frankly carrying your own dump tank of coolant (which eventually gets effectively depleted) seems like it probably was the sensible option. We got 4 years of unique data gathering, and it will take a lot longer before we finish processing it. Space is a really harsh environment, even for machines.
  
  --
  Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
15. Re:Worked for 4 years. by DarthVain · 2013-04-30 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  Still, might fail, seems better than, will fail. I guess the risk/reward is: "What are the odds of it failing within the first 4 years?"
  I would have to think part of the problem is having to insulate electronic components against hard radiation, while at the same time trying to cool them.
  You would think the best method would be simply to use a peltier with a big ass heat sink protruding into vacuum. Zero moving parts, no liquid coolants. Then again, ultra low temperature might be hard to hit this way, depending what ultra low is. Or the wattage required for such a device might exceed what is realistically gathered from solar. Then again something like a RTG, though expensive might provide perhaps enough power.
  Though looking a terrestrial CPU overclocking, if you want to hit those ultra low temperatures, you have to use a compressor based system, or LN2. Which is more or less the only options being discussed.
16. Re:Worked for 4 years. by Megane · 2013-04-30 02:00 · Score: 2
  
  I'm sure that an active cooling system wouldn't have been vibration-free either. Telescopes don't work so well when you keep bumping them around.
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
17. Re:Worked for 4 years. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 02:00 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, empty space radiates at almost 3 K, well above the 0.3 K those at which those instruments are kept. So you're asking for a compressor with a compression ratio of well above 10, where the working fluid is liquid hydrogen (not any gas) and with enough thermal insulation between its hot and cold ends to maintain a temperature ratio well above the ratio of room temperature vs. molten iron.
  I'm afraid this might be harder than it looks.
18. Re:Worked for 4 years. by grimJester · 2013-04-30 02:02 · Score: 2
  
  According to NASA it will still last just three years.
  
  "The instrument utilizes a multi-stage cooling system that will maintain the ultra-low temperature of the calorimeter array for more than 3 years in space."
19. Re:Worked for 4 years. by camperdave · 2013-04-30 02:02 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks, I did not realize things are different in space. So how would one design an active cooling system to dissipate heat in space?
  Well, if you have a big ol' tank of liquid helium, you could slowly boil that off...
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
20. Re:Worked for 4 years. by Twanfox · 2013-04-30 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  What, you mean there's a reason we sometimes use vacuum insulation in our hot/cold thermoses? Scandalous ;).
21. Re:Worked for 4 years. by xiox · 2013-04-30 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  The minimum design lifetime isn't the actual lifetime of the mission. I believe there is enough helium for three years, but the multistage cooler is designed to be able to run in the event of coolant loss. ASTRO-H replaces ASTRO-E2 which suffered a catastrophic coolant loss. There are more details here, but it's behind a paywall.
22. Re:Worked for 4 years. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 02:13 · Score: 0
  
  For Helium nothing is airtight.
23. Re:Worked for 4 years. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 02:22 · Score: 0
  
  Put the cooling apparatus in a separate vehicle. No vibration.
24. Re:Worked for 4 years. by Overzeetop · 2013-04-30 02:26 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You're limited to radiation, and the cosmic background temp, but that's the only limit. Although inefficient, peltier coolers can be used - the advantage is there is no fluid. Heat pipes are the most common form of heat transport, allowing the evaporation of a liquid in a sealed tube to migrate to the radiator end.
  One challenge is the temperatures you're trying to work with. Remember that the temperature of the universe isn't actually 0K, but more like 3K. Liquid helium needs to be 4K or less. That's a slim margin, and at those temps the heat transfer rate is very, very low.
  I clicked on the story because I was an engineer involved in the Superfluid Helium On Orbit Transfer (http://istd.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo/SHOOT/shoot.html) research project back in the early 90s. If you get Helium just above absolute zero, it loses it's viscosity (like a superconductor loses it's resistance). That makes it far easier to transfer the fluid from a storage container/refueling dewar to a spacecraft in service.
  I actually like radiative heat transfer - it's very straight forward, much like conduction. Convection problems make me cry.
  
  --
  Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
25. Re:Worked for 4 years. by The+Grim+Reefer · 2013-04-30 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  They are in deep space, so they have an infinite sink at nearly zero deg kelvin.
  I don't think it's in "deep space" by most definitions as that's generally considered to be outside of the solar system. Also, L2 is not around the 2.75K that is estimated to be the average temperature of space. The temperature of space around Pluto's orbit is estimated at 35 to 40 K. This site states that Herschel passively cools to 80K So I would guess that the temperature at L2 is 80K and they are in fact using the He to cool to ambient as you already suggested.
26. Re:Worked for 4 years. by chihowa · 2013-04-30 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  There's no way you can radiate much heat if you're in direct sunlight -- that's why the space shuttle flew upside down in orbit. It kept the heat shield towards the sun, so it had a chance to radiate heat away from the other side.
  I doubt that's the main reason why the shuttle flies upside down. The bottom of the shuttle is also black, while the top is white. From a simple light-absorption-radiation point of view, this configuration would lead to heating of the shuttle as a whole. The heat shield is designed to shield from heat conduction due to superheated compressed air in contact with the shuttle during reentry. Shielding from radiative heating makes use of reflective surfaces like what satellites are coated in.
  It seems the shuttle would fly upside down to aid in radio communication with the earth, allow viewing of the earth through the windows (a human concern, but still an important one), and to protect the shuttle from earthbound debris (though I'd think the heat shield is the last thing you'd want to damage before attempting reentry).
  
  --
  If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
27. Re:Worked for 4 years. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 02:49 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Well, put, but one other major killer ... There are no "good" ways to get rid of vibrations on a spacecraft. There's no atmospheric drag (see the mythbusters on the flag on the moon). You basically have to have a damper attached to a mass that kind of sort of slowly adsorbs the energy, re-radiating it as heat. However, most materials are very linear in compression and tension at their minimum range, so it just doesn't work well. Bad enough trying to point a terestrial comms satellite. Absolutely mission killer for aiming a telescope.
28. Re:Worked for 4 years. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-04-30 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  I hadn't thought of that; but that would make most, if not all, mechanical refrigeration options a bit problematic... And I suspect that the guys over in 'Elastomeric Polymers' just give you nasty looks when you say things like "Do you have anything that works at ~cosmic background temperature, and doesn't outgas in hard vacuum?"
29. Re:Worked for 4 years. by tgd · 2013-04-30 03:15 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I doubt that's the main reason why the shuttle flies upside down. The bottom of the shuttle is also black, while the top is white. From a simple light-absorption-radiation point of view, this configuration would lead to heating of the shuttle as a whole. The heat shield is designed to shield from heat conduction due to superheated compressed air in contact with the shuttle during reentry. Shielding from radiative heating makes use of reflective surfaces like what satellites are coated in.
  It seems the shuttle would fly upside down to aid in radio communication with the earth, allow viewing of the earth through the windows (a human concern, but still an important one), and to protect the shuttle from earthbound debris (though I'd think the heat shield is the last thing you'd want to damage before attempting reentry).
  Your doubt is misplaced -- that is precisely why it flew that way. The shuttle's radiators were on the inside of the cargo bay doors. The shuttle had a limited time, once on orbit, to get positioned and get the doors open because of the heat build-up.
30. Re:Worked for 4 years. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 04:22 · Score: 0
  
  "So, put a big sun shade and block the sun", you might say... well that's easier said than done
  That's how Herschel worked actually.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herschel_Space_Observatory
  See how it looks and where the solar panels are? That's why the Helium lasted as long as it did. It only had to cool it a little (electronic heat from detector, and some radiation).
  Next-gen telescope that is a much larger version of Herschel, though it will not look in far infrared is James Webb. And it has multi-layered shield.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope
  http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/
31. Re:Worked for 4 years. by Rich0 · 2013-04-30 04:33 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  It's not exactly an efficient sink, is it? Your only option for heat transfer "outside" is infrared radiation, since vacuum does not exactly support conduction/convection.
  If you really want liquid-He temps, then you can't really radiate heat to lose it. At 1 atm it is almost as cold as the cosmic microwave background, and probably colder than the inner solar system. If they're running below 1atm then it is probably colder than the microwave background itself. This means that your radiator will only serve to warm up the spacecraft, not cool it off.
  For an IT analogy - how large a heat sink do you need to cool your PC in an oven? The only way to cool under such conditions is using active technologies, like phase change, or maybe Peltier. Since you're fighting entropy, this will ultimately require some source of energy, which will always be depleted eventually in a closed system.
32. Re:Worked for 4 years. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 04:43 · Score: 0
  
  That's probably why the OP didn't propose a passive system. The proposal was for an active refrigeration system, which would work just fine. If you could create a hot spot on the side away from the sun, you could radiate a lot of heat that way.
33. Re:Worked for 4 years. by Rich0 · 2013-04-30 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  They are in deep space, so they have an infinite sink at nearly zero deg kelvin.
  The word "nearly" isn't nearly good enough for this kind of application. If you want a mirror to operate at 1K, then you need to radiate heat to something colder than 1K if you passively cool it. Your infinite heat sink is considerably warmer than this.
  Think about it - you want to take pictures of stuff that is only slightly warmer than deep space. To do so your mirrors have to be much colder than deep space otherwise you'll just get a picture of your mirror. It would be like trying to take a picture outside while shining a spotlight into the camera.
  Liquid helium at low pressures has a VERY low boiling point. Few technologies can achieve these kinds of temperatures, and most aren't really applicable to big objects like mirrors (cooling individual atoms with lasers, etc).
34. Re:Worked for 4 years. by Rich0 · 2013-04-30 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  You would have to move the heat to a massive radiator and wait a long time for it to cool due to radiation.
  Even then, you could only get it down to the temperature of the surrounding space. That is actually pretty warm inside the solar system (even warmer than liquid nitrogen), and I suspect that it would be too warm even in cosmic voids for something like this - somebody set off this REALLY hot explosion a few billion years ago and space will never quite cool off completely as a result.
  If space actually was cold enough, then chances are the telescope would be useless anyway, because everything it would want to take pictures of would be colder as well.
35. Re:Worked for 4 years. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 04:53 · Score: 0
  
  They explicitly chose not to do this.
  Why? Moving parts are unreliable. No-one was quite sure how unreliable because nobody has built a refrigerated space telescope like this before. But nobody would say "Oh yeah, I'll bet the entire cost of the satellite that our system will run for at least 5 years without failing". So they were left with either the simple option (Helium, it'll work for 4 years plus or minus a few months) or the complicated option (mechanical refrigeration, might last ten years might break down after a week with no way to repair it). From a scientific point of view the first looked like a good choice. They've got absolutely shitloads of data out of the telescope, so everything went fine.
36. Re:Worked for 4 years. by chihowa · 2013-04-30 05:47 · Score: 0
  
  So I was right: it's not about using the heat shield to keep it cool. It's about the fact that the radiator was kept in the cargo bay and deployed from the top.
  
  --
  If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
37. Re:Worked for 4 years. by dkf · 2013-04-30 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  Even then, you could only get it down to the temperature of the surrounding space.
  Yes, but that's a somewhat tricky thing to quantify. The problem is that space is actually filled with a very tenuous high-temperature plasma (at a little shy of 70kK — yes, that's kilokelvin), and in between all those super-hot ions you've got the background radiation which is actually darn cold (about 2.7K). The average temperature might be a bit warmer than liquid nitrogen, but that hides a multitude of complex details; it's not a normal equilibrium system.
  So what you actually do is you have a shield to keep the sun away from the rest of the satellite (you need that anyway) and with a little work you can also keep much of the solar wind away too. Then, you have two parts: one is a big-ass radiator that exploits the difference with the CMB, and the other is your instrument package which you need to cool, and where you need a heat pump to do it. Remember, you don't need every part to be that cold, and in fact you could never achieve that; all you need to keep really cold are the instruments themselves plus anything that the instruments are actually pointing at (e.g., waveguides). That should be doable.
  
  --
  "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
38. Re:Worked for 4 years. by ttucker · 2013-04-30 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  So I was right: it's not about using the heat shield to keep it cool. It's about the fact that the radiator was kept in the cargo bay and deployed from the top.
  I am pretty sure that you were both right.
39. Re:Worked for 4 years. by chihowa · 2013-04-30 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  I am pretty sure that you were both right.
  So should we stop kicking each other in the back seat? (He started it!)
  
  --
  If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
40. Re:Worked for 4 years. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 09:42 · Score: 0
  
  My understanding of a heat sink in space is a light bulb. That's what the sun uses to disperse its energy through the vacuum.
  Convert the heat into light - there's nowhere for the heat to go, so you're not exactly worried about conversion rates and loss here.
41. Re:Worked for 4 years. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-04-30 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  The black-body fins fulfil an analogous role(just with more surface area, and without the protective globe since they are in a vacuum anyway. The trouble is that energy dissipation by radiation depends on object temperature.
  If you were to operate your spacecraft at a few thousand kelvins, your heatsinks would be bleeding energy into space quite merrily indeed; but your spacecraft would also be largely molten. Down at temperatures things not made of tungsten are happy with, you need comparatively massive cooling fins because their temperature is only high enough to spit a trickle of feeble IR into space.
42. Re:Worked for 4 years. by ttucker · 2013-04-30 13:33 · Score: 1
  
  I am pretty sure that you were both right.
  So should we stop kicking each other in the back seat? (He started it!)
  I have certainly heard both of the mentioned reasons, and many more for the STS to have flown upside down. The fact is that they are all probably right to a degree, or at least great advantages discovered in hindsight.
43. Re:Worked for 4 years. by Rich0 · 2013-05-01 23:16 · Score: 1
  
  So what you actually do is you have a shield to keep the sun away from the rest of the satellite (you need that anyway) and with a little work you can also keep much of the solar wind away too.
  Well, sort-of. The problem is that your shield will also radiate energy as it will eventually be in equilibrium with its surroundings, so your shield won't actually shield you from anything (hot particles hit shield, warm it up, and then shield emits many more cooler particles that hit your spacecraft and warm it up).
  
  Then, you have two parts: one is a big-ass radiator that exploits the difference with the CMB, and the other is your instrument package which you need to cool, and where you need a heat pump to do it.
  
  A heat pump might work with solar power. I'm not sure how much energy that would consume though, and what the relative costs/benefits of that vs a fixed coolant supply are.
Kinda like in HS by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 00:59 · Score: 0

When the helium runs out, the party ends.
As you warm, Herschel by TWiTfan · 2013-04-30 01:05 · Score: 2

Know that you always warmed my heart.

--
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
Salvage Rights by jdigriz · 2013-04-30 01:12 · Score: 5, Interesting

SpaceX should go after it and salvage it robotically for use as a solar thermal concentrator. 3.5M mirrors that are already in space don't exactly grow on trees. A simple high-efficiency Ion engine (Dawn-class)and a robonaut should be able to handle the job. They can then lease the asset to Planetary Resources or whoever wants to do industrial experiments. Doesn't have to be quick. Cheap and slow is the way to go here.
1. Re:Salvage Rights by kaizendojo · 2013-04-30 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  + 1 for a great idea (never have mod points when i need them!!)
  
  Seriously; you should approach them on this.
2. Re:Salvage Rights by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 01:39 · Score: 0
  
  I think Ernst Stavro Blofeld might have a use for 3.5M mirrors in space too.
  Or the villain of any one of the other 3 Bond films with the exact same fucking plot.
3. Re:Salvage Rights by jdigriz · 2013-04-30 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  WIki says that there are no plans for the Robonaut 2 prototype already on ISS to be returned to Earth. I smell stone soup space mission. Thanks taxpayers!
4. Re:Salvage Rights by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 02:04 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  Oh you're so adorable. Keep chomping away at the sci-fi. "robonaut"! So Cute!
5. Re:Salvage Rights by GameboyRMH · 2013-04-30 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  It won't be easy to disassemble it and pull the big mirror out of its guts, and then replace the smaller mirror at the focal point with whatever energy collection device you want to use. I'd say you'd need a robot that's as dextrous as a human before attempting this. And then you would have launched that thing to go to the telescope, disassemble the satellite, collect the big mirror and possibly take it to where it's needed, instead of just launching a big mirror...
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
6. Re:Salvage Rights by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 02:44 · Score: 0
  
  This is many many orders of magnitude beyond what SpaceX can do presently. But keep dreaming.
7. Re:Salvage Rights by camperdave · 2013-04-30 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  WIki says that there are no plans for the Robonaut 2 prototype already on ISS to be returned to Earth.
  
  Nonsense! Robonaut 2 will be returned to Earth along with the rest of the station.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
8. Re:Salvage Rights by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 02:55 · Score: 0
  
  If you are only using it for solar concentration, then you don't need an optical quality mirror and it gets a lot easier to make a large with less material. This goes double so if you only need it near Earth and not at L2.
9. Re:Salvage Rights by jdigriz · 2013-04-30 02:57 · Score: 2
  
  If it were easy, anybody could do it, and it'd already be underway. Good summary of the issues. I think robotic dexterity is probably sufficient for the mission, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_Hand and Robonaut2 http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/main/robonaut.html The real challenge is software, the light lag at L2 would make realtime teleoperation infeasible. Darpa has teams working on recovery robots for terrestrial uses. I'm all for launching big mirrors also, but this one has already paid the energy cost of getting out of LEO. I think there are substantial savings here, especially if we use existing assets and pair the tug + robot at the ISS. The big issue that I can see is political. The JWST is already slated to be positioned at L2 and they won't want industrial debris floating around. May have to tug the Herschel out of range before recovering the good bits. An ion drive can do that, slowly.
10. Re:Salvage Rights by jdigriz · 2013-04-30 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  This is true, but launching large items is difficult, volume-wise. I know there are ideas for for inflatable mirrors and spray-on aluminum, but so far there has been virtually no manufacturing in space, aside from tiny crystals and SuitSat. I think the L2, or at least BEO position of the mirror is advantageous. We don't want to clutter LEO even more with debris, and there's no point in bringing an asteroid all the way back to Earth to melt with a solar furnace, especially if you're going to be using the products further out. We're already up the Well with Herschel, at substantial sunk cost.
11. Re:Salvage Rights by magarity · 2013-04-30 04:21 · Score: 0
  
  3.5M mirrors that are already in space don't exactly grow on trees
  Ah, and even if 3.5M mirrors did grow on trees, there aren't any trees in space.
12. Re:Salvage Rights by Rich0 · 2013-04-30 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  SpaceX should go after it and salvage it robotically for use as a solar thermal concentrator. 3.5M mirrors that are already in space don't exactly grow on trees.
  I'm not sure why you'd need a telescope mirror for use as a thermal concentrator. Why not just use some big fold-out mylar reflector? It could be WAY larger, cheaper, and lighter.
  Sure, it won't focus light to a point way smaller than a wavelength of light, but that really isn't necessary if all you want to do is heat something up. What really matters is having as much power striking your collector as possible, which means making it big.
13. Re:Salvage Rights by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 05:23 · Score: 0
  
  3.5M mirrors that are already in space don't exactly grow on trees.
  Not unless they are space-trees. I always wanted a space-mirror- tree.
14. Re:Salvage Rights by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 05:48 · Score: 0
  
  He'll space x can't even reach LEO with out their engine blowing up or their thrusters malfunctioning.
15. Re:Salvage Rights by femtobyte · 2013-04-30 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Car analogy: "My friend said I could have his Aston Martin DB5 --- mint condition, except the gas tank is empty. Think about how many doorstops and bookends we can make when we chop this baby up into little pieces of scrap!"
  A solar concentrator is just about the dumbest way to waste a precision space telescope mirror (I suppose you could de-orbit it and grind it up for concrete filler rubble if you wanted to be stupider). For the weight and complexity of devices required to capture and manipulate a used spacecraft, you could send up a far bigger array of brand-new aluminized mylar solar concentrators, that would get you way more raw thermal power for your space-smelter. If you want a non-fucking-stupid idea for how to re-use a space telescope, how about sending up a helium refill (and perhaps an instruments package upgrade)?
16. Re:Salvage Rights by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 07:16 · Score: 0
  
  ..which then turns it into a solar sail and it floats away...
17. Re:Salvage Rights by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 07:34 · Score: 0
  
  You're expecting logic and real-world thinking from a Space Nutter? They just want to fantasize about non-existent technologies to solve imaginary problems.
18. Re:Salvage Rights by lgw · 2013-04-30 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  Oh you're so adorable. Keep chomping away at the sci-fi. "robonaut"! So Cute!
  robonaut is a real thing.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
19. Re:Salvage Rights by KZigurs · 2013-04-30 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  It actually depends on whether it can be recommisioned by design at all. Might be entirely possible that due to original construction now that it has warmed up it is indeed a complete space junk that cannot be brought back to spec even with refill (not accounted for in design), instrument upgrades (not accounted for in design) or even re purposed for lower spec mission (too narrow operational parameters).
20. Re:Salvage Rights by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 09:40 · Score: 0
  
  It's not much more than a clothes store mannequin. It doesn't work in a vacuum, does it? Oh what's that? It needs a heat sink to work? Didn't we just establish that space isn't actually cold??
21. Re:Salvage Rights by femtobyte · 2013-04-30 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly how you re-use the telescope indeed "depends." However, given the original poster's assumptions --- that you could extract the 3.5m primary mirror to use to heat up space rocks --- there's pretty much no conceivable situation where you couldn't use the gigantic top-quality space mirror for something way more interesting than a solar concentrator, even if that required putting a whole new detector package at the focus. At the same time, you could produce a bigger/better solar concentrator (with cheap and light reflecting foils) with less resources than needed to capture/extract/re-purpose a telescope primary.
22. Re:Salvage Rights by Rich0 · 2013-05-01 23:20 · Score: 1
  
  ..which then turns it into a solar sail and it floats away...
  No moreso than the 3.5M mirror would. The force of solar flux on an object depends only on its surface area, I believe. The resulting acceleration depends on its mass as well, of course. The mirror would be much heavier than the mylar reflector, but mylar and a bug lump of rock/metal would be WAY cheaper than a telescope mirror.
  Any ship that wants to use solar power need to deal with the problem of being a solar sail. That problem also only matters in certain scenarios. If you're orbiting something, then over time the outward thrust of the sun will basically cancel itself out (it is pushing you one way on one side of the sun, and the other way on the other side of the sun).
Duh? by sociocapitalist · 2013-04-30 01:20 · Score: 1

Bit of a shame no one thought to make this a rechargable system.

--
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
1. Re:Duh? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 01:35 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  They did think about that.
  But it's a million and a half kilometres away. A robotic service ship to catch and refill it after four years would cost more than just sending up a second, newer-generation telescope.
2. Re:Duh? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 02:05 · Score: 0
  
  Damn, where were you when they were designing it, they really could have used your help.
  Even better if you were helping the team design the STS. You could have told them, "oh, and make it so it doesn't assplode in de air."
3. Re:Duh? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 02:37 · Score: 0
  
  But but but SpaceX and robonauts? Technology and stuff?
and get off his lawn by Thud457 · 2013-04-30 01:28 · Score: 4, Funny

Andy Griffith says "finders keepers".

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
1. Re:and get off his lawn by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 02:29 · Score: 0
  
  Don't you mean Harry Broderick?
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHUWlEB6N1s
Running out of helium? by Quakeulf · 2013-04-30 01:28 · Score: 2

That reminds me of a puzzle!
No Helium by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 01:29 · Score: 0

So, it's out of gas!
1. Re:No Helium by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 02:02 · Score: 0
  
  Why can't we switch to liquid nitrogen? doesn't it go cold enough for it? or is it too cold?
2. Re:No Helium by bobbied · 2013-04-30 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  N2 is not cold enough for this application...
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Condensers in vacuum would just create heat by dfm3 · 2013-04-30 01:54 · Score: 2

There are two problems with your approach: one, the near vacuum of space does not allow for effective cooling via convection. Two, compressors only displace heat, and in doing so they actually generate more heat overall. A good example of this is the coils on the back of your refrigerator, which get quite warm during operation. Your kitchen warms up slightly while the interior of the fridge cools. In space, this heat does not dissipate readily and would build up until the system overheats.
Can the sensor be replaced... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 02:11 · Score: 0

...to make this a visible (and UV) light telescope?
Been there by Hoi+Polloi · 2013-04-30 02:29 · Score: 1

Helium Depleted, Herschel Space Telescope Mission Ends
I know that feeling.

--
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
herschels retirement by nimbius · 2013-04-30 02:37 · Score: 1

is quite befitting. had i spent a decade at -269C, id certainly appreciate moving to an orbit around the sun.

its also worth nothing that in 2018, barring congressional shit-fits or another bush in office, the James Webb telescope is due to launch!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope

--
Good people go to bed earlier.
1. Re:herschels retirement by decsnake · 2013-04-30 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  yup, and JWST incorporates a bunch of the pie in the sky ideas that have been floated in this thread like a giant sunshade and mechanical cryo-coolers.
A bit of irony there. by wcrowe · 2013-04-30 03:43 · Score: 4, Funny

I do know how it works and all, but still, I find it kind of ironic that the Herschel Space Telescope is bricked for lack of the second most abundant element in the universe.

--
Proverbs 21:19
1. Re:A bit of irony there. by JBMcB · 2013-04-30 04:20 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The main problem is the vast majority of the universe is empty, and the vast majority of the helium in the universe is millions of degrees hot.
  
  --
  My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Simple solution no need to thank me by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-30 06:32 · Score: 0

Helium like in a balloon right? Everyone in the world looks up and exhales, forcefully, upwards. Three times a day. Problem solved.
NASA proved Helium Resupply technology, but.... by EricRaymond · 2013-04-30 06:52 · Score: 2

In 1993, NASA proved the basic technology for resupply of helium on the Space Shuttle. The project was called Superfluid Helium On-Orbit Transfer (SHOOT) and flew on STS-57, Endeavour. It was also the first use of an AI system in space (to automate long running transfers while diagnosing and recovering from issues).
Plans to use the SHOOT technology in SIRTF and other telescopes never materialized. There is a tradeoff in enabling a telescope for resupply. Versus a non-refillable telescope, a telescope designed for resupply will provide less science (resupply forces a low earth orbit which is a poorer vantage point for most missions and a given supply of helium will be consumed faster). In an era of expensive space transport, resupply missions were not cost effective.
http://istd.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo/SHOOT/shoot.html