Hubble Space Telescope Will Last Through the Mid-2020s, Report Says (space.com)

Robots and humans by Applehu+Akbar · 2019-01-15 22:12 · Score: 1

The longevity or Hubble is still more proof that our machines take to space as a natural medium, with missions routinely serving a multiple of their expected lifetimes. On the other hand, Hubble got a large part of its extended lifetime from manned servicing. In fact if it had not been for manned missions, Hubble would have returned no data at all.

Re:Robots and humans by nojayuk · 2019-01-15 22:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

the Hubble got launched, fixed and repaired and updated and serviced because the US had the Space Shuttle to carry a crew, equipment, parts, space walkers, support, the Canada arm, manoeuvring fuel, a toilet and shower up to the Hubble's high orbit. They don't have a Shuttle any more.
The US plans for a return to manned spaceflight involves 1960s-style "spam in a can" up-around-and-down flights to nowhere, with none of the useful luxuries the Shuttle had, especially the ability to support spacewalks.
Re:Robots and humans by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2019-01-16 00:21 · Score: 1

There's no reason why, for example, Dragon couldn't support EVA, the same way that Gemini did. It could also carry significant mass and volume of unpressurized spare parts in the trunk.
In fact, because of its tremendous dry mass, the Shuttle had a worse time trying to get to the HST's orbit than Dragon would have.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:Robots and humans by MrKaos · 2019-01-16 01:00 · Score: 1

In fact if it had not been for manned missions, Hubble would have returned no data at all.
Hubble would be hobbled!

--
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Re:Robots and humans by nojayuk · 2019-01-16 01:10 · Score: 3, Informative

Gemini "EVA" involved both crew members being suited for space all the time in the capsule since the spacewalks involved depressurising the entire crew living quarters. The Hubble had an airlock, jumpsuited support personnel for the jumpsuited spacewalkers who assisted them into their suits and out again permitting multiple two-man multi-hour spacewalks to accomplish several different tasks on each flight which lasted several days.
The Shuttle also had the Canada arm to carry space walkers and parts to the Hubble as well as grapple with the Hubble itself. Dragon has no arm and nowhere and no way to mount an arm or power and control it.
Dragon is optimised to reach the ISS orbit at about 400km, carrying passengers up and down from the space station. The Hubble orbits at about 550km, a lot higher. To reach the Hubble and manoeuvre around it the Dragon would have to carry more fuel and less payload but still have parts, EVA suits, supplies for an extended flight time of over a week, an airlock etc.
The Shuttle had a large dry mass but it also had a large "wet" mass -- it could launch with up to 18 tonnes of manoeuvering fuel as well as 20 tonnes of payload in the payload bay (there were mass tradeoffs though depending on the mission). Dragon is designed down to meet "spam-in-a-can" specifications, a Soyuz replacement with some extra bells and whistles.
It would be better to build and launch a Hubble replacement rather than attempt to keep it running by repair and maintenance flights. Technology has moved on since the 1980s when the Hubble was designed and built. I doubt if there's a budget for an exact replacement now though.
Re:Robots and humans by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-16 01:50 · Score: 0

I don't know, the issues with NASA's newest telescopes don't reflect well on the organization being capable of doing that. JWST has an impossibly complicated origami shield for no reason. I understand its supposed to be more compact and efficient than an umbrella but any cost savings on the launcher have been more than offset by delays. Then there is WFIRST which is a Hubble Class telescope with different sensors. They cant even do that right. Its behind schedule and over budget too. They were handed a ready made spaceframe that they are familiar with. They should have been able to convert it within a year and launch it. I'm starting to question whether NASA is capable of making space telescopes anymore.
Re:Robots and humans by treymichaelcook · 2019-01-16 02:28 · Score: 1

There are also SpaceX's plans that seem to be moving forward at a stellar pace. That test vehicle, Starhopper, they are building down in Texas is almost done, and will be doing low-altitude engine tests in a few weeks. The first prototype "Starship" proper should be done later this year, and doing sub-orbital tests either by the end of the year or early 2020. If SpaceX gets its Starship flying at anywhere near the estimated cost, all sorts of interesting space projects become viable. The whole project has gotten speed-up when they decided to switch from carbon fiber covered in heatshield material, to stainless steel with an active cooling system. Turns out that steel is a lot easier to work with than carbon fiber.
Re: Robots and humans by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-16 02:37 · Score: 0

âoeThe hubble would have returned no data at allâ. This is malarkey. Hubble returned quite a bit of data even before the first servicing mission installed costar. The figuring error in the mirror was tiny, not debilitating.
Re:Robots and humans by vrt3 · 2019-01-16 03:03 · Score: 1

... .The Hubble had an airlock, jumpsuited support personnel ...
The Shuttle, you mean undoubtedly :)

--
This sig under construction. Please check back later.
Re:Robots and humans by careysub · 2019-01-16 03:29 · Score: 1

But manned servicing is not the only option, or even the best option. Robot servicing, if designed from the beginning would be far more cost effective. In fact the a robot to service Hubble did begin development in 2004 and passed critical design review in 2005, before its budget was cut.
The cost of every Shuttle mission was more than a billion dollars (this is the amortized cost of running the Shuttle program, without including the original development). NASA claimed the Shuttle cost $450 million per launch several years ago, but that excluded non-launch costs of operating the shuttle program. If you take the annual appropriation for the Shuttle program and divide that by the number of launches you always get figures in excess of a billion dollars per launch.
If any similar space platform is flown in the future a robotic service system should be part of the development program. The fact that we did not have robots available, but did have people and a legacy launch platform with limited uses otherwise (the Shuttle was operated well below its operating capacity), does not mean that this was the best option, much less a necessary one. Robotic servicing can make space operations much more cost effective. If you support effective, and cost effective, space programs you should support emphasizing robots in space.

--
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Re:Robots and humans by thrich81 · 2019-01-16 03:54 · Score: 1

"spam in a can" (Apollo-Saturn) put the Skylab space station into orbit with its attached Apollo Telescope Mount in 1973, 17 years (and many billions of development dollars) before the Space Shuttle launched Hubble. There is no reason why Apollo Saturn technology couldn't have produced a Hubble-like observatory, at overall considerably less systems cost.
Re:Robots and humans by AlwinBarni · 2019-01-16 03:56 · Score: 2

... JWST has an impossibly complicated origami shield for no reason.
There's a reason, a very good reason: JWST is designed to be an infrared telescope, hence it has to be kept at very low temperature, and if you looked around the Inet about JWST, you would find why the shield is this way - it's optimal considering weight needed isolation and price.

Then there is WFIRST ... They were handed a ready made spaceframe that they are familiar with.

WFIRST was designed to be smaller, however about 2011 NRO disclosed having a project of Hubble class spy telescopes (since 1976) and in 2012 donated 2 not needed mirrors, not spaceframes - just optics, which has to be adjusted to look deep out not close down. Since the donated mirrors are bigger than WFIRST design, the telescope had to be redesigned, and considering bigger, heavier and needing bigger launcher ended up more expensive (to be fair: estimations differ, some say otherwise).
Don't get me wrong, I am very happy for the donation, WFIRST will be more capable, however, considering NRO program starting date of 1976 and donation in 2012, it's more likely out of needed storage space for better mirrors than a good heart.
Re:Robots and humans by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2019-01-16 04:10 · Score: 1

Gemini "EVA" involved both crew members being suited for space all the time in the capsule since the spacewalks involved depressurising the entire crew living quarters. The Hubble had an airlock, jumpsuited support personnel for the jumpsuited spacewalkers who assisted them into their suits and out again permitting multiple two-man multi-hour spacewalks to accomplish several different tasks on each flight which lasted several days.
Sure it's not terribly convenient to do it by depressurizing the cabin, but this is still a vehicle that was designed for up to seven people, so there's lots of room to change into EVA suits for a crew of, say, three.

Dragon is optimised to reach the ISS orbit at about 400km, carrying passengers up and down from the space station. The Hubble orbits at about 550km, a lot higher. To reach the Hubble and manoeuvre around it the Dragon would have to carry more fuel and less payload but still have parts, EVA suits, supplies for an extended flight time of over a week, an airlock etc.
Have you seen STS's altitute/payload curve? Pretty much anything has better capability. Hell, to phrase it your way, "the Shuttle is optimized to reach a 200 km altitude". Extra 150 km above the ISS is "a lot" for the Shuttle, but absolutely trivial for Dragon on top of a Falcon 9.

The Shuttle had a large dry mass but it also had a large "wet" mass -- it could launch with up to 18 tonnes of manoeuvering fuel as well as 20 tonnes of payload in the payload bay
NOT to HTS' altitude, that's for sure.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:Robots and humans by bobbied · 2019-01-16 04:26 · Score: 1

The longevity or Hubble is still more proof that our machines take to space as a natural medium, with missions routinely serving a multiple of their expected lifetimes. On the other hand, Hubble got a large part of its extended lifetime from manned servicing. In fact if it had not been for manned missions, Hubble would have returned no data at all.
Without getting fixed, Hubble would have returned data just fine, but it would have been of limited use because the optics where out of focus. It was able to collect imagery, it's just that the blurry images would have been no better than what could be obtained from earth based telescopes.
Even with the "repair" missions, Hubble hasn't lived up to it's original designed resolution but has far exceeded expiations in other ways that more and make up for any initial troubles and costs.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:Robots and humans by angel'o'sphere · 2019-01-16 04:38 · Score: 1

There is no reason why Apollo Saturn technology couldn't have produced a Hubble-like observatory, at overall considerably less systems cost.
Yes there is a reason.
Perhaps you want to read up why and how the software industry got hooked up to "source code control" or "version control".
The Saturns had no proper version control of their build plans (the first ones had none at all).
Basically every new one was build from scratch with primitive plans and the rest of the knowledge in the minds of the engineers/workers.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:Robots and humans by nojayuk · 2019-01-16 04:42 · Score: 1

The seven-person Dragon capsule has people packed in like sardines, less usable volume than a people-carrier. Getting three people and two spacewalk suits plus EVA backpacks, pre-breathing apparatus and exercise equipment into the back of a small minivan and expect the crewmen to be able to do anything once they're in there is not a goer.
From the NASA webpages on EVAs from the ISS:
The ISS pre-breathe protocol involves breathing pure oxygen for a total of 2 hours and 20 minutes and includes a short period of high-intensity exercise at the beginning of the pre-breathe procedure.
Dragon crews only get one spacewalk per flight, of course unlike the Shuttle's capabilities -- the last Hubble repair mission (STS-125/SM4) carried out five spacewalks with 11 tonnes of supporting equipment over 12 days. Dragon 2 can carry a total of 6 tonnes including crew, supplies etc. to ISS orbit, much less up to the Hubble orbit of course.
Re:Robots and humans by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2019-01-16 05:14 · Score: 1

Dragon crews only get one spacewalk per flight
Why?

Dragon 2 can carry a total of 6 tonnes including crew, supplies etc. to ISS orbit, much less up to the Hubble orbit of course.
That's absolutely not "of course". Falcon 9 Block 5 has up to 22 tonnes of total payload to low LEO in expendable mode (modulo current PAF, of course, unless the one for Falcon Heavy is used). If Dragon 2 can carry 6 tonnes of payload mass to ISS' altitude, then it's the same amount it can carry to Hubble's altitude - precisely because it's not the Shuttle. The Shuttle had zero performance reserves counted into its payload figures, unlike F9+Dragon.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:Robots and humans by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-16 10:20 · Score: 0

They don't have a Shuttle any more.
For all the other problems the Shuttle had (e.g., cost), it was certainly a very handy repair van at times.
Re:Robots and humans by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-17 02:59 · Score: 0

I agree that the loss of such a versatile platform as the shuttle is saddening, and that spam-in-a-can is no substitute. Thinking of it from an efficiency angle though, the vast majority of our spaceflight is to/from the ISS. If we wanted to go up to Hubble again we could do a two-component mission. Launch a Dragon and an additional module containing mission-specific cargo and tooling. Dock them in orbit.
If you look at the plans for moon missions etc this is where they're trying to go with the whole thing. At the current pace I'm not sure if we'll get there but one can hope.

Its final mission by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 22:24 · Score: 1, Insightful

will be to land on Trump like that house in The Wizard of Oz, so we won't have to endure another 4 years of his idiocy.

After many delays by bobstreo · 2019-01-15 22:59 · Score: 4, Informative

the James Webb Space Telescope, (JWST) is currently scheduled for March 2021. It was designed as the successor to the Hubble , and originally scheduled for launch in June 2018.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-rel...

How interesting, a government web site that's still working.

Re:After many delays by Cpt_Kirks · 2019-01-16 01:14 · Score: 1

I fear the Webb will get out to the lagrange point and either fail to deploy correctly or just die.
That beast is SO COMPLICATED they can't even get the deployment to work right in testing.
Re:After many delays by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-16 02:16 · Score: 0

Indeed. Not knowing much about JWST specifically, but knowing a bit about project management etc.; when a project forecast gets pushed back as many times as JWST has been over the years (decades) it almost always indicates either serious dysfunction or complexity spiraling out of control. I hope to be proven wrong :-]
Re: After many delays by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-16 02:39 · Score: 1

How many projects have you worked on where the technology to complete the project didnt even exist at the projects kickoff?
Re:After many delays by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-16 10:40 · Score: 0

I fear that Webb will have some single point failure that requires a servicing mission. Just like Hubble did. You know, like the solar shade won't deploy, or something of equal gravity.
Should that happen, I expect that the "no service missions to JWST" mantra will quickly change. NASA has too much riding on the JWST to just abandon it and walk away. Again, just like Hubble.

Re:THERE WILL ALWAYS by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 23:08 · Score: 0

You are not allowed to use this resource.

Too bad it won't be in a museum :-( by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 23:21 · Score: 0

By all accounts, the Hubble Space Telescope should retire to a museum such as the Smithsonian but instead it will be burned up during re-entry like a piece of space garbage. So sad :-(

Re:Too bad it won't be in a museum :-( by quenda · 2019-01-16 00:01 · Score: 1

By all accounts, the Hubble Space Telescope should retire to a museum such as the Smithsonian but instead it will be burned up during re-entry like a piece of space garbage. So sad :-(
Says who? Is that official? De-orbiting it will need a mission sent. Might as well boost it to a higher long-term orbit instead.
One day, somebody will offer to bring it back. Would be a lot of prestige for the BFR, or whoever succeeds in building a suitable vehicle.
(The Shuttle would have been capable of returning the 11 tons to Earth.)
Re:Too bad it won't be in a museum :-( by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-16 00:11 · Score: 0

Says who? Says the summary of the article: "Astronauts also covered Hubble's equipment bays with insulating panels and installed a device that will help to guide the observatory down when its mission comes to an end."
I interpret "guide [it] down" as meaning it will burn up on re-entry.
Re: Too bad it won't be in a museum :-( by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-16 00:36 · Score: 0

TFA:
"Hubble's orbit is stable until the 2030s, Brown said. When that orbit begins to decay, the spacecraft will be deliberately crashed into Earth's atmosphere, where Hubble will burn up before it touches the ground."
Re:Too bad it won't be in a museum :-( by Antique+Geekmeister · 2019-01-16 00:41 · Score: 2

"De-orbiting" costs much less fuel and is a much longer term solution. Reducing its orbital speed even slightly will bring it into more contact with Earth's atmosphere, which will continue to slow its speed until it spirals down: this is the normal fate of every object in LEO, or low earth orbit. The thing is 40 feet long and weighs 22 tons. I find myself wishing it could be salvaged for posterity, like many NASA missions it has vastly exceeded its expected work life and provided unique insights into the nature of the universe.
Re:Too bad it won't be in a museum :-( by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-16 02:05 · Score: 0

IF the BFR pans out it may be able to bring it back. That would be a big publicity win for SpaceX so I wouldn't put it past them to try. There has always been support on some level for bringing it back but when the STS was active Hubble was in the prime of its life and there were always questions about whether the shuttle actually could bring it back without destroying it. IIRC Hubble would really push the shuttle's return capacity to the limit if not exceed what it could safely bring back. I think what's mostly likely going to happen is either a dragon or starliner will dock with it in the next few years and perform some much needed TLC. The newer telescopes are proving to be very firmly attached to the ground right now and there is a risk of no flagship telescope at all if they let Hubble fail before it can pass the torch. That's a space shuttle fiasco all over again and would be a massive blow to American science and engineering prowess.
Re:Too bad it won't be in a museum :-( by treymichaelcook · 2019-01-16 02:16 · Score: 2

Hopefully the BFR works; if Ol'Musky gets it flying for anywhere near the projected cost, it would have little issue with recovering Hubble and bringing it down. And for that matter, the BFR would also be capable of hauling up much larger replacement telescopes.

old news by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 23:57 · Score: 0

So this is a 10 year old report.

And it is running Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-16 00:44 · Score: 0

on two CPUs of secret origin.

Re:And it is running Linux by jfdavis668 · 2019-01-16 04:18 · Score: 1

One of the upgrades included space-hardened 80486s, replacing the original 80386s.

Re:THERE WILL ALWAYS by stealth_finger · 2019-01-16 01:04 · Score: 1

Getting it out of the way early?

--
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u

A device by jbmartin6 · 2019-01-16 02:49 · Score: 1

installed a device that will help to guide the observatory down when its mission comes to an end.

i.e. one of the astronauts lost his watch inside the casing.

--
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.

Shut up, APK by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-16 03:59 · Score: 0

Shut up, APK. We all know you're responsible for these posts. I suppose even you know your hosts file software is such garbage that all you have left to do is harass Slashdot users like SuperKendall and Ray Morris. Grow up.

amicusNYCL you'd LIKE it to look that way by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-16 04:17 · Score: 0

amicusNYCL I'll tell you EXACTLY what I did before here https://science.slashdot.org/c... when you tried to "frame me" (in the post before mine I replied to WITH YOUR NAME ON IT https://science.slashdot.org/c... ) like the LOSER you are & I point out how BADLY I made you EAT YOUR WORDS before too, CHUMP: I DIDN'T POST THAT CRAP! In fact, I get YOU did trying to 'frame me' like the PUSSY you are playing BITCH games (which is all a BITCH knows HOW to do).

amicusNYCL, you'd LIKE it to look that way but I don't bug either of them (especially raymorris whom I respect as he does things of value ala a kernelpatch which is MORE than MOST here have managed).

APK

P.S.=> amicusNYCL - "I see you" & RIGHT thru you (& know YOU better than you know YOUR wasted life SELF), lol - your favorite color HAS to be "TRANSPARENT", right? Has to be, lol!

Your STUPIDITY proves it along w/ being nothing MORE than a CHATTERING twat you are, building nothing of VALUE (but I do w/ proof https://hardware.slashdot.org/... & WEEZILS like you? Don't - all you DO is play BITCH GAMES & try to 'start rumors' like some TWISTED FREAK would do)... apk

Re:amicusNYCL you'd LIKE it to look that way by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-16 06:33 · Score: 0

Your software is just crap - written in crayon, fictional... I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine as a punchline to a joke by mmell February 17, 2017
Your premise that hostfiles are a good way to deal with advertising and malvertising is fucking insane - by JazzLad April 20, 2016
his hosts "program" is actually a broken batch file by xenotransplant August 10 2015
I've never tried to belittle (APK's work), I've flat out said it's crap - by BronsCon (927697)

Wandering stars, in blackest darkness forever by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-16 04:19 · Score: 0

For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion(operation of wandering)(planet) so that they will believe the lie.

Mystery Red of the Great American Eclipse
It has blood on it!
ABCNews: Eclipse makes pendulum wander

Lunar Eclipse this Sunday evening. Is that red shadow light always there, or does it fade in as NatGeo and WashPost show?
Nat Geo Eclipse 101

Re:Deorbit this boondoggle now by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-16 04:29 · Score: 0

I'm all for tax cuts and stopping government waste.. But you are nuts.

No Shuttle to carry it by tomhath · 2019-01-16 04:37 · Score: 1

Hubble was designed around the Space Shuttle; if that was still available Hubble could have been retrieved.

Post-Space Shuttle Legacy by Only+Time+Will+Tell · 2019-01-16 06:31 · Score: 2

Now that we're nearly a decade past the last shuttle launch, it makes sense to take stock in what the post-shuttle space missions have been like. It seems in a lot of ways we lost a lot of capabilities of near-Earth orbits and have to entirely rely on the ISS for experiments. Satellite and equipment repairs on things like Hubble are now out of our capability and I wonder what we've intangibly lost in terms of science and innovation that went into the shuttle's design and upkeep. I'm probably just being nostalgic for the shuttle since I grew up with it as a constant presence, but I feel like we've taken a step back having to rely on the Russians to launch human missions in the short-term and going back to capsules that are nothing more than taxis rather than being a platform for experiments and equipment launches/repairs.

Re:Post-Space Shuttle Legacy by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-17 05:23 · Score: 0

In some ways, the shuttle was actually a step backwards. Compared to the Saturn V rocket launches, the shuttle was considerably limited in capacity and range.
Shuttle payload to orbit: 24kt
Saturn payload to orbit: 188kt
Shuttle range: LEO, with Hubble being near the top of what was possible
Saturn range: Moon landings!
OTOH, the shuttle gave us a way to retrieve satellites from orbit, something that wasn't possible in the 60s or 70s.
Also, the shuttle's legendary cost is perhaps overstated. The Saturn project cost around $42 billion in today's dollars; the shuttle program cost around $242 billion in today's dollars. Whoa, way more expensive! Except...we only launched 13 Saturns. The shuttles flew 10 times that amount, so cost per launch was actually quite a bit lower ($3.2B per launch for Saturn; $1.8B per launch for the shuttle).

WoW: You're reduced to editing others' words by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-16 07:39 · Score: 0

Your software is just fine - well written, functional... I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine by mmell February 17, 2017

Your premise that hostfiles are a good way to deal with advertising and malvertising is quite valid - by JazzLad April 20, 2016

his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant August 10 2015

I've never tried to belittle (APK's work), I've flat out said it's good - by BronsCon (927697) on Thursday February 11, 2016 @06:48PM (#51491263)

* Those are the ORIGINAL words of those praising my work & its efficacy & I've DOZENS more from registered /.ers...

APK

P.S.=> amicusNYCL, you're WEAK & LAME... apk

Aw, poor little Juden shekelboy, lol... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-16 08:19 · Score: 0

Be GLAD I'm not president: I'd do what McArthur wanted (he was VISIONARY 70++ yrs. ago): BLOW THEM TO HELL - why? Ok: President (for life DICTATOR) Xi Ping & his "you know who" DAVOS pals (who have no armies but are TRYING to 'use' the Chinese as one, but are going to be UNPLEASANTLY surprised when they get a HANNIBAL & ROMANS scenario from it) say he was going to "Destroy the USA, it's economy & Trump".

* Between ourselves (who could SMOKE China easily, especially navally, which is WHY they stole (all they KNOW how to do is STEAL the slanteye FUCK mongoloids) naval plans for the Pacific on our submarine fleets etc.) & RUSSIA?

THEY HAVE NO CHANCE... & their "allies" (jews in davos)? They're worse... quote George Washington father of our country:

"They (the Jews) work more effectively against us, than the enemy's armies. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties and the great cause we are engaged in. It is much to be lamented that each state, long ago, has not hunted them down as pest to society and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America." - George Washington

APK

P.S.=> I promise you ALL this: In my time on this planet, before I leave (as well all do)? I will see them BOTH destroy themselves (all scumbags do) - how? THEIR BULLSHIT is totally UNSUSTAINABLE (mere illusion)... a

downmass is very expensive by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-16 08:32 · Score: 0

It is very expensive to bring something down from orbit (at least today it is). It costs less to put something into orbit.

IMPERSONATING ME now too? Please... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-16 09:00 · Score: 0

See subject & CLIPPING my posts (@ least be ORIGINAL) - it only PROVES u WISH u were ME (poor imitation = sincerest form of flattery).

* :)

APK

P.S.=> Did you enjoy the read? apk

JWST isn't a true replacement by Miamicanes · 2019-01-16 09:53 · Score: 2

JWST isn't a true "replacement" for Hubble.

Tthere are a few things JWST can do that Hubble can't, but there are a LOT of things Hubble can do that JWST can't. It's more of a step sideways than a step forward.

As an augment to Hubble, it has the potential to be a fantastic resources. As an outright replacement, it kind of sucks.

Making matters worse, JWST's expected service life is shockingly short, and unlike Hubble, NASA appears to really *mean* it when it says it plans to deorbit JWST on schedule (to avoid leaving spacejunk cluttering a Lagrange point). So it's ENTIRELY conceivable that if Hubble gets deorbited with JWST as an alleged "replacement", we'll end up with no comparable space telescopes AT ALL a couple of years later.

The best thing we can do with Hubble right now is to get maximum use from it, then do our best to keep it cheaply re-boosted until such time as we have the ability to do a proper servicing mission on it (replacing its electronics and mechanically-failing parts, but taking advantage of the huge spaceframe and lens that we realistically have no way to replace anytime within the next 15-25 years).

For somewhat of an analogy, imagine that your family runs a tour service on a remote island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean & has a big, London-style double-decker bus that's iconic and wildly popular with tourists. Your grandfather bought it 30 years ago when it was shiny & new, and had it transported to the island in a semi-custom airplane that no longer exists (assume that for some reason, boats can't reach the island... maybe it's surrounded by jagged reefs that would be suicidal to attempt navigating by boat). Today, that old bus is kind of a hot mess... it needs a new engine, the seats are tattered, and it needs a good paint job. A brand new bus would cost less than refurbishing the old one, except for one problem... there's nobody who's CAPABLE of transporting an entire new bus to your island because it's too big to fit into any of today's smaller, cheaper, safer, and more fuel-efficient (but sadly, smaller) cargo planes, so you have to make do with packing replacement parts onto multiple air cargo planes and flying them in if you want to continue having a working double-decker bus on that island.

It's not a perfect analogy, but it makes the point... Hubble has parts that simply CAN'T be replaced anytime soon. If we throw them away by deorbiting it, the capabilities they represent will be gone "forever" (at least, the foreseeable future, quite probably the remainder of our own lives). A limited robotic servicing mission by SpaceX that does nothing but boost Hubble into a higher orbit to buy us another 10-15 years to decide what to do with it would be an extremely prudent investment, because the alternative would be the destruction of a valuable asset that literally can't be replaced at any cost within the next few years.

The service mission will be a robot by aberglas · 2019-01-16 12:06 · Score: 1

On a relatively cheap rocket, one way. And hopefully the Web has been designed so that it can be serviced by a robot, with easy to undo bolts etc.

Just get the Chinese to blow it up by aberglas · 2019-01-16 12:09 · Score: 1

Would be even cheaper. And the Chinese don't worry about space junk.

Aw, poor little Juden shekelboy, lol... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-16 13:28 · Score: 0

See subject: Don't worry - the "Golden Calf" of your shekels dries up! I give folks what they want vs. your machinations, lol & THUS I always will win... & you KNOW it.

* Heck - you're PROVING IT via your EASILY NULLIFIED "Bitch Tactics 'efforts'" which I easily prove are you in seconds by posting your PUNY threats... lmao!

(You really ARE too STUPID to live... time to FIRE UP THE OVENS again & Zyklon B showers).

Ever see Dr, Strange? Keep it up, that's EXACTLY what I want "JudenMammu" - you're MY prisoner.

LASTLY Don't speak for "Everyone" JUDE - you're the HATED minority ALL THRU HISTORY only fooling YOURSELVES, lol - self deluded morons & thieves.

APK

P.S.=> Dance little Jude, dance - to MY TUNE as I see you lose all that STOLEN GOLD/SHEKELS, lol - slowly (oh, SO slowly, painfully, as your kind fell into your OWN trap of debt, lol)... apk

Quote BLADE from Blade 1... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-16 13:35 · Score: 0

"Remember what we told you - keep your eyes open - they're everywhere..."

APK

P.S.=> "His 100th rushing career touchdown" (in 1st 2 minutes) describes me vs. "your kind" (psycho stalking me) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (per a personal hero of mine, Marcus Allen)... apk

JUDEN! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-17 04:52 · Score: 0

Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

Jew Talmud excerpts (the book that calls Christ's mother a whore & a bastard of a roman soldier):

1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."

2. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."

3. Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."

4. Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."

5. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."

6. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."

7. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."

8. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth."

9. Choschen Hamm 266,1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost property (to Gentiles) sins against the Law by increasing the power of the transgressors of the Law. It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people."

10. Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17: "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them."

11. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts."

12. Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D: "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves."

13. Nidrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L: "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night."

14. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated."

15. Gad. Shas. 2:2: "A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl."

16. Tosefta. Aboda Zara B, 5: "If a goy kills a goy or a Jew, he is responsible; but if a Jew kills a goy, he is NOT responsible."

17. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 388: "It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere. It is permitted to kill him even before he denounces."

18. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348: "All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples."

19. Tosefta, Abda Zara VIII, 5: "How to interpret the word 'robbery.' A goy is forbidden to steal, rob, or take women slaves, etc., from a goy or from a Jew. But a Jew is NOT forbidden to do all this to a goy."

20. Seph. Jp., 92, 1: "God has given the Jews power over the possessions and blood of all nations."

21. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen H

Invasion of the JUDENoids by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-17 04:54 · Score: 0