Challenges Ahead In Final Hubble Servicing Mission 130
Hugh Pickens writes "Space shuttle Atlantis is slated to lift off Monday on the fifth and final servicing mission to Hubble with four mission specialists alternating in two-astronaut teams will attempt a total of five spacewalks from Atlantis to replace broken components, add new science instruments, and swap out the telescope's six 125-pound (57-kilogram) batteries, original parts that have powered Hubble's night-side operations for nearly two decades. 'This is our final opportunity to service and upgrade Hubble,' says David Leckrone, senior project scientist for the Hubble Space Telescope. 'So we're replacing some items that are getting long in the tooth to give Hubble longevity, and then we'll try to take advantage of that five- to 10-year extra lifetime with the most powerful instrumental tools we've ever had on board.' Some of the upgrades are relatively straightforward and modular: yank out old part, put in new. But they're big parts: The 'fine guidance sensors' sound delicate but weigh as much as a grand piano back on Earth. But what's different this time is that the astronauts will also open up some instruments and root around inside, doing Geek Squad-like repairs while wearing bulky spacesuits and traveling around the planet at 17,000 mph. 'We have this choreographed almost down to the minute of what we want the crew to do. It's this really fine ballet,' said Keith Walyus, the servicing mission operations manager at Goddard. 'We've been training for this for seven years. We can't wait for this to happen.'"
Uh Oh (Score:5, Funny)
This all sounded good until they said they would be doing "Geek Squad style repairs". Does this mean they will recommend the Norton Anti-virus suite be installed and send a $500 bill?
Re:Uh Oh (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Uh Oh (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe Hubble's registry has been clogged up, and a fresh OS installation is needed.
Re:Uh Oh (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Uh Oh (Score:2)
Re:Uh Oh (Score:2)
Re:Uh Oh (Score:1)
Hopefully Atlantis isn't this vehicle [wikimedia.org] or else I might not be able to resist any longer the urge to knock these people off the road.
Typo in NAV (Score:2)
As a spelling Nazi, it's spelled "Norton AntiVirus" -- http://www.symantec.com/norton/antivirus [symantec.com] ... :P
Re:Typo in NAV (Score:2)
My attitude on companies who insist on weird capitalizations in their name is "fuck them". Same for E*Trade.
Re:Typo in NAV (Score:2)
Then, fsck your "mylongnickname". :P
Re:Uh Oh (Score:2)
Re:Uh Oh (Score:2)
That's your own failure, for *asking*. What do you think you get, when you say "Please, can you do this?". A "no". You have to declare and expect/demand.
You say: "I give you this computer, on the signed contract, that you will give it back to me in 14 days, and guarantee for its safe return with the sum of $5000."
If they say "No", you now *know* that there is a big chance that they will fuck it up. So you say "Sk, then fuck you. Bye."
Re:Uh Oh (Score:1, Troll)
So what, we're supposed to suddenly supposed to treat the geek squad as a talented group of well meaning computer experts rather then the talentless, lying, salesmen shills that they are becasue a few good people get lumped in with the rest of the crap? Tough fucking shit buddy, you work for a crappy company which employs crappy people and I'm not sorry at all that you get lumped in with the rest of them. Furthermore judging by your choice of wording and how forcibly you tried to defend yourself I'm bettign that you aren't nearly the hot shit that you think you are and really are deserving of all the connotations that comes with the dorky yellow shirt that you wear. I used to work as an installer in a Canadian Tire garage and in case you don't happen to live in Canada, Canadian Tire is the Best Buy of the automotive world and you know what I did good work and so did most of the other mechanics in the garage, we didn't even have the cavalier attitude towards mistakes that you seem to have. Unfortunately our garage was the exception to the norm where most Canadian Tire garages did very poor work and I had absolutely no fantasies about the very well deserved image the rest of Canada had of our garages and I knew exactly what to expect when I said that I worked for Canadian Tire. In short get off that high horse you seem to have gotten yourself on and take an honest look at yourself and the company you work for.
Comment removed (Score:2)
Re:Uh Oh (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe they were hoping that they could meet a hot CIA agent while working at Geek Squad.
Re:Uh Oh (Score:4, Interesting)
Dude if my computer came back smelling like smoke, I'd be asking for a refund, as well as a replacement of every component that smelled like smoke.
Not that I would need to take any of my machines to a repair shop, but if I did, I'd take it to Geek Squad before I would take it into a place that reeked of smoke in the back room.
Totally willing to be modded off-topic here-- my karma can stand the hit.
Comment removed (Score:2)
butter fingers (Score:1, Insightful)
17,000 mph sounds like it's fast (Score:3, Interesting)
When you drive on the highway, if you are going 85mph passing a car going 80mph, you only really experience a 5mph velocity differential with that car. Given that both of you are traveling at similar speeds, maneuvering around each other should be relatively simple as you only have to gauge the distances with regard to the 5mph differential and not the 80mph absolute velocity.
So 17,000mph may sound fast, but given that the satellite itself is traveling the same speed, the astronauts don't really have to think about that.
Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast (Score:5, Informative)
When you drive on the highway, if you are going 85mph passing a car going 80mph, you only really experience a 5mph velocity differential with that car. Given that both of you are traveling at similar speeds, maneuvering around each other should be relatively simple as you only have to gauge the distances with regard to the 5mph differential and not the 80mph absolute velocity.
Sure. But then, I rarely repair my car while driving down the road at 85 MPH, although you are pointing out that I could.
Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you not change the radio while driving?
Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast (Score:2)
Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast (Score:2)
So actually quite straightforwards then?
If that's true then all these impossibly difficult things that NASA keeps talking up suddenly seem even more suspect
Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast (Score:1)
Do you not change the radio while driving?
I change the "stations" ON the radio. I don't actually change the radio itself, which is more what these guys are doing.
Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast (Score:2)
radios today are pretty straight forward to replace. 2 shills on the sides, pull it off, unplug the (standard) cables, plug the new one, slide it into the dash.
easy for the passenger to do while someone else is driving. remember, atlantis has a crew of 7. a couple of guys will be flying the ship, the spacewalkers will have to worry only about the repairs.
Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast (Score:1, Informative)
"There's some station-keeping to do, and the craft's overall health to monitor, but a lot of that can be done by autopilot."
Actually no it's not on autopilot. You don't want the attitude thrusters firing off when the astronauts are in the wrong place. Not that you may burn them, unlikely but you could. You can also contaminate them with fuel residue, those spacesuits aren't rubber you can hose off. Then also cause them to lose footing, lose tools etc. All maneuvers are very carefully choreographed when they are outside. It really is a team effort.
Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast (Score:1)
Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast (Score:5, Funny)
That is, assuming you carry things with the mass of a piano in your glove box, and wear a space suit while driving.
Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast (Score:2)
Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast (Score:3, Funny)
No, he's pointing out that you could repair someone else's car while driving down the road at 85 mph.
Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast (Score:2)
Trivially easy if you can run beside your car at 85mph, Steve Austin.
Be careful opening the hood/bonnet at those speeds though...
Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast (Score:1)
So 17,000mph may sound fast, but given that the satellite itself is traveling the same speed, the astronauts don't really have to think about that.
But 17 000mph sounds SO cool!
Anyone know how much this mission is costing? I think it is great, but I really like big numbers....
Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast (Score:5, Insightful)
So 17,000mph may sound fast, but given that the satellite itself is traveling the same speed, the astronauts don't really have to think about that.
Of course, there could be debris also moving at 17,000mph... in the opposite direction. Traveling at 34,000mph (relative), even a paint chip can do some serious damage to delicate electronics or the relatively soft astronaut.
Here's hoping everyone stays safe up there.
Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast (Score:4, Informative)
No.
That would require a retrograde orbit, which noone uses.
Of course, if Hubble were in a polar orbit, this could happen. But it's not, so it won't.
Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, there are a few satellites in retrograde orbits. Some are nearly polar (sun-synchronous orbits, for example), but others are truly retrograde. I believe Israel does it (even despite the disadvantage of fighting earth's rotation by launching west) because that's the only way they can launch their own stuff without overflying populated areas and/or pissing off unfriendly neighbors.
Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast (Score:2)
So 17,000mph may sound fast, but given that the satellite itself is traveling the same speed, the astronauts don't really have to think about that.
Of course, there could be debris also moving at 17,000mph... in the opposite direction. Traveling at 34,000mph (relative), even a paint chip can do some serious damage to delicate electronics or the relatively soft astronaut.
Here's hoping everyone stays safe up there.
Pfft, whatever. It's like getting hit by an invisible bus. Not much you can do to avoid it, and it will suck if it happens, but it's not like it's a distraction unless you get unlucky. The far bigger issues (so far as mission success) are the clunky outfits, the massive objects they have to handle, and the fact that there's no easy place to put something down for a second. So stop falling for the big-number hype, and realize that this is not much more dangerous than any other EVA - and none of that extra danger comes from their orbital velocity.
Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast (Score:2)
But Hubble is about 100 miles higher than the international space station which makes a misstep dangerous. That's a long way to fall. And on the way down they have to worry about a missing tool bag.
The EVA may not be too unusual compared to other EVAs, but an EVA isn't a walk in the park.
In addition, the preparation is very difficult. If you forget something or break something along the way, you can't run to Home Depot and if you drop a screw good luck getting those fat gloves in tight spaces isn't easy. With this being the last contact anyone will have with hubble until it crashes on their house, this is a very important mission.
Just because something similar has been done before doesn't make it any less difficult or impressive.
Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast (Score:2)
How does this have any relevance with what I said? Moreover, where did I say this EVA was less dangerous than going outside the ISS to turn a nut, for instance? What I said was that the fact they're moving 17,000mph relative to the surface of the planet is almost (only almost) as relevant as how fast they're moving relative to the sun or the centre of the galaxy. It's just a big number to make the layperson say "Oooh."
Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast (Score:3, Interesting)
Going by the mortality rate (I think its like 4%) being an astronaut is more dangerous than being a solider on active deployment at the moment.
No guts, no glory I say :).
Actually it's 370 km/s towards Virgo (Score:2)
If you want to quote big speeds against something, that should be something *near* you, something that runs the risk of crashing. 17000 mph against the earth that's hundreds of miles away is totally meaningless.
Now, if you want to quote some "absolute" velocity, then the only reference that can be considered valid, according to Mach's principle [wikipedia.org] would be against the "fixed distant stars", which means cosmic microwave background [swin.edu.au].
Then we can say we are all moving at 370 km/s towards the Virgo constellation (note the link says the whole Milky Way galaxy is moving at 600 km/s towards Centaurus but we have to subtract the speed of the earth relative to the galaxy as a whole. Longer explanation here [duke.edu]).
Re:Actually it's 370 km/s towards Virgo (Score:2)
From the link you sent
If we were somehow able to see ONLY this dipole contribution [...] by removing the average brightness (or temperature) from the preceding diagram and amplify the contrast by approximately a thousand, the sky now looks like the figure at the right.
Did they not realize that this is the Taoist symbol of yin and yang? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TaoismSymbol.PNG [wikipedia.org]
And since the Taoist believe in universal evolution, I guess the creationists can finally admit they are wrong.
Re:Actually it's 370 km/s towards Virgo (Score:2)
Did they not realize that this is the Taoist symbol of yin and yang?
I hear there's a face on Mars, too, and a picture of Jesus on a fish stick, and quite a few other natural accidents that look a lot like things people have a big emotional investment in if you squint hard and click your heals together at exactly the same time.
The really curious thing is how ancient Taoists knew about dipole moments. I've studied the tao te ching pretty carefully and don't recall seeing a single spherical harmonic, Legendre polynomial, or anything similar.
In any case, I'm pretty sure if you subtract out the dipole and look carefully at the higher moments you'll find a pattern that looks suspiciously... noodly.
That's nothing (Score:2)
The Earth is zipping around the sun at something like 66,000 mph (unless I screwed up my calcs). It's all I can do to hang on...
Re:That's nothing (Score:4, Informative)
Re:That's nothing (Score:2)
You forgot the punch line:
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth!
Re:That's nothing (Score:2)
Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast (Score:2)
On the other hand, I am walking, sitting, eating, and coding on a ground that's actually spinning at 229km/h everyday. (Assuming I am at 30 degree North)
No, you don't (Score:2)
Re:No, you don't (Score:2)
Essentially, there is very little in orbit going the wrong way because it's more expensive and energy intensive to do it that way. The chances of a 34,000MPH collission are extremely low.
Re:No, you don't (Score:2)
Re:No, you don't (Score:2)
Re:No, you don't (Score:1)
And what we're telling you is that no mere explosion or part off a launch is magically going to wind up in a retrograde orbit. It just can't happen. An explosion (or even a significant collision) isn't going to impart a 14km/sec delta-V.
Re:No, you don't (Score:2)
Foreshadowing (Score:4, Funny)
'We've been training for this for seven years. We can't wait for this to happen.'
Cue heartbreak and disaster.
Re:Foreshadowing (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Foreshadowing (Score:1)
Re:Foreshadowing (Score:2)
'We've been training for this for seven years. We can't wait for this to happen.'
Cue heartbreak and disaster.
Really, is he trying to sabotage the mission? That's like an astronaut saying:
"It's my last mission before retirement. Here's a picture of my wife, and here's the cabin on a lake we just bought to live out our golden years. She can't wait until I get back so we can move in."
I mean you might as well shoot him on the spot once he's said that.
Best of Luck guys (Score:4, Insightful)
Did you mean "not JUST the visible light range"? (Score:5, Informative)
HST does not operate in the visible light range and images you see are colorized from data gathered from several instruments.
How's that again? I'm seeing that it handles wavelengths from 110nm (hard UV) to 1100nm, or maybe 2300nm, or maybe deeper IR than that. Visible (400-700nm) is smack in the middle of that range, and well-covered by the instrumentation.
Re:Best of Luck guys (Score:1)
WFC3 went thru a full thermal vac test last summer, right before SDO went into the SES.
Re:Best of Luck guys (Score:2)
Re:Best of Luck guys (Score:4, Informative)
"or lets the astronauts engineer on the spot solutions."
Like the first time they serviced it, and couldn't get the damn doors closed without using a come-along strap.
(Yes, this happened)
Ping pong balls on your finger tips (Score:5, Insightful)
~kulakovich
Send Bartowsky, he 'knows' kung fu now! (Score:2)
I'm glad to see someone here that 'gets it'.
One thing everyone seems to gloss over is the fact that you and what you are working on are both 'falling around the earth' at 17,00 mph. It's not like having it on the ground in a garage.
Your body and mind constantly battling each other over what 'up and down' really are; mass is still mass, so those 'heavy' pieces still take effort to move in-out of position, etc.
We've already seen that you can't just set your toolbag down on the workbench for one thing...
Re:Ping pong balls on your finger tips (Score:2)
Sure it sounds like an easy swap, but imagine trying to do something like changing dipswitches and installing a PCIe card with ping pong balls on your finger tips - even with big clunky milspec connectors, everything you twist tries to twist you, everything you pull tries to pull you.
You're right, what they're doing is not easy but that's in part due to poor design by the people on the ground. They're sometimes just way too conservative and bureaucratic, and not in a good way, with many design elements.
As just one example off the top of my head they could've used an unpowered "Canada arm", a light truss where the joints can be tightened and loosened, attached to the telescope to hold them in a fixed position while they're working. Another example is designing replaceable modules and connectors that don't require fine hand coordination. They already do this to a degree but I see no reason why the astronauts should need to use their fingers at all.
It's easy to understand why the designers are conservative, they only get one chance, however maybe they need to think in terms of good/optimal solutions and fallbacks if they don't work, instead of "this is the one true, will always work not matter what" way.
I've watched the astronauts working on the ISS and there's a huge amount of bureaucracy and complexity for what should be very simple lego-style plugin-and-leave jobs while on space walks. To put it another way the complexity perhaps should be more in the design work on the ground, not in the procedures to implement the designs in space.
Reminds me of house design, the last bastion of bespoke, non-factory, non-prefabricated design.
---
Don't be a programmer-bureaucrat; someone who substitutes marketing buzzwords and software bloat for verifiable improvements.
I want to go! (Score:1)
Talk about an excitng job! I want to go also! I will carry the tool box :)
Seriously. :)
Re:I want to go! (Score:2)
Welcome to NASA! We're glad to have you on our crew! :)
Now let's get you measured for your spacesuit. You'll be the first to get a red one! :)
Why not build another one ... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm curious, can anyone tell me why a good, cheap, quick solution to replacing the current Hubble isn't to take that same design + upgrades that are even too complicated to accomplish in space, and launch it? I mean sure it might not be as spiffy as a completely new blank-sheet design but I have to believe it wouldn't cost that much more money, if at all, than a shuttle launch + a shuttle on standbye as a life boat. I mean what am I missing that makes building Hubble-2 a bad option compared to a risky/costly repair mission? It can't take that long to build another.
Re:Why not build another one ... (Score:4, Interesting)
You're absolutely right and, ironically, it would cost less to launch it with a non-reusable rocket like the Ariane 5. Unfortunately, real life doesn't work like that.
The problems is with that "upgrades" thingie. They would never get a team of experts to agree on a sensible list of upgrades and launch that. There would always be one more thing, one more feature and the final cost would be, well, "astronomical" is the only word that comes to my mind.
Nasa's problem is that they have to be innovative, it's their mission. They can never let good enough alone. If they had just kept making small improvements to their systems, maybe we would have all the space colonies Popular Mechanics predicted fifty years ago by now.
Re:Why not build another one ... (Score:1)
Re:Why not build another one ... (Score:2)
Yes.
It is all custom parts it would take years to build a new one so yes it can take that long to build a new one. By that time the Hubble replacement will be ready to launch and the current Hubble will long since be dead. Also it would take a good % of what the Hubble replacement will cost and will not be as good.
Re:Why not build another one ... (Score:2)
custom parts sure, ok, I get that. But, but, but ... there still has to be savings in time and cost to not having to come up with a completely new design, isn't there? I mean take all the time and money spent to spec and design the replacement parts (which are also custom themselves I'm sure), and then to figure out how to do it in space and train the astronauts etc etc etc and instead spend the time and money to spec and design Hubble 2 and launch it with an unmanned. [shrug]
And for that matter, just how far along is the current replacement?
I will say this though, I find it amusing that there is all this concern about not having anything up there for some given time frame. I mean yes I know it would leave a lot of people without new data for some time (not that there isn't enough old data to plow through) but let's put this in a cosmic perpective: 1 year, 2, 5, 10 ... is not even a drop in the bucket of time. Somehow I doubt we're going to miss some fleeting once in a universe's-lifetime event that would give us the answer to everything. But I do think it would be a shame not to have something out there collecting the type of data Hubble and its successor collect.
Re:Why not build another one ... (Score:2)
Not as much as you might think. First of all you will have modify the design. Old suppliers are gone. The standardized parts may have changed so you will have to do some redesign for that. And the big problem is that odds are pretty good that they Hubble design isn't available in SolidWorks, AutoCad, ProE or even IGES format. So it will probably have to be redrawn on a modern CAD system. You will want to completely update all the electronics so those will be different as well.
About the one only thing you would want to keep unchanged would be the basic structure and maybe the optics. Everything else you would want to update just because it would be cheaper than than trying to rebuild 20 to 30 year old parts.
The replacement for the Hubble has a much larger collecting mirror and will really out preform the Hubble. http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/ [nasa.gov]
Re:Why not build another one ... (Score:2)
You cannot just rebuild the Hubble because many of the original contractors are out of business. You would have to rebuild the space telescope from scratch, which involves validating all of the changes you made. Putting it all together along with logistical support costs a few billion dollars. For a frame of reference, Hubble cost $2.5 by 1992.
Re:Why not build another one ... (Score:1)
The followers of Hubble are scheduled, and lets hope we will see images they will take soon.
Besides the JWST there is also the Harschel Space Observatory scheduled to be launch coming days (May 14). It is an infrared telescope with a mirror larger than Hubble.
I hope everything will be OK with all the space observatories. Those in orbit, and those coming. Their scientific value is astonishing.
Re:Why not build another one ... (Score:3, Informative)
As far as I know one of the goals is to attach a deorbit module to Hubble, which is needed to safely end its life, so there has to be this mission anyway.
Actually they are not attaching a full deorbit module, but a docking interface that can be used in the future for a deorbit module to grapple onto.
Last (Score:1)
Just curious. How do they know this is the last mission to Hubble. The telescope was supposed to be set out to pasture before and recently got this reprieve. Even if we eventually have a bigger and better space telescope, Hubble is still a valuable instrument.
Re:Last (Score:5, Insightful)
Because there won't be much more Space Shuttle missions, it's being retired, and none of the future vehicles can do this kind of visit.
Yes, Orion can dock with the ISS but that's "much easier" than going after Hubble
Geek Squad... (Score:2, Funny)
Attach it to the ISS? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't understand why they don't grab Hubble and attach it to the International Space Station? It seems a waste to eventually let a great piece of equipment, into which so much money has been invested, to eventually just drift off into space/crash to earth. Servicing it would be much easier if it was attached to the ISS and we could continue getting stunning images, which I think goes a long way to creating interest in astronomy.
Re:Attach it to the ISS? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sounds nice but it would not work for a few reason.
1. The orbits are very different, Hubble is higher and at a different inclination.
2. The sharp images need excellent stability of the spacecraft. Hubble's resolution of 0.1" is the equivalent to spotting a dime 40 miles away. Astronauts and all the equipment running on the ISS would cause lots ot stability problems for sharp imaging.
Re:Attach it to the ISS? (Score:1, Insightful)
A nice thought but unfortunately it would be impossible to prevent vibrations from the ISS blurring every image, no matter how well damped the tether/mount. I do not know but suspect that the ISS is in a lower orbit.
If they had a Federation style Tractor Beam they could use once a month to keep it localised, that might be a different matter ;-)
Re:Attach it to the ISS? (Score:2)
1. It is in a very different orbit. You just can't call AAA and tow it to the ISS. The shuttle doesn't have the capability to do. No current system has the ability to do it. We would have to build a space tug.
2. The orbit the ISS is in isn't as good as the one the Hubble is in for doing Astronomy.
3. You don't want to attach the Hubble to anything since even the motion of people moving around will throw off it's aim.
4. You don't want all the stuff that comes off and out of the ISS near Hubble. Like the exhaust from it's thrusters.
Re:Attach it to the ISS? (Score:2)
That "bring it down" part is the problem. It's the size of a school bus, and the idea of re-entry vibration on it's delicate systems would likely make it a very heavy piece of useless junk by the time you got it back down.
Re:Attach it to the ISS? (Score:2)
Even if you did then you left with problems 2,3, and 4. Not to mention that the Hubble would probably be damaged by the trip home. Plus I am not sure that the Shuttle can get the Hubble to the ISS's orbit. It is at a much greater incline than the Hubble's orbit so it takes more fuel. I think it is lower so it may be possible but I would have too look up a lot of stuff to be sure.
Re:Attach it to the ISS? (Score:2)
~kulakovich
Re:Attach it to the ISS? (Score:3, Informative)
I don't understand why they don't grab Hubble and attach it to the International Space Station? It seems a waste to eventually let a great piece of equipment, into which so much money has been invested, to eventually just drift off into space/crash to earth.
Nice idea but it's physically impossible to do this with the shuttle. Even with no payload, the fuel required to shift the shuttles orbit when it's at Hubble to be able to rendezvous with the ISS is almost equal to the mass of the space shuttle itself. It simply can't be done. Thats why there's a second shuttle being prepped for launch in case there's a problem with Atlantis - the ISS cannot be used as a safe haven because it cannot reach it.
Grand pianos (Score:1)
Could someone help me convert this into something sane, like Volkswagens or Libraries of Congress?
piano : Earth :: ? : in orbit (Score:2)
weigh as much as a grand piano back on Earth
I'm not a physics expert, but if it weighs as much in orbit as a grand piano does on Earth, wouldn't that give it the mass of, say, the Titanic?
"...doing Geek Squad-like repairs..." (Score:2)
Let's hope not.
T minus 140 minutes (Score:3, Informative)
125 pounds (57 Kg) each! (Score:2)
They better be careful up there lifting shit like that! I don't know whether OSHA has an jurisdiction in space, but either way those astronauts better be using good team lift practices with those batteries because the last thing we need is for one of them to throw their back out up there!
Lets hope for a safe repair (Score:1)
I'm also hoping that the James Webb Telescope [slashdot.org], Hubbles inferred younger brother, goes to plan, and gets launched on its target 2003.
-- Astronomy Feed [feeddistiller.com] @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]
Bollocks (Score:2)
Why don't you fucking grow up ! Bunch of fucking losers. The funny thing is, you all consider yourselves intelligent - twats. I looked at a thread the other day, and fully 90% of the comments were off-topic. What is the point of having titles to this shit ? May as well say, Oi, prick, and seeing what results. Maybe I've been redirected to science.digg.org
To boost ratings further (Score:2)
doing Geek Squad-like repairs while dribbling basketballs and while wearing bulky spacesuits and traveling around the planet at 17,000 mph. Points for behind-the-back dribbling will be awarded.
Re:Doomed (Score:1, Insightful)
Is this mission designed to fail from the start, so that Obama can blaim its failure on Bush, like everything else that goes wrong?
Not likely, it's probably a combination of two things. First, NASA is making preparations for worst case scenario, like all organizations that work in hostile environments should. Second, the media generally likes sensational reporting because it boosts ratings and circulation, so they hype the "What if it all goes horribly wrong?" angle of the story.
See no conspiracy theory involved!
Re:Doomed (Score:3, Informative)
It's a very tricky thing to get to Hubble. It's orbit and inclination puts it in a position that takes roughly half of Shuttle's fuel to get to it. They burn a bit wrong, and they're screwed; or perhaps never get to Hubble in the first place.
Either way, if they get there, and have a Columbia-type event with foam / ice / etc, the ISS is not an option as a lifeboat - they couldn't get there with the amount of fuel they have.
This mission is as dangerous as it gets in Earth orbit (currently).