Hubble Telescope's Main Camera Shuts Down 131
anthemaniac writes "Space.com is reporting that the aging observatory's primary camera, the ACS, has been in safe mode since the weekend. From the article: 'An initial investigation indicates the camera has stopped functioning, and the input power feed to its Side B electronics package has failed.' The camera has shut down before and been revived."
of course not (Score:5, Funny)
No wonder they can't contact it. Safe Mode doesn't support networking by default.
Re: (Score:1)
obligatory conspiracy post.... (Score:1)
and originally deciding NOT to service it and just retire it.
Gee, if it's fried, then they can't do a normal maintenance and can save $100M on a launch....
And if it's just been told to "roll over and play dead"......
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure they were going to stop servicing it.
The question is: Will they come up with a replacement or try to fix the Hubble again?
And would be cost effective to repair it again or has it's time finally come?
Re: (Score:1)
Of course by then it may be too late..
Re: (Score:2)
Ofcourse there's a chance of them gaining somekind of ai and destroying the world as
ACS is a serviceable part (Score:5, Informative)
Also, the Hubble servicing mission has been approved. Barring some act of God or Congress, Atlantis will conduct this mission on STS-125 in May of 2008. The ACS was not on the itinerary for service, but it might still be possible to add it to the agenda or push back the mission date if need be. On the other hand, it might be possible to work around whatever problem caused the latest shutdown, the third according to Wikipedia.
I should point out the foot dragging was largely spurred on by calls for the retirement of the shuttle as soon as possible (even immediately) and some general hysteria following the Columbia incident (as opposed to the rational re-examination that also took place). There is also the issue of the cost, which is in the range of hundreds of millions and had not been provided for, and a difference of philosophy between O'Keefe (administrator until 2005) and Griffin (current admin). Mission development is fully provided for in 2007, and should be in the 2008 budget, too.
If Hubble was going to roll over and play dead, it should've done so back in mid-2005, before more money had been spent on the servicing mission.
Re: (Score:2)
But it will give some very interesting pics anyway.
Re: (Score:1)
"Latin for a court petition which orders that a person being detained be produced before a judge for a hearing to decide whether the detention is lawful. Habeas corpus is a basic individual right against arbitrary arrest and imprisonment"
are you saying that NASA wants to unlawfully imprison you?
You keep using that word... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you be sure that they don't?!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
or maybe being in the UK helps, very few FBI here
Re:Can we trust NASA? (Score:5, Interesting)
The HST Data Archive (HDA) [stsci.edu] has always been available to the public, albeit after a one-year "proprietary rights" period.
dear advanced computer user. (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I've always be irritated at how scam artists like space.com, spaceflightnow.com, and spacedaily.com can have the gall to try to CHARGE people for imagery that was created using public funding.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not going to pay space.com to spoon-feed me a 640x480 logo-stamped image.
Re: (Score:2)
For even more fun, the instrument hit safing mode literally hours before a solar wind disturbance reached Saturn...and the time was assigned to auroral observations. There was minor wailing and gnashing of teeth around here, but Clarke's being philosophical..."it's better to be lucky than to be good."
They should just hit F8 on startup (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Well, they could call it "Saging," but it would make it sound disgusting or offtopic to 4-channers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except for the stuff that is moving very very fast...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, I thought that all depended on how close to the speed of light you're traveling.....
this was obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally I think they should boost it into higher orbit so it stays safe for future space archeologists. The same bods who will eventually be interested in retreiving the Viking missions, and who knows, if we get fast enough ships, the voyagers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And despite future spacecraft like JWST, none of the planned replacements will cover the UV range.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, the Bush administration doesn't see much use in science and NASA has been hurting badly since, then again, the Bush administration isn't the only issue, given that ever since the last shuttle accident no one is willing to risk anything in the name of progress. There are certainly other space agencies around the planet that could work together to make a worthy successor to the Hubll
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I would be curious to know whether some of the new Earth based observatories give Hubble a run for its money?
New? Keep in mind that the top Earth based observatory, Keck, is 10-15 years old too. ;)
Oh, and with technology like adaptive optics, AO lasers and interferometry... yes, Keck (and others) can "give Hubble a run for its money" in some regards. Not across the board, though - no real UV capability, for example. Even up at Keck, there's still enough atmosphere over my head to ruin things.
*sh
Re: (Score:2)
despite future spacecraft like JWST, none of the planned replacements will cover the UV range.
... and those are all future. JWST won't even launch until at least what, 2011? And it only does IR. TPF is even further away.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oblig. (Score:1, Funny)
Soyuz and Shenzou for repair missions (Score:1, Informative)
It looks like the space shuttle is going to be around long after 2010 and Hubble repairs may continue indefinitely. The appropriations for replacing the shuttle were finally canceled and there's too much voter pressure to fund low Earth orbit science.
The shuttle will be retired on schedule (Score:4, Interesting)
The Space Shuttle will be retired upon completion of the ISS. NASA will be taking steps over the coming years which would prevent almost any extension of the currently planned flight schedule, like reconfiguring launch pads to support the future vehicles, retiring shuttle craft as they complete their scheduled missions, caniballizing said vehicles for parts, and refraining from ordering parts like external tanks and solid rocket boosters which would be required to extend the schedule by even one flight.
The shuttle will cease operations regardless of the status of replacement vehicles. Although many planned technology programs intended to help replace the shuttle with a more reliable and cost effective system were cancelled over the years, NASA is currently pursuing a manned vehicle program, Orion [wikipedia.org] which has not been cancelled.
Re: (Score:2)
NASA has big cargo capacity in the ARES V heavy-lifter and a much smaller manned craft in the ARES I. There is not much for returning orbiting cargo, something the shuttle could do, but I suspect it is cheaper to strap a heat shield and parachutes on anything that need to go down in one piece.
ESA was also planning a cargo vehicle to replace the Progress ships.
Using the shuttle for both types of mission, crew and cargo, is terribly ineffective. It should have stopped long ago.
Yet, NASA stil
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
True enough. In fact, there has been a lot of discussion over the past year or so as to how astronomers could use the building NASA Moon infrastructure to do astrophysical science. There was a conference at STScI back in November on this topic. Turns out there are some very good reasons not to put a telescope on the lunar surface, but some excellent reasons to use the developing heavy-lift capacity for larger space-based systems and the
Orion testing starts in 2008 (Score:2)
Orion is on schedule, a bit overweight within design tolerances.
This engineer will be doing a field test of the emergency escape system in 2008.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
*sigh* another incomplete /. (Score:5, Informative)
They are hoping to switch it back over to the primary power supply and get limited usage until the shuttle gets there.
It's Cooked (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it matters where they are if they don't have a nose.
I'm so sorry for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given enough available energy, a short circuit will heat wires enough to melt/burn insulation, or even vaporize the metal conductor itself. The typical smell associated with letting the magic smoke out of something isn't ozone, but burning plastic and phenolic insulation.
Aren't the optics the valuable part? (Score:2, Insightful)
We have a telescope in orbit that's servicable. It seems to me that the big, expensive part of this marvel would be the large optical reflector. Unless someone could point out a reason otherwise, would it not make sense to just keep making camera upgrades to put on the end of this thing? Yes, I realize that I may be oversimplying this procedure, but if it's not feasible to service it in the near future, is there something wrong with tucking it away in a safe orbit until it would become feasible...or clea
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Total HST cost: $6 billion [space.com]
Yearly HST operations budget: $337 million [nasa.gov]
Single servicing mission in 2008: $900 million [space.com]
I like Hubble a lot, but other missions [caltech.edu] which don't require (or allow) Shuttle service and cost on the order of $0.3-0.8 billion seem to me far more cost effective. The mirror is a tiny fraction of the cumulative operations costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How is privatized better? (Score:1, Offtopic)
Picture quality (Score:2, Funny)
Just not asking it right... (Score:1)
What does that remind me of? (Score:2, Funny)
At least it's in warranty! (Score:3, Interesting)
FTA:
In all seriousness, though, it's worth noting that this camera is comparatively new (installed 12 years after launch) and that it's failed more or less on schedule. Too bad NASA doesn't plan on sending a mission until next year. Also worth noting is that it's not the only instrument on the telescope... though it is the one that takes the purty pictures that garner mainstream attention.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of writing this code:
if (today() >= warrantyEnd + 1 month) {
}
They must of switched signs:
if (today() >= warrantyEnd - 1 month) {
}
Layne
(joke stolen shamelessly from a cohort)
Why Keep it going? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Another good link is "Powers of Ten"
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceop
Re:Why Keep it going? (Score:5, Informative)
ground based systems can't look at a single point in space for a long duration image set
Neither can Hubble. The Hubble Deep Field was pieced together from 10 nights of images. The newer Hubble Ultra Deep Field, from 11 nights.
Pretty much any half-decent-looking astronomical image you see is a combination of multiple exposures. I'm one of the operators of the 2.2-meter (that's slightly smaller than Hubble) telescope on Mauna Kea, and have been teaching myself the process of getting and combining images in different filters/wavelengths. For example, I made this shot of M76 [hawaii.edu] from about a dozen exposures. (Using, incidentally, the same instrument that was used to discover the Kuiper Belt back in 1992.)
Just a data point.
Email notice from STScI (Score:4, Informative)
Jargon alert for non specialists: ACS = Advanced Camera for Surveys; WFC = Wide Field Camera; HRC = High Resolution Camera; SBC = Solar Blind Channel; CCD = charge coupled device; WFPC2 = Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 (an older instrument); STScI = Space Telescope Science Institute; and GSFC = Goddard Space Flight Center.
Hubble tribute song (Score:4, Funny)
Only Me (A Hubble Tribute)
To the tune of "Only you"
By Joel Gilmore, 2007
Looking at the sky up above
Taking photos with love,
Can you fix me?
Found out only yesterday,
my orbit's soon to decay
Can't you boost me?
Chorus:
All I needed was a manned space flight
All I needed for another night
Since 1993 -
only me.
If I lose one more gyroscope
I don't know if I'll cope,
Send Discovery!
Install Wide Field Camera 3,
Spectrograph, batteries,
My camera's dying!
Chorus:
All I needed was a manned space flight
All I needed for another night
Until James Webb, there'll be -
only ME!
Mustn't forget. (Score:2)
it's not all bad news (Score:5, Informative)
The good news is that WFPC2 is still working even if it doesn't have the imaging area or sensitivity of ACS. The telescope allocation committee just re-opened applications for next cycle so lots of people are just going to switch their proposals from using ACS to using WFPC2 (myself included). As a side note: anyone can apply for telescope time since its run with taxpayer money. Just go to the site and fill out the form.
The other good news is that the servicing mission is going ahead for early 2008 when they're going to put in WFPC3 which is a bit better than ACS and will have much lower distortions and a great new spectrograph called COS. That'll take HST to the end of its life in 2013. At that point, the next space telescope, JWST, will be launched. In case you're wondering though, JWST will have a much shorter life since it won't be possible to service it.
So yeah, it sucks that ACS smoked itself but it's not the end of the world.
Tragedy (Score:1, Interesting)
It has nothing to do with Hubble's 486. (Score:1, Informative)
'An initial investigation indicates the camera has stopped functioning, and the input power feed to its Side B electronics package has failed.'
Re:What a huge POS (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Just outsource to China (Score:4, Funny)
China (Score:1, Insightful)
Funny? (Score:2)
China have a demonstrated ability to kill a satellite. Why not use this to get Hubble, or for that matter, any other satellite down?
NASA have proven their inability to produce the right transport for many jobs. The shuttle is woefully old, unreliable, expensive and inappropriate for many of the tasks it is used for. Likely much of the reason is that NASA is not a scienfici or engineering body, it is by its own name an **administration**. Rather than try do everything
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Eh? In case you're actually serious about this, (a) The US demonstrated ASAT capability over 20 years ago, and (b) ASAT capability is completely irrelevant, as such attacks don't deorbit the satellite, but result in tens of thousands of pieces [centerforspace.com] of debris that are dangerous to other satellites.
In any case, casting aspersions on NASA's ability based on Hubble is ridiculous, as
Re:Funny? (Score:4, Interesting)
I am still miffed after reading another story elsewhere about what we pay football coaches versus what we pay the president of the college.
We'll get what we pay for. Maybe the average American feels tougher football games are more important to our society than scientific research.
Most do not want to take the time to study science... but in the end, its the laws of nature ( applied science ) that will determine the temperature of my house, the operation of my car, and whether or not I eat. In short, my whole life is determined by my and other's knowledge of applying science.
Maybe pretty pictures of the stars isn't deemed particulary useful. The pictures are only the frosting. The important thing to me is gaining more and more understanding of materials and physics governing them. Technologies developed are useful for many things, especially medical and agricultural.
I feel that as an intelligent species, it behooves us to understand the universe around us and our place in it. By observing phenomena happening somewhere else, it will help us to intelligently react if it happens to us.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:What a huge POS (Score:5, Interesting)
That would be a good thing for Nasa to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I have yet to see a defini
Re: (Score:2)
I have yet to see a definitive answer on why they won't retrieve HST, but I do think it's difficult to rule the above out. (Of course, it seems more likely that it's just a mattter of logistics.)
The bottom line is that they're not going to send up a half-billion-dollar shuttle mission and risk astronauts' lives just to bring HST back (and that's all it would or could do). They had a hard enough time justifying the upcoming servicing mission.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
The datastream comes down from the sats, into dishes, and then goes to various datacenters through their network.
Would it be that difficult to have a live stream for all the projects just like they have for SOHO and the like? It wouldn't JUST be for the nutters either - having the raw data available would allow universities, and other private entities to examine the data as well. The post-processed images are nice, but it would be nice to see the original information right of
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Tell me there aren't incredibly illegal and unethical things done every day by otherwise good people under the guise of national security and the public good.
This certainly isn't the case here...they wouldn't need to shut down the telescope to obfuscate the truth of some global stability shattering images...but the possibility remains. I don't really see the point of having images paid for by the US government being subject to
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me address this: space-based astronomy is incredibly competitive. We put a lot of effort into proposals, and student PhD projects take time. A proprietary period just gives the successful proposer a head start on the analysis of their data. If they can publish it in that time, well an