Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
NASA Science

Challenges Ahead In Final Hubble Servicing Mission 130

Posted by CmdrTaco from the good-luck-up-there-guys dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Challenges Ahead In Final Hubble Servicing Mission More

Challenges Ahead In Final Hubble Servicing Mission

Comments Filter:

  • Uh Oh (Score:5, Funny)

    by MyLongNickName ( 822545 ) on Monday May 11, 2009 @07:53AM (#27905077) Journal

    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)

      by GrifterCC ( 673360 ) on Monday May 11, 2009 @07:55AM (#27905109)
      And steal Hubble's pr0n!

    • Re:Uh Oh (Score:5, Funny)

      by amazeofdeath ( 1102843 ) on Monday May 11, 2009 @07:59AM (#27905141)

      Maybe Hubble's registry has been clogged up, and a fresh OS installation is needed.

    • Re:Uh Oh (Score:5, Funny)

      by mc1138 ( 718275 ) on Monday May 11, 2009 @08:03AM (#27905189) Homepage
      They're actually going to use pirated navigation software... and charge you full price!

    • 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.

    • As a spelling Nazi, it's spelled "Norton AntiVirus" -- http://www.symantec.com/norton/antivirus [symantec.com] ... :P

    • No, it means they're going to fail and give up after an hour, then send the telescope out to someone else and not be able to tell us when it will be back, or whether it will be fixed when it returns.

      • 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."

  • butter fingers (Score:1, Insightful)

    by jaggeh ( 1485669 )
    Lets hope they have a secure hold of their toolbags this time.

  • 17,000 mph sounds like it's fast (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BadAnalogyGuy ( 945258 ) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Monday May 11, 2009 @07:57AM (#27905131)

    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)

      by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) on Monday May 11, 2009 @08:04AM (#27905199) Homepage

      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: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by BadAnalogyGuy ( 945258 )

        Do you not change the radio while driving?

      • Re:17,000 mph sounds like it's fast (Score:4, Insightful)

        by necro81 ( 917438 ) on Monday May 11, 2009 @08:16AM (#27905295) Journal
        Thankfully, it's not like anyone will need to actively "drive" the shuttle while at the same time repairing the Hubble. 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. There's also about a hundred people at mission control that are doing nothing but driving and checking the shuttle, so the astronauts and do their job.

        • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          "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

      • It is more like getting something out of the glove box while driving around. There's no wind out in space...oh and there's no one else on the road so you don't really have to "drive".

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by pjt33 ( 739471 )

        No, he's pointing out that you could repair someone else's car while driving down the road at 85 mph.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rts008 ( 812749 )

        Trivially easy if you can run beside your car at 85mph, Steve Austin.
        Be careful opening the hood/bonnet at those speeds though...

    • 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)

      by Bakkster ( 1529253 ) <.Bakkster.man. .at. .gmail.com.> on Monday May 11, 2009 @08:15AM (#27905289)

      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)

        by CrimsonAvenger ( 580665 ) on Monday May 11, 2009 @09:31AM (#27906369)

        Of course, there could be debris also moving at 17,000mph... in the opposite direction.

        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)

          by icebrain ( 944107 ) on Monday May 11, 2009 @10:57AM (#27908053)

          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.

      • 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 extr

        • 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. Wi

          • 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: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by node159 ( 636992 )

        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 :).

    • 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 (no

      • 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: (Score:2)

          by radtea ( 464814 )

          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

    • 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)

        by camperdave ( 969942 ) on Monday May 11, 2009 @09:06AM (#27905967) Journal

        Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
        And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,
        That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,
        A sun that is the source of all our power.
        The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
        Are moving at a million miles a day
        In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,
        Of the galaxy we call the 'Milky Way'.
        Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.
        It's a hundred thousand light years side to side.
        It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick,
        But out by us, it's just three thousand light years wide.
        We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point.
        We go 'round every two hundred million years,
        And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
        In this amazing and expanding universe.

        • 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: (Score:2)

            by shuz ( 706678 )
            Ah lighten up Mrs. Brown... I like Jim Post's rendition better than Eric Idle's.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sam0737 ( 648914 )

      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)

    • it is the toolbag, nuts, insulation, and even paint coming in the OPPOSITE direction that you think about. Of course, not much to worry about. If it hits you at 34000 mph in the core or helmet, I doubt that you would even know it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Binestar ( 28861 )
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_satellites_in_retrograde_orbit [wikipedia.org]

        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.
        • You are talking about LAUNCHING a sat in retrograde. I am talking about parts coming off other launches, explosions, detonations, etc.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Binestar ( 28861 )
            Going from 17,000MPH around the earth in one direction to 17,000MPH around the earth in the other direction requires that you give a 34,000MPH speed change. Good luck having that happen with a part coming off, an explosion or a detonation. 34,000MPH is in the realm of speeds that are achieved with gravitational slingshots. You don't change your orbit direction with a gravitational slingshot, although I suppose it's possible you could slingshot from around the moon into a reverse orbit around the earth.

          • 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.

  • Foreshadowing (Score:4, Funny)

    by Agent00Wang ( 146185 ) on Monday May 11, 2009 @08:12AM (#27905267) Homepage

    '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)

      by K. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) on Monday May 11, 2009 @08:49AM (#27905729)
      I think you have misread the title. It reads "Challenges Ahead...", not "Challenger Ahead...".

    • '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)

    by twiddlingbits ( 707452 ) on Monday May 11, 2009 @08:18AM (#27905317)
    This is a heck of an undertaking and I wish the crew all the luck in the world. If something doesn't work or doesn't quite fit it will be interesting to see if NASA has planned workarounds or lets the astronauts engineer on the spot solutions. Duct tape, baling wire and chewing gum have been fully supplied on the STS :) It will be nice to see instrument (WFC3 and COS) upgrades I worked on in 2001-02 finally get installed. I'm not too sure about the 10yrs extra life claim, as some of these upgrades have already been around 5 or more yrs in the powered off state and stored in an inert environment and over time electronics degrade regardless. Last time any of the were powered up was Thermal Test in 2004 so I hope they have done a Power On Self Test before they stashed them on board the STS. I have no idea where this 10 more years of service comes from, as NASA's web site for the mission says "warranty good till 2013" maybe longer. Perhaps this is based on the prior performance of items which far exceeded expectations (See we CAN build good stuff in the USA..just not cheap!) Battery technology has come a long way since the last update so the new batteries should have great power to weight ratio. The upgraded detectors should provide better data gathering but the technology isn't cutting edge as the WFC3 is 2K x 4K (8M) pixels in UV and 1K x1K i(1M) in IR. HST does not operate in the visible light range and images you see are colorized from data gathered from several instruments. Still pretty good data gathering capability and maybe the best we get for a long time as NASA is in such disarry right now who knows if JWST will get up by 2013 as planned.
  • 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. Arduous work at best, and they are doing five 6 hour sessions. Amazing, truly. I hope they have Story Musgrave available for commentary, the man is a national hero in my opinion.

    ~kulakovich

    • 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: (Score:2)

      by bit01 ( 644603 )

      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

  • Talk about an excitng job! I want to go also! I will carry the tool box :)

    Seriously. :)

    • 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)

    by Jumperalex ( 185007 ) on Monday May 11, 2009 @08:25AM (#27905379)

    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)

      by mangu ( 126918 ) on Monday May 11, 2009 @08:47AM (#27905693)

      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?

      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: (Score:1)

      by trav242 ( 645556 )
      See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JWST [wikipedia.org]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by LWATCDR ( 28044 )

      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.

      • 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

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by LWATCDR ( 28044 )

          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 wo

    • 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.

    • 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. Non of the other existing spacecrafts can perform this task. There were plans to send a robot, but finally they made a bold decision to send humans and repair/improve the telescope besides just solving the problem of a safe deorbitation. And I am thankful for that, the HST served not only the scientific community, but had a great influence in popularizing

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by pnewhook ( 788591 )

        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)

    by DinZy ( 513280 )

    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)

      by JamesP ( 688957 ) on Monday May 11, 2009 @08:46AM (#27905681)

      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

  • So, you mean they'll copy off all the space-porn to a central repository and do nothing?

  • Attach it to the ISS? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sherriw ( 794536 ) on Monday May 11, 2009 @09:21AM (#27906215)

    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)

      by ogre7299 ( 229737 ) <(ude.hcimu) (ta) (nibotjj)> on Monday May 11, 2009 @09:45AM (#27906687)

      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: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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: (Score:2)

      by LWATCDR ( 28044 )

      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 exhau

    • In addition to everyone else's points, and to elaborate on something in the last response - yes, indeed, there is a giant cloud of stuff in orbit with the ISS, whether it is washers, filings, toolbags, thruster exudate, water vapor, dings of micro meteorites, etc. Not an environment we want to put Hubble in.

      ~kulakovich

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by pnewhook ( 788591 )

      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.

  • But they're big parts: The 'fine guidance sensors' sound delicate but weigh as much as a grand piano back on Earth.

    Could someone help me convert this into something sane, like Volkswagens or Libraries of Congress?

  • 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?

  • T minus 140 minutes (Score:3, Informative)

    by T Murphy ( 1054674 ) on Monday May 11, 2009 @10:41AM (#27907747) Journal
    If you aren't already, follow the mission on the nasa website http://www.nasa.gov/ [nasa.gov]

  • 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!

  • and ten more years of observation from Hubble.

    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]

  • You know, I wanted to comment on this thread, but it's so full of shit already, I can't be bothered. The powers that be have already said that I can choose to not have ads, but that isn't enough anymore. I want them to pay me to participate, as the general state of comments is so bad as to make me walk away silently.

    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 w

  • 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce

Close