Helium Depleted, Herschel Space Telescope Mission Ends 204
AmiMoJo writes "The billion-euro Herschel observatory has run out of the liquid helium needed to keep its instruments and detectors at their ultra-low functioning temperature. This equipment has now warmed, meaning the telescope cannot see the sky. Its 3.5m mirror and three state-of-the-art instruments made it the most powerful observatory of its kind ever put in space, but astronomers always knew the helium store onboard would be a time-limiting factor."
Reader etash points to a collection of some infrared imagery that Herschel collected.
Orbital pickup truck (Score:5, Interesting)
If only we had a plan for recurring orbital missions... A "space pickup" that would launch on a regular basis to make pit stops for things like extra helium.
To think how many multi-decade projects like this will "rot on the vine".
Re:Orbital pickup truck (Score:5, Informative)
It'd have to be more than orbital. Herschel is out at Earth-Sun L2. That's not exactly a short trek.
Re:Orbital pickup truck (Score:5, Informative)
A pickup truck that can get to L2 and back. Whatever you're thinking of, it isn't the shuttle.
Re:Orbital pickup truck (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, Bruce Willis and James Bond taught me that the Space Shuttle can go anywhere!
Re: (Score:2)
In "Footfall" they strap the whole fleet of shuttles to a single nuclear rocket and use them as fighters against alien invaders.
Re: (Score:2)
If I remember correctly, it’s 100s of nuclear bombs under a battleship. Space Shuttles are then strapped on like fighter jets. (A single nuclear bomb might have enough force to send a space shuttle to orbit, but I am not sure if a space shuttle has sufficient structural integrity to survive. You want a lot of mass for a ship like this. )
A bit off topic, but have we had the Freeman Dyson interview yet – the guy who came up with this idea?
Re: (Score:3)
Look up Project Orion. It turns out that making that kind of shock absorber is actually quite technically feasible. Somewhat ironically, riding to orbit on a stream of nuclear fireballs is a lot simpler than how we're doing it now. One big advantage is that you are no longer mass-limited and so you don't need to make as many compromises to the system design to keep things light.
Since then, Mr. Dyson no longer thinks it's a good idea to explode a a bunch of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere.
Re: (Score:3)
more of a sailing vessel with a significant hold.
We will also need an orbital platform capable of storing the materials.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, what about Buck Roger's Deep Space Shuttle?. We were supposed to launch that in 1999... Like 20 years after the ones we just retired.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
.
Re:Orbital pickup truck (Score:5, Informative)
If only we had a plan for recurring orbital missions... A "space pickup" that would launch on a regular basis to make pit stops for things like extra helium.
To think how many multi-decade projects like this will "rot on the vine".
The Herschel Space Observatory is 1,500,000 km away at a Lagrangian point. Servicing missions of any kind are out of the question.
Re:Orbital pickup truck (Score:5, Insightful)
The Earth-Sun L2 point is out of reach with the old Space Shuttle, but the original point is a good one. It is too bad that we do not have the capability to repair and restock the consumables on spacecraft in the inner Solar System. It has been nearly 45 years since we first went to the Moon. We should be able to move around in our band of the Solar System by now.
Re:Orbital pickup truck (Score:5, Interesting)
It has been nearly 45 years since we first went to the Moon.
We only went there because of a super stretch effort that went to the limits of our technology and budgets. It was an anomaly in the progression of space exploration, and the extreme effort involved probably even set us back by a couple of decades. We are currently on a more normal progression of space exploration, with the possible exception that we (the western world, as opposed to the Chinese) may bypass the moon this time around because we've already been there and it's not really very interesting.
Actually, I'm surprised that we've sent hardly any robotic missions to the moon in the past 45 years. There's a lot less need for humans when communication delays are only a few seconds, and maybe we could find out something interesting enough to want to go back there.
Re: (Score:2)
Just send a super model. Hundreds of thousands of men will start searching for ways to get there.
Better yet - get Avon to hint to the world that moon dust is the new wonder ingredient in the fight against aging. Instead of the men, millions of women will be racing to the moon!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That reminds me of a story -
Some woman had joint pains. Someone told her that WD-40 would help to ease the joint pains. Instead of asking "how much", or doing any research, the woman supposedly BATHED in a tub of WD-40.
I really don't know how true the story is. My wife told it to me, she swears it's true, yada yada yada . . .
Anyway, please, when you get your moon dust cosmetics, follow the guidelines that Avon and Maybelline publish and distribure with every 3 gram bottle they sell.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/household/wd-40.asp [snopes.com]
They reviewed the list with the company.. arithritis is not on the list as far as I can see.
Re: (Score:2)
Some woman had joint pains. Someone told her that WD-40 would help to ease the joint pains. Instead of asking "how much", or doing any research, the woman supposedly BATHED in a tub of WD-40.
I really don't know how true the story is. My wife told it to me, she swears it's true, yada yada yada . . .
Considering that WD-40 comes in a spray can, I can pretty much guarantee that never happened. At least not in the "filled up a bath tub and jumped in". Sprayed herself all over instead of taking a shower maybe.
Not to confirm the grandparent post's legend, but WD-40 is also available in handy gallon jugs: http://wd40.com/products/one-gallon/ [wd40.com]
Supposedly they offer 55 gallon drums of it too.
Re: (Score:2)
"the extreme effort involved probably even set us back by a couple of decades" -- I've heard that more than a few times. While it sounds plausible, it often seems to come from either the (dwindling few) old timers who thought we could go to space via the X-15 and later spaceplanes (seems unlikely in retrospect), or from NASA apologists trying to excuse the stagnation there since the ISS and STS ate up the budget for real exploration -- not to assign you (parent poster) to either class. In any case the ST
Re:Orbital pickup truck (Score:4, Insightful)
no it bloody didn't... what ate up the budget for anything is the monstrous amount being spent on fancy weapons and research into killing people more efficiently...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It was not really an anomaly, it has happened time and time again.
Columbus might have 'found' the Americas for Europe, but people had voyaged there by ship many years prior. There was quite a large gap between when knowledge of the Americas and the ability to get there and back was established and when full exploration and settlement/trade happened.
The same thing also happened with Euro-China trade, with Rome and the northern areas of Europe and the British/Irish isles.
Same with ocean floor exploration, Ant
Re: (Score:2)
Normal? Relative to what standard?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Orbital pickup truck (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, despite decades of wishful thinking, the laws of physics haven't changed much in the decades since we went to the moon.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We pissed away more than two decades with that stupid ass "space plane" thing. It's like America said, "Well, we were the first on the moon - we'll never beat that, so we'll just give up now. Oh - launch that space plane thingy occasionally, to give lip service to exploration and research."
Re:Orbital pickup truck (Score:5, Interesting)
I have to disagree. Just last night I was marveling at how we have rovers cruising around mars, orbiters and probes strewn all over the place, and how the technology is now at hand to create "tugboats" for asteroids. Maybe manned missions have been disappointing, but robotic missions are amazing too.
Re: (Score:3)
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html [nasa.gov]
Re:Orbital pickup truck (Score:5, Funny)
So in the Middle Ages we killed ourselves with middles?
Re: (Score:2)
So, are you saying that ICBMs aren't used to kill people?
Re: (Score:3)
Robots? I'm sure the limiting factor is that no one considered sending unmanned missions with supplies. Surely something akin to refueling USAF planes in flight could have been considered and a giant "put it here" port could have been exposed for injecting more Helium as needed.
To be fair, unmanned drones weren't as good as they are now when the telescope was launched, so it probably seemed much more impossible than I think it might seem today.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Any robot that could go out that far is going to have to be pretty sophisticated - to the point that its probably cheaper to just build and launch another telescope (and then we get to benefit by replacing it with a better one).
Re: (Score:2)
Even today that would be incredibly difficult. It would have to be nearly (if not totally) autonomous because of the communications delay.
Re: (Score:2)
A robot tanker resupply is rather different from the kind of EVA service performed on the HST.
Re: (Score:3)
If only we had a plan for recurring orbital missions... A "space pickup" that would launch on a regular basis to make pit stops for things like extra helium.
To think how many multi-decade projects like this will "rot on the vine".
I'm going to assume due diligence was done and that with it being so far away, a refillable port and a small, single-use robotic craft to accomplish that would be more expensive than just creating a newer satellite to replace it.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad the last space pickup we had was a dangerous rusty heap of crap.
Re:Orbital pickup truck (Score:5, Funny)
space shuttle does not fly to Lagrange points
Rumour spreadin' a-'round in that Texas town
'bout that shack outside La Grange
And you know what I'm talkin' about.
Just let me know if you wanna go
To that home out on the range.
They gotta lotta nice girls ah.
Have mercy.
A pow, pow, pow, pow, a pow.
A pow, pow, pow.
- ZZ Top...
Re: (Score:2)
Call Japan and PSY! Gundams fly to Lagrange points! JarJar is already there in style!
Seriously, if we want to explore just the solar system, we need to start building tools in space. The Moon was an obvious choice, more because we need a place to PRACTICE stuff and the Moon is nearby. We WASTED thirty years on the Shuttle because we let the project die on the vine back in the 1980's and never progressed. We should have had Orion or whatever was next a DECADE ago. And just kept improving craft to go "a litt
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're frustrated with is the fact that politics constantly plays havoc in a government agency? That's why we have no long term planning in the government outside of the military. With every new NASA administrator and the Executive Branch there are new priorities for the organization. It's sad but true, yes having worked in that field for a time I can tell you that it's full of graft, politics and lots of pent up stupid management who can't see beyond this years' budget.
Anyway, as long as our gove
Re: (Score:3)
You could launch an ion-drive craft from the ISS which would take a long slow orbit to the telescope, refill the liquid helium, then orbit back to the ISS for resupply.
Re: (Score:2)
It returns for more helium? As for those humans - just tell them to get the docking procedure right the first time. I mean, you don't have to hand off the final approach to a computer, do you?
Re: (Score:2)
Ion drives aren't very useful for start-stop type operations, they work best as a continuous thrust drive where you don't ever plan on slowing down.
So you accelerate half-way there, turn around, and accelerate in the opposite direction for the remaining half. The engine never needs to shut down and bam! you're parked right where you need to be.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so you fit reaction drives as well for the stop/start.
You know, you can even use RCS thrusters for that, in a pinch.
Re:Orbital pickup truck (Score:5, Informative)
Why not have the cooling system in a closed loop and use solar power to chill the helium back down - keeping the satellite dormant until it could operate again? It seems like a waste of $billions to not think of such a system. Even if it could only operate 10% of the time, it could provide decades of additional science.
If you read one of the linked articles it explains that they did think of this but at the time it was too risky so went for a simpler solution with a known maximum operational life. A new telescope is being designed that will incorporate mechanical cooling and be able to operate for longer.
"You were made as well as we could make you."
"But not to last."
"The light that burns twice as bright burns for half as long - and you have burned so very, very brightly"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, but just remember, then he crushed his head. :)
Re: (Score:3)
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe....All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die."
Re: (Score:2)
On earth, in your typical home AC unit, the freon or whatever runs in a sealed, continuous loop, with one end of the loop being where heat is absorbed, and the other end being where the heat is expelled. This works because at that other end, a fan is blowing air across the radiator, ensuring a fresh supply of cool air to absorb the heat from the AC unit.
But in space, there is no air. So instead, as I understa
Re: (Score:2)
If you make the radiator hot enough it can dissipate whatever wattage you want ... that said, there might be some practical problems with that.
If cooling the system at peak power consumption isn't an option you might be able to store the gaseous helium for a while in a balloon before cooling. So at the start you just vent like they did now, once the helium almost runs out you go into a low duty cycle operation where you dump expanded helium in the balloon during operation and then slowly recover it ... this
Re: (Score:2)
You'd have to rely on large (read: heavy) radiators and black-body radiation, OR as you state, pass some kind of medium over the radiators to collect the heat, and expel that.
Helium happens to be very light and excellent for the purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you think they would have simply replaced it if it would have been cheaper?
To be cheaper, they would have had to design it for replacement rather than refurbishment, and the shuttle was supposed to be so cheap that doing so would have been a dumb idea. In the real world each refurbishment mission turned out to cost well over a billion dollars, so building new Hubbles on a production line would almost certainly have been cheaper.
See? See? (Score:4, Funny)
I'll bet you feel stupid for filling all those party balloons last week.
Re:See? See? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll bet you feel stupid for filling all those party balloons last week.
Party balloons? "Those are my everyday balloons." -Kramer
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, ballon helium is impure used helium from MRI machines and other uses.
Yes, party ballons are filled with medical/industrial waste.
Have fun inhaling it.
It doesn't look at the sky... (Score:4)
Worked for 4 years. (Score:2, Insightful)
They are in deep space, so they have an infinite sink at nearly zero deg kelvin. It should be possible to design a closed circuit cooling system that just uses energy from solar panels to pump the refrigerant. But in space applications the weight of such a system of compressors, radiators and pumps might prove to be prohibitive. Still feel sad
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Still, might fail, seems better than, will fail. I guess the risk/reward is: "What are the odds of it failing within the first 4 years?"
I would have to think part of the problem is having to insulate electronic components against hard radiation, while at the same time trying to cool them.
You would think the best method would be simply to use a peltier with a big ass heat sink protruding into vacuum. Zero moving parts, no liquid coolants. Then again, ultra low temperature might be hard to hit this way, depen
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Worked for 4 years. (Score:5, Informative)
It's not exactly an efficient sink, is it? Your only option for heat transfer "outside" is infrared radiation, since vacuum does not exactly support conduction/convection.
Re:Worked for 4 years. (Score:5, Informative)
It's not exactly an efficient sink, is it? Your only option for heat transfer "outside" is infrared radiation, since vacuum does not exactly support conduction/convection.
If you really want liquid-He temps, then you can't really radiate heat to lose it. At 1 atm it is almost as cold as the cosmic microwave background, and probably colder than the inner solar system. If they're running below 1atm then it is probably colder than the microwave background itself. This means that your radiator will only serve to warm up the spacecraft, not cool it off.
For an IT analogy - how large a heat sink do you need to cool your PC in an oven? The only way to cool under such conditions is using active technologies, like phase change, or maybe Peltier. Since you're fighting entropy, this will ultimately require some source of energy, which will always be depleted eventually in a closed system.
Re:Worked for 4 years. (Score:4, Insightful)
Do we have any thermal dynamic geeks here with something a bit more insightful?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Worked for 4 years. (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks, I did not realize things are different in space. So how would one design an active cooling system to dissipate heat in space?
I am not a rocket scientist; but my understanding is that the space-equivalent of a 'heatsink' is a fin, with a surface that approximates a black body as closely as engineering constraints allow, aligned so that as much surface area as possible(the flat faces) receives as little incoming light as possible, with as little as possible exposed to the sun(so, in practice, the alignment is pretty much the opposite of a solar panel, where you want as much surface area getting sunlight as you can and as little being wasted by facing into deep space as you can). Depending on the orbit, and whether your thermal load is constant or can accept variations, this may or may not require the fins to move.
If you need active cooling(as you probably would here, since ultrasensitive IR hardware generates some heat on its own and works less well for every additional kelvin) you use a heat pump of some sort, just as on earth; but your 'sink' is thermal radiation from the fins, rather than conduction from the fins into the atmosphere or coolant water.
The real problem(in addition to the fact that solid-state heat pumps are miserably inefficient, and ones with moving parts have mechanical levels of reliability in an area where you can't just schedule a tech visit), is that thermal radiation alone is miserable compared to conduction/convection into air, which is weak compared to conduction into forced air.
If you have a large enough payload budget, it isn't necessarily insurmountable, all it takes is more surface area radiating heat; but the engineering challenges of having a cryogenic heat pump capable of keeping the instruments at liquid helium temperatures and enough fin surface area to dump the waste heat from both the instruments and the heat pump's own inefficiencies are significant.
Liquid helium isn't cheap, and relying on a consumable cuts mission lifespan; but "just let the helium boil off where you need things to be colder" simplifies the engineering considerably.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Well, put, but one other major killer ... There are no "good" ways to get rid of vibrations on a spacecraft. There's no atmospheric drag (see the mythbusters on the flag on the moon). You basically have to have a damper attached to a mass that kind of sort of slowly adsorbs the energy, re-radiating it as heat. However, most materials are very linear in compression and tension at their minimum range, so it just doesn't work well. Bad enough trying to point a terestrial comms satellite. Absolutely mission kil
Re: (Score:2)
I hadn't thought of that; but that would make most, if not all, mechanical refrigeration options a bit problematic... And I suspect that the guys over in 'Elastomeric Polymers' just give you nasty looks when you say things like "Do you have anything that works at ~cosmic background temperature, and doesn't outgas in hard vacuum?"
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, I did not realize things are different in space. So how would one design an active cooling system to dissipate heat in space?
Well, if you have a big ol' tank of liquid helium, you could slowly boil that off...
Re:Worked for 4 years. (Score:4, Informative)
You're limited to radiation, and the cosmic background temp, but that's the only limit. Although inefficient, peltier coolers can be used - the advantage is there is no fluid. Heat pipes are the most common form of heat transport, allowing the evaporation of a liquid in a sealed tube to migrate to the radiator end.
One challenge is the temperatures you're trying to work with. Remember that the temperature of the universe isn't actually 0K, but more like 3K. Liquid helium needs to be 4K or less. That's a slim margin, and at those temps the heat transfer rate is very, very low.
I clicked on the story because I was an engineer involved in the Superfluid Helium On Orbit Transfer (http://istd.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo/SHOOT/shoot.html) research project back in the early 90s. If you get Helium just above absolute zero, it loses it's viscosity (like a superconductor loses it's resistance). That makes it far easier to transfer the fluid from a storage container/refueling dewar to a spacecraft in service.
I actually like radiative heat transfer - it's very straight forward, much like conduction. Convection problems make me cry.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, strangely the inverse is true.
In space, there are very few particles, which means that heat transfer is almost non-existant when away from the atmosphere. This causes a problem in that if you generate any heat, it dissipates extremely slowly, which was why the Helium was important. If this piece of equipment was in the sun, it would have been even worse.
Re:Worked for 4 years. (Score:5, Informative)
They are in deep space, so they have an infinite sink at nearly zero deg kelvin.
What exactly could it 'sink' that heat into? While we consider space to be 'cold' the reality is that it is less 'cold' and more 'generally won't make things warm.'
The vacuum is both a benefit and a problem. When you want to keep things a certain temperature, the vacuum is great as you don't have to sorry about convection/conduction altering the temperature. But when you want to cool things off, that vacuum is a problem because you can't use convection/conduction to remove that heat from your system. You can certainly move the heat from one part of your system to another part of your system, but it takes a long time to take that heat OUT of your system.
You would have to move the heat to a massive radiator and wait a long time for it to cool due to radiation. Whatever you are using to move that heat will have to work the entire time, (and may have to be cooled as well!). Even then, the temperatures involved mean that such a process would take a very long time to get as low as they needed to conduct the experiments.
Don't think of space as cold, think of space as very effective insulation.
Re: (Score:2)
What, you mean there's a reason we sometimes use vacuum insulation in our hot/cold thermoses? Scandalous ;).
Re: (Score:3)
The forthcoming ASTRO-H [isas.jaxa.jp] X-ray observatory mission will have a cooling system that will be able to run without coolent. The X-ray microcalorimeter detectors must be cooled down to 50 mK in temperature. ASTRO-H should be launched in 2014.
Re: (Score:3)
"The instrument utilizes a multi-stage cooling system that will maintain the ultra-low temperature of the calorimeter array for more than 3 years in space."
Re: (Score:2)
The minimum design lifetime isn't the actual lifetime of the mission. I believe there is enough helium for three years, but the multistage cooler is designed to be able to run in the event of coolant loss. ASTRO-H replaces ASTRO-E2 which suffered a catastrophic coolant loss. There are more details here [harvard.edu], but it's behind a paywall.
Re:Worked for 4 years. (Score:5, Informative)
They knew at some point helium will be gone and the telescope will become useless. It ran for four years more or less. Not as bad as the summary made it sound like.
They are in deep space, so they have an infinite sink at nearly zero deg kelvin. It should be possible to design a closed circuit cooling system that just uses energy from solar panels to pump the refrigerant. But in space applications the weight of such a system of compressors, radiators and pumps might prove to be prohibitive.
Still feel sad such a fine piece of machinery is rotting away. Well, may be a better design next time.
No, they have near perfect insulation. The only heat they can get rid of has to happen by radiating it away.
Go step outside.
Notice how warm it is in the sun?
There's no way you can radiate much heat if you're in direct sunlight -- that's why the space shuttle flew upside down in orbit. It kept the heat shield towards the sun, so it had a chance to radiate heat away from the other side.
"So, put a big sun shade and block the sun", you might say... well that's easier said than done, the solar wind would apply a lot of pressure to it, and (for that matter) the solar wind itself is well above the operating temperature of the telescope.
But by all means, I'm sure you're smarter than the experts to designed it.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no way you can radiate much heat if you're in direct sunlight -- that's why the space shuttle flew upside down in orbit. It kept the heat shield towards the sun, so it had a chance to radiate heat away from the other side.
I doubt that's the main reason why the shuttle flies upside down. The bottom of the shuttle is also black, while the top is white. From a simple light-absorption-radiation point of view, this configuration would lead to heating of the shuttle as a whole. The heat shield is designed to shield from heat conduction due to superheated compressed air in contact with the shuttle during reentry. Shielding from radiative heating makes use of reflective surfaces like what satellites are coated in.
It seems the shuttl
Re:Worked for 4 years. (Score:4, Interesting)
I doubt that's the main reason why the shuttle flies upside down. The bottom of the shuttle is also black, while the top is white. From a simple light-absorption-radiation point of view, this configuration would lead to heating of the shuttle as a whole. The heat shield is designed to shield from heat conduction due to superheated compressed air in contact with the shuttle during reentry. Shielding from radiative heating makes use of reflective surfaces like what satellites are coated in.
It seems the shuttle would fly upside down to aid in radio communication with the earth, allow viewing of the earth through the windows (a human concern, but still an important one), and to protect the shuttle from earthbound debris (though I'd think the heat shield is the last thing you'd want to damage before attempting reentry).
Your doubt is misplaced -- that is precisely why it flew that way. The shuttle's radiators were on the inside of the cargo bay doors. The shuttle had a limited time, once on orbit, to get positioned and get the doors open because of the heat build-up.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Some parts of Herschel's detectors had to be chilled to 0.3 K, others to 1.7 K. There's no way to get that low with radiative cooling; indeed, it's below the temperature of the cosmic microwave background. Virtually all known materials except for helium freeze solid at those temperatures; no standard refrigerant can do it.
The only technologies we have that can get that cold are all based on liquid helium, and they inevitably lose trace amounts of it over time. They could have given it a bigger dewar vessel,
Re:Worked for 4 years. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is also the heat sink. Without convection and conduction, you're left with heat radiation, which is pretty damn slow. Worse, any such heat sink would actually pick up more heat due to being in direct sunlight - the existing solar shield on it to protect the instruments was at 400k! Would depend on the design, but I imagine it would be tricky to even break even against solar heating - that's a lot of energy headed your way all the time (and solar panels only convert a small part of it). So if you
Condensers in vacuum would just create heat (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They are in deep space, so they have an infinite sink at nearly zero deg kelvin.
The word "nearly" isn't nearly good enough for this kind of application. If you want a mirror to operate at 1K, then you need to radiate heat to something colder than 1K if you passively cool it. Your infinite heat sink is considerably warmer than this.
Think about it - you want to take pictures of stuff that is only slightly warmer than deep space. To do so your mirrors have to be much colder than deep space otherwise you'll just get a picture of your mirror. It would be like trying to take a picture out
As you warm, Herschel (Score:3)
Know that you always warmed my heart.
Salvage Rights (Score:5, Interesting)
and get off his lawn (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously; you should approach them on this.
Re: (Score:2)
WIki says that there are no plans for the Robonaut 2 prototype already on ISS to be returned to Earth.
Nonsense! Robonaut 2 will be returned to Earth along with the rest of the station.
Re: (Score:2)
It won't be easy to disassemble it and pull the big mirror out of its guts, and then replace the smaller mirror at the focal point with whatever energy collection device you want to use. I'd say you'd need a robot that's as dextrous as a human before attempting this. And then you would have launched that thing to go to the telescope, disassemble the satellite, collect the big mirror and possibly take it to where it's needed, instead of just launching a big mirror...
Re: (Score:2)
Duh? (Score:2)
Bit of a shame no one thought to make this a rechargable system.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They did think about that.
But it's a million and a half kilometres away. A robotic service ship to catch and refill it after four years would cost more than just sending up a second, newer-generation telescope.
Running out of helium? (Score:3)
Been there (Score:2)
Helium Depleted, Herschel Space Telescope Mission Ends
I know that feeling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yup, and JWST incorporates a bunch of the pie in the sky ideas that have been floated in this thread like a giant sunshade and mechanical cryo-coolers.
A bit of irony there. (Score:5, Funny)
I do know how it works and all, but still, I find it kind of ironic that the Herschel Space Telescope is bricked for lack of the second most abundant element in the universe.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The main problem is the vast majority of the universe is empty, and the vast majority of the helium in the universe is millions of degrees hot.
Re: (Score:2)