NASA Revives Ailing Hubble Space Telescope With Switch To Backup Computer (space.com) 60
The Hubble Space Telescope has powered on once again. NASA was able to successfully switch to a backup computer on the observatory on Friday following weeks of computer problems. From a report: On June 13, Hubble shut down after a payload computer from the 1980s that handles the telescope's science instruments suffered a glitch. Now, over a month since Hubble ran into issues, which the Hubble team thinks were caused by the spacecraft's Power Control Unit (PCU), NASA switched to backup hardware and was able to switch the scope back on. With Hubble back online with this backup hardware, the Hubble team is keeping a close watch to make sure that everything works correctly, according to a statement from NASA.
Did they turn it off and back on again? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
The next plan I suppose was to send a drone to beat on it with a wrench. Then spraying some WD-40 into it.
I hear that, for the moon landings, the final step if all else had failed was "Kick with lunar boot."
Reasoning being: You're on the frigging moon. You need it to get home and nobody's coming to rescue you. You've done everything we can think of and it still doesn't work. If you do nothing further, you're dead anyway. So give it a kick. Probably smashes it, but then you're no worse off. MAYBE make
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine it working well with stuff that got stuck with lunar dust.
It is very abrasive and rough, so i wouln't be surprised if it made mechanical parts etc get stuck.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Gentlemen, you are truly accomplished engineers. (Score:5, Insightful)
Please accept the gratitude of the of the world, be they astronomy experts, aficionados, or the aesthetically inclined.
Bravo!
Re: (Score:2)
I agree - well done.
And not just 'gentlemen'.
There were probably females involved too.
From here it seems simple to switch to the alternate Power Control Unit
but my guess is that it was a bit more involved than, for example:
dd bs=1 count=1 if=/dev/zero of=/dev/PCU1
dd bs=1 count=1 if=/dev/one of=/dev/PCU2
--
I was a perfectionist; now I am much better - I can compromise.
Just think (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just think (Score:4)
We have done that in the past. We probably could do it in the future... However I think applying a software patch is more cost effective. Also probably just creating a new Telescope and put it into orbit may be cheaper and get better outcome than doing that maneuver again.
Re:Just think (Score:4)
I think applying a software patch is more cost effective
The problem was caused by a failed PCU, which is a hardware problem which can't be fixed with a software patch. They have completely switched over to backup systems which means if any of those fail, then Hubble is dead in space and we can't go up and replace the primary PCU because the government thought that best thing to do was decommission all the shuttles before we had any kind of replacement.
probably just creating a new Telescope and put it into orbit may be cheaper
The Hubble cost a total of $1.5 billion. It's replacement is the James Web Space Telescope. It is rapidly nearing $10 billion and it isn't scheduled to launch until October because it is 7 years behind schedule.
Re:Just think (Score:5, Informative)
The Hubble cost a total of $1.5 billion. It's replacement is the James Web Space Telescope. It is rapidly nearing $10 billion and it isn't scheduled to launch until October because it is 7 years behind schedule.
And... Webb isn't a direct replacement for Hubble's capabilities. From Webb vs Hubble Telescope [nasa.gov]
[TL;DR: Hubble primarily optical & ultraviolet w/a little infrared. Webb primarily infrared.]
Webb often gets called the replacement for Hubble, but we prefer to call it a successor. ... In particular, more distant objects are more highly redshifted, and their light is pushed from the UV and optical into the near-infrared. Thus observations of these distant objects (like the first galaxies formed in the Universe, for example) requires an infrared telescope.
This is the other reason that Webb is not a replacement for Hubble; its capabilities are not identical. Webb will primarily look at the Universe in the infrared, while Hubble studies it primarily at optical and ultraviolet wavelengths (though it has some infrared capability).
Re: (Score:2)
And because Congresscritters are much more competent designers of spacecraft and scientific instruments than engineers if Webb fails to open perfectly it will have to be abandoned since nothing could reach it.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing American can reach it. If there is another space agency that hasn't at least scoped a way to reach it, connect to it, carry out some sort of repair, then release it, then I'd be very surprised. The pay-off in PR would be huge, and as an exercise for spacecraft design and construction engineering teams it has a value in itself.
My bet : three months after NASA give up on it (if that happens), it'll be fixed by the Chinese.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe there's any reason the SpaceX Crew Dragon couldn't reach it. Hubble's inclination is close to the latitude of Boca Chica, and it's not *that* much higher than the ISS. The problem is what you'd do when you got there, as Crew Dragon doesn't have an EVA capability. Lots of things: no airlock and avionics and other internal equipment that's not certified--and maybe not capable--of operating in a vacuum, plus a hatch that is too small to fit through while wearing a spacesuit. There would nee
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX is probably waiting for Starship to achieve any EVA capability. Starship is definitely big enough to install a airlock module permanently, else they can't bid for using it as moon lander.
The HST repair draft you linked is a robotic arm mission, which looks interesting even if it is outdated.
Re: (Score:2)
GP was talking about a Webb repair mission though, not Hubble.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm, I've met people who would complete SCUBA dives a kilometre from an air surface where they have to de-kit down to their dry-suit - a rather space-suit like device - in order to get through an underwater "squeeze", then re-don their air systems, navigation equipment, lighting rig, etc underwater, in order to c
Re: (Score:2)
The government had nothing to do with it. The Shuttle's structural components were designed with only a 20 year service life. That is, when the engineers were designing it, they were told "assume nothing will be used longer than 20 years.". They extended that service life to 25 years (at tremendous cost) by going over all the engineering specifications and designs, to locate any comp
Re: (Score:1)
For a computer that function normally for decades before fail, usually it is hardware issue of the power supply (as in this case). One need physical onsite replacement to fix that. No "software patch" over the air can circumvent that.
I also don't think "creating a new telescope" is as cheap as you think. Our electronic devices improve a lot over the last half century, but perfect telescope mirror manufacture is still the same hard work, especially when it is big.
Re: (Score:3)
NASA already has two Hubble-class telescopes, cast-offs from the almost-unknown spy agency the National Reconnaissance Office. The NRO had been awash in so much money that they had two of them sitting in a nitrogen-filled warehouse for a decade as spares for a classified number of others on orbit. Since having them dumped in their lap as surplus when the NRO upgraded their systems NASA has had to go begging for drips and drabs of funds to refurbish them. Nine years later they're still on the ground, not
Re: (Score:2)
One thing I've wondered... if NRO had satellites already in orbit that became obsolete, why couldn't they update their attitude & software to simply point them in the OTHER direction (away from earth) and farm them out to augment Hubble?
Even if they weren't AS CAPABLE as Hubble, I'm sure there are hundreds of grad students at universities like Stanford and UCLA who'd KILL to get program time on a Hubble-like satellite. Also, if there were several such satellites in orbit, they could possibly be combined
Re: (Score:2)
I know nothing about the existing satellites, but at a guess: they're designed to point at Earth and take a very short exposure (because the Earth in daylight is a very bright target) from something that's moving fast relative to the target (5 miles per second). So their CCDs (or whatever is used) probably emphasize resolution, and could care less about speed, much less long exposures. Whereas astronomical objects are usually very dim, and the orbital motion of the telescope can be neglected at that dista
Re: Just think (Score:2)
You're probably right about the brightness & exposure, though I suspect exposure is something that can be compensated-for via software. If the longest exposure an old NRO satellite could do is something like 1/8 second & they wanted to expose the CCD for 10, they could conceivably alter the firmware to let them NOT wipe the CCT between exposures, and simply do 80 exposures one after another. Not QUITE as good since it might then take 2-4 times as long to complete the exposure from start to finish, b
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately, Hubble contains a backup PCU (Power Control Unit), which they switched to via remote commands.
I imagine you're right about the costs of precision optics. I'm also thinking launch costs. However, if building a second Hubble were much less costly than the non-recurring costs to develop the telescope in the first place, it would seem to be worth doing.
Re: (Score:1)
But that shuttle was expensive as hell to operate and fly. It may be cheaper to launch new Hubbles when one breaks.
Isn't that what DoD does? (Score:4, Interesting)
Isn't a KH (Keyhole) satellite a Hubble telescope point downward instead of upward?
Yeah, yeah, it is probably a little bit more complicated than that and there is a lot "they" won't tell you, but "the word on the Internet" is the the Hubble was a "spinoff" of spysat tech?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes Hubble is basically a Keyhole-series spy satellite with slightly different guts and pointed in the other direction, see also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Shit, now we'll have to kill you. Lotta paper work.
Re: (Score:3)
Do we even need to? In 2011, the NRO gifted NASA two KH-11 Keyhole spy satellites, which are extremely similar to the Hubble (even roughly the same size/shape/appearance) though are said to be a bit better. They would have the spacecraft themselves and the optics, but not the instruments. As far as I know, they were sitting in storage in 2012, but NASA didn't have the budget to outfit and launch them. If they're still in storage, the Falcon Heavy is more than capable of the mass lift required, and the Phase
Re: (Score:2)
Radically different optical properties. The who satellites/mirrors provided to NASA would be suitable for widefield astronomy, rather than the deep dive/long focal length of the mirror on Hubble. It's sort of like comparing the diameter of a soda straw to that of a dinner plate.
Re: (Score:2)
Do we even need to? In 2011, the NRO gifted NASA two KH-11 Keyhole spy satellites,
Nope. They have the mirrors and the body, but don't have detectors, star trackers, prism wheels, filters and the other components required for an operational space telescope. https://www.planetary.org/arti... [planetary.org]
which are extremely similar to the Hubble (even roughly the same size/shape/appearance)
Nope. Hubble has a focal length of 57.6 meters, giving it a focal ratio of f/24. The NRO 'scopes have focal lengths of 19.2 meters, giving them focal ratios of f/8.
Much wider field of view, and correspondingly, lower magnification.
...As far as I know, they were sitting in storage in 2012, but NASA didn't have the budget to outfit and launch them. If they're still in storage,
One of them was used on the WFIRST telescope (now renamed the Nancy Gr [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Hubble has a focal length of 57.6 meters, giving it a focal ratio of f/24. The NRO 'scopes have focal lengths of 19.2 meters, giving them focal ratios of f/8.
There is also a second mirror ground and polished for Hubble that was a backup. https://airandspace.si.edu/col... [si.edu] . The main difference is that apparently the backup was ground, polished and figured correctly. It's odd that the decision was made that it was worth more on display than actually used.
Also interesting - I've made my own mirrors as a hobby over the years. My home made Foucault tester would easily have found the figuring defect in the primary mirror that went to space.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, remember that aging boondoggle which people called the Space Transportation System, usually shortening to the "Shuttle Program." Turns out that while it was considered an over priced heap of explosives that wasn't much good for anything and barely lived up to any of its once lofted goals such as 100 flights per orbiter and reducing the costs for space flight.
Turns out that part of launching satellites and repairing satellites in orbit turned out to be a slightly under valued aspect of the program. G
Re: (Score:2)
but probably cheaper than the original cost of the Hubble Space Telescope.
It should be compared with the cost to build and launch a replacement telescope, yes? It does not matter how much "the original" had cost.
Re: (Score:2)
NASA has proposed a repair and refueling robot for use on orbit every couple of years since the 1970s, and Congress in its infinite wisdom has never felt that such a thing was worth spending taxpayer money on. I supposed that funding could be better put to use maintaining the statues of Civil War traitors and inventing new and ever more expensive ways to kill people.
Re: (Score:2)
Happy and sad (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Advancing the state of the art in multiple areas takes time.
Webb is not a replacement (Score:4, Informative)
The Webb telescope will be great, and it will do a lot of things that Hubble never could do, but it's not a replacement. It's looking in IR, while Hubble is mainly visible light. Both are useful. There will be more for Hubble to do for as long as we can keep it going.
Re: (Score:1)
Imagine objecta far away being viewed thru both the Hubble and Webb telescopes at the same time.
We can get info from different wavelengths at same time.
Assuming both are running at the same time and Hubble survives till then.
Re: (Score:1)
Webb is perhaps overly complicated. A lot of mechanical shit has to work properly for the scope to be functional. Perhaps they should have just launched an improved Hubble; build on what's proven.
Re: (Score:2)
So much of JWST complexity comes from the origami maneuvers it has to perform in order to cram itself into an Arianne 5 fairing. As far as I can tell the primary mirrors and imaging systems have been finished for some time and there have been integration concerns with the unfolding procedures (I recall reading they were having major issues with the cable systems that are supposed to unfurl the thermal shielding) combines with general Northrop/Defense contractor inefficiencies.
It was a project started desig
Re: (Score:3)
The biggest thing was perfecting actuators that will remain usable at cryogenic temperatures. The whole point is that the primary optical system will cool down to deep cryo temperatures to allow it to look into the infrared, but they still need to be able to adjust the mirror while it's cold. It really is pushing the limits of materials science.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah that as well, so many moving parts. The whole thing is a perfect storm of cutting edge never before done tech and government contractor boondoggle. If it all goes to plan though the data we get will make that 10 billion price tag seem rather modest.
Your sad devotion to that ancient tech (Score:2)
won't keep the Hubble in operation nor get the Webb telescope launched.
(applies telekinetic choke hold)
"I find your lack of faith . . . disturbing."
Webb telescope drawbacks (Score:2, Troll)
Let's just check the wiki.
Re: (Score:2)
It honestly won't surprise me, or probably anyone, if Hubble outlives JWST.
Maybe I'm fantasizing, but I hope that when the day comes that Hubble finally quits working, Elon will call his contacts at NASA & tell them, "Hey, our engineers already came up with a 2-part rescue mission that we can have ready to go in a few months. Part 1 launches a robot to grab Hubble and drag it up to a higher storage orbit for a couple of years. Part 2 will involve launching a repair robot a few years later, bringing Hubb
Re: (Score:3)
Your ignorance is showing with that statement. You don't have the faintest clue about rad hardened silicon or the demands of space on electronics. Sure throw a $25 Raspberry Pi up there and see how long it lasts.
Re: (Score:2)
Your ignorance is showing with that statement. You don't have the faintest clue about rad hardened silicon or the demands of space on electronics. Sure throw a $25 Raspberry Pi up there and see how long it lasts.
Completely missing my point. It is sad the US has been unable to send up a successor by now in no way takes away HST longevity achievement. next time read a bit slower before venting your displaced anger.
Re: (Score:2)
next time read a bit slower before venting your displaced anger.
It's really odd to request that your interlocutor read what you write more carefully and still proceed to vent their displaced (misplaced?) anger at you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have an odd sense of humor. I realized that what you wrote could be (mis)interpreted that way.
next time read a bit slower before venting your displaced anger.
Read "before" in the sense of "a precedes b", so they read a bit slower then vent their misplaced anger.
Re: (Score:2)
Glad they got this ancient hardware working and it is sad we still have to rely upon on this ancient hardware. It is pathetic how long the Webb telescope is taking to develop.
Did you know that they still use the 100 inch Hooker Telescope and the 200 inch Palomar? The Hooker was placed in service in 1918, 103 years is a pretty long working life. https://web.archive.org/web/20... [archive.org]
The Palomar 200 inch is a relative newbie, having first light in 1939, but it's still doing work https://www.tripadvisor.com/At... [tripadvisor.com] .
The Hubble is just a baby compared to those bad boys.
The Webb is the black hole of telescopes. Any money that gets near it is sucked into an other dimension.
Re: (Score:2)
I read somewhere that the Yerkes 40 inch refractor, built in 1897, was still used up into the decade of 2010--to study the motion of stars in globular clusters. Something about using the exact same optics to measure tiny (at that distance) movements, using archival plates and (IIRC) new plates.
Re: (Score:2)
I read somewhere that the Yerkes 40 inch refractor, built in 1897, was still used up into the decade of 2010--to study the motion of stars in globular clusters. Something about using the exact same optics to measure tiny (at that distance) movements, using archival plates and (IIRC) new plates.
That scope is a real beauty too. It presses the mechanical limits of refractor scopes and the tubes that hold the objective lens.
Did they... (Score:2)
try turning it off and on again?
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose following the news, and seeing that was the first thing they did, weeks ago, is too hard for you.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose rolling with the joke was too hard for you.
John Deere (Score:3)
One thing for damn sure, the Hubble Space Telescope was not built by John Deere. (Thanks to their DRM, only John Deere can repair John Deere tractors.)
Re: (Score:2)