Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Hubble Space Telescope Goes Into Safe Mode 113

Posted by Hemos from the breaking-it-all-down dept.
Generic Specialist writes "There is an article on the BBC web-site reporting that the Hubble Space Telescope has finally shut itself down due to the failure of a fourth gyroscope. For some time it has been running on the minimum three out of its six gyroscopes, and on Saturday the failure of another one sent the telesope into its safe mode. We'll have to wait until after the next servicing mission, due next month, before any more science can be done. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hubble Space Telescope Goes Into Safe Mode More

Hubble Space Telescope Goes Into Safe Mode

Comments Filter:
  • ...so whether it ran Linux or Windows NT it'd still be FUBARed.

    It's fun trying though!


  • Where exactlty did they put the "f8" key on the damn thing, anyway?
  • I think you missed the point of the question. They were supposed to have Hubble point at the antiradiant from the meteor shower. If they can't point how are they going to do this. Obviously they have some control with two gyros and rockets but enough for the extended shower? In safe mode I think there solar arrays will be OK but how about the telescope? In my head I think they will have very little control over this and it will only be OK if they are lucky (off course chances of a collision are minimal although you do want to minimize them even more).
  • A recent science news article [sciencenews.org] mentioned that they were hoping to get the shuttle up there to fix it between Dec. 2 and Dec. 14 because they were worried about Y2K problems with the docking software. Apparently they didn't get up there quite fast enough.

    (OT) What's happening with the idea of a next-generation space telescope?
  • All correct I think, I would add however that HST has been given a contract until 2010 (Goldin won't go past that without a doubt)

    NGST will be larger, cheaper and much more capable but it is optimized for infrared. It'll do well with optical too. However what are we going to do about ultriviolet space based missions after HST?
  • In safe mode I think the door should shut. However how much it would stop the radiation from the shower ( I would guess not much, its not optical radiation and such that you are worried about). But your going to have this problem with or wothout the gyros (just a higher cross section possibly). Plus that does nothing about the actual possibility of being hit by a meteor.
  • Chandra was launched into a higher orbit as its much much better for science observations. Having said that, it was only allowed as people realized by then that repair missions are too expensive leaving you no reason to keep it near the earth. Sorry to be such a nitpick.

  • Re:Redundancy failure? (Score:4)

    by Crixus ( 97721 ) on Monday November 15, 1999 @09:10AM (#1531185)
    Will there be any problems with the telescope while it's in safe mode? I assume it's all closed up to protect itself- can operators still send it commands to control its orbit & possibly protect itself from solar flares? How will the lack of any gyroscopes affect operator's control of it?

    The gyroscopes allow the operators to point the Hubble. Which is why a minimum of 3 are required. There is no ability to change the Hubble's orbit. To do that would require dragging it into the cargo bay as they did on the repair mission last time and use the shuttle to boost it into a higher orbit.

    As the Hubble sits there only Isaac Newton is controlling its orbit. If a large solar flare occurs, hopefully the earth will be between the hubble and the event, otherwise there's little the operators can do, other than close the doors, possible put the processor into some sort of safe mode, and hope for no bit-flips.

    Given the emphasis on redundancy, it's pretty amazing that FOUR gyroscopes ended up failing. Are the four gyroscopes all of the same type? I wonder if they all failed the same way. Does this point out the typical "RISKS" failure where somebody has provided redundancy but using identical equipment with the exact same weaknesses (i.e., redundant in number but not in character)? If so, do they have any plans to try and avoid the same problem?
    It was always expected to have to do a minimum of 2 servicing visits to the hubble for these type of things. Originally they were intended to upgrade the hardware (changing a tape storage device to solid state, etc..) but they always suspected that things like gyros would need changing out.

    Everyone here seems to be forgetting that space is a particularly harsh environment. Especially considering that in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) a satellite is going to shadow to sunlight (~ -200 degrees to ~ +200 degrees farenheit) many times a day. These environment changes tax even the best engineered hardware, and these problems shouldn't surprise anyone.

    Regardless of cost, I think Hubble was a tremendous investment. Knowlege for the sake of knowlege. I like it.

    The more "pure-science" that is done in the world the better (science that can not be perverted into a weapon).

  • While Hubble is running in Safe Mode, all astronomical pictures will be in 16 colors, 640x480. Sorry for the inconvenience.
  • No, you missed the point of my response. HST remains under ground based control, ie, they can point it, but they can't do fine control necessary for taking exposures (autoguiding). In this mode, the HST shuts the door so that there is no way it can expose the CCD to the Sun.

    It's kind of a moot point anyway since the door's shut so it doesn't really matter which way it points wrt the Leonids.
  • Does anyone really care about their slashdot moderation? I know I've got better things to worry about (like actual real work).

    The only reason I will say I care is when there are 200+ posts I will browse at level "2" ... that way I only get the good posts.

    I would not rate this post with the AC posts.

    -d9
  • Unfortunatrely gyros tend to fail after some time. That is why it has six of them and now four have failed. The Mir space station had the same problem, its gyros failed very frequently.
  • > Among the interesting points: several of the initial gyros on the scope were engineering test
    > models that already had tens of millions of hours of use.

    That statement, in itself, is enough to discredit your whole post. FYI, 24*365 = 8760, meaning each year is composed of roughly 8760 hours. That means that, in order to reach "tens of millions" of hours of use, these gyroscopes would have had to be spinning for over 1100 years (that is, just to reach the 10,000,000-hour mark)!

    Get real.

    --Corey
  • Doh! My bad. heh



  • They were (still are!) going to point it at the antiradiant to reduce the cross-section and thus the chance of getting hit by a rock. Most comet debris (which is what the Leonids are) is microscopic, but there are a few big chunks that could do some damage.

    I'm not sure what radiation you are referring to. The danger is physical debris, not radiation.
  • Makes you really want NASA to get a more reasonable and cost effective replacement for the shuttle built. (Venturestar?) The shuttle is so friggen' expensive ANY delays jeapordize almost any mission from getting done period unless it is a national security issue. Quite sad really...
  • That should be warfare and peanuts.
  • Yep. I'm relieved someone got it.
  • That's not what I tried to say.

    Replace welfare with warfare.
  • The gyro's are used to position the scope to view a given target. Their role is soley targeting...settle down.

    Tom
  • this site is down for months now!
    --
    http://www.beroute.tzo.com
  • it would be much more reliable when it could do some repairs itself or let them being done by AI or remote controlled robots

    Uhm, no, not really. Remember, there's basically *nothing* there, except for the odd dust particle. Certainly not enough materials to create gyroscopes from. Which means that if you want to be able to have it repair the gyroscopes itselves, you have to send spare gyroscopes. But if you do that, why waste the extra space on both a robot and spare gyroscopes? Might as well install just the spare gyroscopes.

    Guess what? They did. 100% redundancy. Robots would not have helped. A seventh gyroscope, maybe. (But, that one might have gone before this fourth one). And if the mission hadn't been delayed, the 3 extra gyroscopes would have been enough.

    -- Abigail

  • My impression is that, at least as of the time they were designing it, nobody knew how to make a really reliable gyro. Therefore, they built in lots of redundancy (3 spares!), and figured they would have time to replace the spares before they all ran out. Remember, the telescope was intended to be serviced at regular intervals, for upgrades of instruments if nothing else. Unfortunately, there seems to have been a miscalculation, either in the reliability of the the gyros, the reliability of the space shuttle, or both.

    There is something one should remember when looking at space equipment failures: whoever puts it up is severely limited in how thoroughly they can test it. Essentially, anything that gets put up has to be considered an alpha version. Unfortunately, there is no beta. I am astounded that much of the stuff that gets sent up works at all; that it does is a real testament to the care and skill of those who build it.
  • >Does anybody know why the gyroscopes failed, or what plans are being made to avoid the same
    >problem when they are serviced?

    Satellites have a hard life, they sit in a hostile environment. Couple that with being built as one offs by scientists and you get failures. Very few sattelites survive being launched without something breaking. Once in orbit bizarre chemical reactions, extremes of heat and cold and particle collision all add to the failure rate. That's why it had six gyro's in the first place, so that a single failure wouldn't put the satellite out of commision.

    >Will there be any problems with the telescope while it's in safe mode?

    I wouldn't have thought so, they probably won't be able to point the telescope at anything they want to though.

    The gyroscopes are used to measure where the satellite is pointing, in rotational terms. A lot
    of satellites use a small telescope to pinpoint a particular star to keep themselves accurately aligned, and can get away with fewer gyro's. IIRC one of the ESA satellites was down to one gyro and is still working. They had to upload a new software build to control the satellite with fewer gyro's, though.

    I would expect the Hubble telescope is designed to be able to look at the whole of the sky it could use a fixed point of reference but it would reduce the telescopes usefullness.
  • My mind is getting a bit fuzzy with age, but I think the Hubble mirror is 200". Somebody will get me on that if I'm wrong. I don't see how it could be replaced in orbit. I would guess that that's why they didn't replace the mirror on the first repair mission.

    The housing? I would think that there is some sort of bolt-on dust/space junk/micro meteor shielding that can be replaced.

    I would love to see Hubble working for decades. I would love to do an EVA to help repair the darn thing. ;)
  • People need to take into consideration the time of the posts when awarding their "redundancy" moderation.

    This post came a whoppnig 2 minutes after the earlier post joking about the winblows "test mode."

    And IMHO the 16-color VGA bit is funny, not redundant.

    News for nerds ... people without a sense of humor.

    -d9
  • Although the Hubble telescope was indeed forced to sit in storage for years longer than planned, this delay was not the source of the mirror problems. The mirror was flawed because it had been manufactured incorrectly. Many fundamental flaws in the testing procedures were identified during the subsequent investigation.
  • Still...in 20/20 hindsight, wouldn't one think that is a /dumb/ thing for a bunch of rocket scientists to overlook?
  • No joke -- when i hit the reply button on the original story there were NO replies yet.

    I got distracted by actual work for a minute and wrote the message and posted it. Within about 30 seconds it was moderated down! I think someone's got a little itchy trigger-finger on the moderation, there...
  • we keep posting money into projects like this one, but what good are they. they shure dont buy me breakfast :(

    What projects that governments waste money on DO buy you breakfast? :-)

    But we already know that the space program has provided you with a critical piece of knowlege to enhance your breakfast experience... TANG. :-)

    If they figure out how planet earth got created, what good will that do us, i'm just asking, a lot of sience is IMO a waste of money
    We already know that the planet earth was created to figure out the question that yielded the answer... 42. Surely you've read The Hitchikers Guide? :-)

    I am a huge proponent of basing an economy on R&D. Now that our economy is used less to build bombs and such for the cold war, we should have converted those industries to pure research in ALL area of science. SERENDIPITY proves that research in all areas will reveal answers in others.

  • Considering what is spent on pro-sports, including public money going to stadiums to placate the populace, we don't have nearly enough being spent on science.

  • a little more info (dubiously useful) (Score:4)

    by mattorb ( 109142 ) on Monday November 15, 1999 @09:40AM (#1531214)
    This was sent out to some HST-project folks on Saturday. I haven't checked all the mainstream media reports, probably you can get a more cogent picture there -- this is just FYI. Oh, and "SM3A" is the Servicing Mission, currently scheduled for Dec. 6.

    After getting in touch with the gyro craftsman ("Hans"), the project decided to try to turn gyro 1 on and off again. This was done about 1:00 local time. This did not seem to do any good. The start up cycle went up to about 500 milli-amps (over 700 ma was expected) and then down to the 350 ma level it had been at after the failure this morning. There was no indication that the gyro moved, it certainly did not get into sync. At this time, there is not a good understanding of what actually failed. The "lube patch" theory is now not seen to be completely consistent with the data. The gyro engineers at GSFC and Allied will be reviewing the data and looking at a wider range of possible failure scenarios over the weekend. No further attempt will be made to turn the gyro on until next week.

    There will be a meeting/telecon sometime Monday afternoon to review the data and analyses. Meanwhile, the working expectation is that we will stay in zero gyro mode until SM3A. The instruments will be recovered from safe to hold next week. The current plan is to work through the plans for the recoveries on Monday and carry them out on Tuesday. The recoveries will be done in real-time, but an RTCS will be needed for the FOC recovery. The project will be reviewing the situation to identify any housekeeping activities necessary during the period before SM3A. They are also reviewing the process for closely monitoring performance in the zero gyro mode, since this will be by far the longest time we have been in this mode.

  • Hehehe...

    From what Ive heard, its running some variant of UNIX. My sources inside NASA have leaked that this latest failure was caused by operator error.

    One of the scientists working on the telescope telnetted in and accidentally typed:

    ifconfig eth0 down

    Either that or it was some 31337 script kiddie with a HST rootkit.

    Now they have to send astronauts up to restore the link from the console.

    OK, OK, I know it doesnt use ethernet. Does anyone know the technical details of how the telescope communicates with the ground?

    -BW
  • Your attitude is shortsighted. It's impossible to say what good will come from a given advance - history is full of times when the most useful things sprung from apparently trivial facts. Saying "Hubble is pointless because it does not directly benefit me RIGHT THIS MINUTE" shows extreme ignorance.

    As for space research in particular, it goes without saying that there is an awful lot of useful resources out there - we'd solve most of the really pressing problems facing us if we invested more into it. If we do decide to go out there, knowing the terrain beforehand would be pretty damned useful.

    Thanks to all the spinoffs, the US space program has actually paid for itself, rather than being a boondoggle.
  • IT IS A PIECE OF CRAP, THAT TELESCOPE!
  • Most comet debris (which is what the Leonids are) is microscopic, but there are a few big chunks that could do some damage. Oh, I'm afraid microscopic dust does do damage. Think of a powerful sandblaster with 50km/s impact velocity...
    ---
  • so maybe you can help me? > traceroute www.stsci.edu traceroute to MARVEL.STSCI.EDU (130.167.1.2), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 3 vl12.f810.bb2.mtl1.uunet.ca (198.168.71.1) 28.152 ms 30.614 ms 28.030 ms 4 f300.bb1.mtl1.uunet.ca (198.168.89.74) 27.545 ms 26.435 ms 26.545 ms 5 500.Atm4-0-0.GW4.NYC4.ALTER.NET (137.39.75.29) 35.419 ms 37.521 ms 40.275 ms 6 110.ATM2-0.XR2.NYC4.ALTER.NET (152.63.21.206) 36.326 ms 35.940 ms 56.551 ms 7 188.ATM2-0.TR2.EWR1.ALTER.NET (146.188.179.66) 43.040 ms 37.322 ms 38.019 ms 8 105.ATM6-0.TR2.DCA8.ALTER.NET (146.188.138.173) 49.776 ms 168.478 ms 143. 065 ms 9 152.63.32.213 (152.63.32.213) 53.483 ms 45.046 ms 48.651 ms 10 192.ATM9-0-0.BR1.TCO1.ALTER.NET (146.188.160.69) 45.674 ms 63.613 ms 44.2 93 ms 11 mae-east.nsn.nasa.gov (192.41.177.125) 48.393 ms 56.822 ms 90.243 ms 12 128.161.1.98 (128.161.1.98) 54.319 ms 51.032 ms 48.792 ms 13 s-GSFC5-FDDI.NSN.NASA.GOV (128.161.232.5) 52.069 ms 51.589 ms 57.623 ms 14 hstnet-sa-900.hst.nasa.gov (198.118.126.29) 51.412 ms 62.954 ms 55.643 ms 15 * * * 16 *
    --
    http://www.beroute.tzo.com
  • I agree....it is a damn shame that the "Budget Slashing Happy" are in control. The short sighted nature of these kinds of politions, and the voters that put them in control, cause all sorts of problems. Sure...the populous wants their tax cut because they can't see how driving R&D projects like the HST results in better technology, better understanding of physics, and a better standard of living for all.
  • Ah, yes, UFO, spelled:

    m-e-t-e-o-r

  • It seems like one thing or another has gone wrong with Hubble since it was first put into orbit. How reliable was the design expected to be compared to how reliable it has been? What is/was the expected lifespan of Hubble anyhow? The article mentions "pushing its lifespan into the next decade." Seems to be a pretty short lifespan for a very expensive (albiet impressive) piece of hardware. If it were part of NASA's new paradigm of cheap, "expendable" projects, I'd expect a short life span, but from the older projects, I have come to expect Voyager-like lifespan.
  • I didn't realize the Hubble was running Win98 - if it was running Linux it wouldn't need a "safe mode" ;->

  • Astronomers go blind. Devil says he didn't do it. (Score:3)

    by vr ( 9777 ) on Monday November 15, 1999 @06:57AM (#1531226)
    The Hubble Space Telescope has shut itself down preventing astronomers from making any observations of the Universe.

    Ahem.. Yes, well.. Did they suddenly all go blind?!!! ;-)
  • it would be much more reliable when it could do some repairs itself or let them being done by AI or remote controlled robots

    but I then want one for my car too!

  • Delays? (Score:1)

    by rde ( 17364 )
    The BBC article mentions a December launch for the repair mission. Wasn't this put back recently?
    On teh subject of the telescope: I'm sure I speak for many when I say that despite its shortcomings, it's the coolest thing to happen in centuries as far as popularising astronomy is concerned. Can anyone not look at the Deep Field without saying 'wow'?
    At least we've still got Chandra...

  • Was the last image sent by Hubble of... (Score:4)

    by Masem ( 1171 ) on Monday November 15, 1999 @07:02AM (#1531229)
    A dog-bone shaped satelite with a pair of manipulator arms about to rip it to shreds? :-)

  • Oops. (Score:5)

    by gnarphlager ( 62988 ) on Monday November 15, 1999 @06:58AM (#1531230) Homepage
    Gyro-99FX3dW00 caused a general protection fault in MSHBLSAT.dll. It may be possible to continue operating normally. Press enter to return to MS-Space and wait for your telescope to recover, or press ctrl-alt-del to send it spiraling down to earth in a heaping flaming mass.
  • They are shutting down our satelites before they can surprise attack earth, the HST was just the start! :)

  • ... (Score:1)

    by Signal 11 ( 7608 )
    Who manufacturered the gyros? I find it extremelly difficult to believe half the gyros on hubble would fail in such a short time. It sounds to me like a manufacturing defect.

    --

  • Re:Reliability? (Score:4)

    by vr ( 9777 ) on Monday November 15, 1999 @07:05AM (#1531234)
    It seems like one thing or another has gone wrong with Hubble since it was first put into orbit. How reliable was the design expected to be compared to how reliable it has been?

    It's not that easy.
    HST was designed to be modular, and in that sense the lifespan is long; each module can be replaced.
    The design takes into consideration that the individual modules would need replacement.

    Another thing; compared to the amount of money spent on warefare, the amount used on space exploration is peanust.

    Anyhow; it is used a lot and constantly bombarded by particles. Give it a break ;)
  • Given the fact that any repair mission into space is gonna be pretty expensive and potentially dangerous, we should try to build self assembling/repairing structures ... I'm pretty sure this is what Transmeta is up to (the stories about chip development you keep hearing are just decoys fed to the press) ... watch out, the nanobots are coming for all of us ...

    Ob ./: Wow, if I only had a beowulf custer of those nanobots ...

    Sorry, 'couldn't resist ...

  • So they should just remove the offending driver, reboot the telescope, let it autodetect things (do those gyros support plug and play?), reboot it again...

    Mostly I'm just jealous you beat me to the joke.

    -LjM

  • Maybe.. (Score:1)

    by T4b ( 74819 )
    Maybe if they stuck it and Mir together, they might get something to work..

    ------

  • Redundancy failure? (Score:3)

    by mOdQuArK! ( 87332 ) on Monday November 15, 1999 @07:06AM (#1531239)
    Does anybody know why the gyroscopes failed, or what plans are being made to avoid the same problem when they are serviced?

    Will there be any problems with the telescope while it's in safe mode? I assume it's all closed up to protect itself - can operators still send it commands to control its orbit & possibly protect itself from solar flares? How will the lack of any gyroscopes affect operator's control of it?

    Given the emphasis on redundancy, it's pretty amazing that FOUR gyroscopes ended up failing. Are the four gyroscopes all of the same type? I wonder if they all failed the same way. Does this point out the typical "RISKS" failure where somebody has provided redundancy but using identical equipment with the exact same weaknesses (i.e., redundant in number but not in character)?

    If so, do they have any plans to try and avoid the same problem?

  • Re:Redundancy failure: Hubble not built well (Score:5)

    by edremy ( 36408 ) on Monday November 15, 1999 @08:01AM (#1531242) Journal

    Assuming it went into deep safemode, the scope is fine. The aperature door will close and the scope will keep position in space. Safe mode is something Hubble's controllers understand very well...

    Check out Eric Chaisson's The Hubble Wars for a good description of just how FUBARed the Hubble really is. Among the interesting points: several of the initial gyros on the scope were engineering test models that already had tens of millions of hours of use. A number failed before the last repair mission: they were only 1 gyro away from safe then.

    Chaisson (ex-Space Telescope Science Institute high-muckity-muck) was more than a bit critical of the entire design process. Even beyond the the well-known mirror and solar panel problems, the number of design flaws and construction problems were amazing. For example, while it waited for launch nobody could find the documentation that stated that the secondary mirror had ever been installed. They had to tip the scope and build a $BIGNUM "diving board" so someone could climb into the scope and look.

  • Some Hubble history (Score:4)

    by Manifest ( 50758 ) on Monday November 15, 1999 @08:07AM (#1531243) Homepage
    Many /.ers were asking for details on Hubble. Well I did some diggig up and came up with this Hubble history:

    --Co-operative program of NASA and ESA
    --Design lifetime = 15 years,with a 3 yr cycle of on-orbit service
    --Launched by Discovery(STS-31),1990
    --2 service missions so far,1993, and 1997
    --1993 service replaced two gyroscope Electronics Control Units (ECUs)and fuse plugs for the gyroscopes

    But no details on the latest failure even at stsci.edu .. can any one give more details ?

    Some Links :

    http://www.stsci.edu/hst/ [stsci.edu]

    http://amazing-space.st sci.edu/service/service-science.html [stsci.edu]


    Manifest
  • and it's not Bill Gates. The man you want is Dr. Clayton Forrestor. Had he never shot Mike into space, he never would have hit the Hubble with the Satellite of Love. It wasn't win98's minimal driver set under safe mode this time, but that most evil man of them all...ahhh!!

  • IMHO the big news story here is that Hubble is working exactly as planned. Instead of four out of six gyros failing and causing the spacecraft to start wobbling and potentially falling out of orbit (not quite sure what operating on only two gyros would cause the HST to do), the spacecraft just powers down non-essential systems and goes to sleep until NASA can put a shuttle up to fix it. HST was designed to be modular to facilitate repairs in an environment where it is impossible to anticipate every little problem. So in that sense the Hubble is working perfectly.


  • I know that NASA was going to protect the Hubble from the upcoming Leonid meteor showers (this week) by pointing the scope away from the main direction of the comet's debris field. Does the fact the the scope has shut itself down mean that NASA can no longer do this, or has it been done already ?
  • Well maybe they were blinded when they misaimed the telescope, and got engaged in other activites....
  • warefare, peanust [sic] ?

    Could you post a copy of your dictionary online under the GPL, we could give it a shot at debugging it!

  • Well, yeah, if most of the debris was sand-sized you'd be right, but in that case it would rip everything to shreds regardless which way it was pointed. Not to make light of micrometeorite impacts, but the HST is built to withstand that type of abuse. (However, wasn't one of the items on the servicing mission to repair some of the outer coating?)

    But your point is taken - these things are hauling ass. Particularly in the case of the Leonids b/c our orbit points almost head-on into the orbit of Temple-Tuttle, iirc. Personally, I'd be more worried about debris the size of sand (and larger) than the microscopic stuff.
  • Once we know how the Earth wsa created, destroying it effeciently will be trivial. Optimized destruction of the Earth is much more cost effective than spending lots of money only to scar the surface. I think everyone will agree that this line of logic is superior and will lead to the largest pyrotechnic display possible.


    Bad Mojo
  • Well you already have your wish. The US Gov't has approved funding on the 'Next Generation Space Telescope', and work is already underway. The target launch date is sometime around 2006-2008.

    The NGST will have a 10 meter infrared mirror, and be placed in a LaGrange point out past the moon.
    For info:

    http://www.ngst.stsci.edu/
  • Even though it had problems, the HST is a resounding success! This piece of equipment is should be marked as one of best engineering in hardware of the 20th Century. Observations through the HST has advanced our understanding of physics and the nature of the Universe.

    With that being said and the known problems with the HST, maybe it is time we put another Space Telescope into orbit? The current backlog for work on the HST is somewhere around 3 years. This current outage isn't going to help anything. I'm not sure about the orbital geometry...is there any place the HST can't look at because of its orbit? Another telescope at a different orbit may help look at different parts of space.

    In the end, it can't hurt having another telescope up there. :-)
  • I don't know the current status but the Ultraviolet Imaging Telescope was launched in '95. Haven't heard much about it lately, so it could be kaput for all I know. Then again there's been so much talk about Chandra lately, maybe the UIT has just become passe.

    Anybody else have info on this?
  • "Final servicing mission is due for 2003, after that HST lasts as long as it lasts."

    Start placing your bids now to buy whatever is remaining. Whether it's 2003 or 2010.. place a bet whether you'll be able to afford to send someone up to put your own modules on it...

    Of course, if by 2010 there are commercial launches which can put a larger mirror up there then maybe that thing being in orbit won't be an advantage.

  • That statement, in itself, is enough to discredit your whole post. FYI, 24*365 = 8760, meaning each year is composed of roughly 8760 hours.

    Sorry- mistake of magnitude. (I was thinking pi*10million seconds/year and stupidly wrote hours.)

    However, the point that the gyros were engineering test models is in fact correct: not my point, it's Chaisson's.

    Eric

  • Another thing; compared to the amount of money spent on warefare, the amount used on space exploration is peanust.

    Another thing; compared to the amount of money spent on corporate welfare, the amount used on (regular citizen's) welfare is peanuts. Ergo

    space exploration < welfare < corporate handouts

    which, to me at least, sounds exactly the opposite of fair. But then, I'm not the one making all the rules around here...



  • Uhm, no. The primary Hubble mirror did not deform because it stayed on the ground too long. The mirror was manufactured that way. When Perkin-Elmer made the error, part of their process went wonky and noone noticed. It was just made perfectly wrong, so to speak.
  • I think he meant warfare, not welfare.
  • Your point is not original :)

    IIRC, it was Feynmann who had it first - in particular, he wondered, during a set of lectures, whether people weren't getting too hooked on "what we can learn from something" as distinct from appreciating that sending some satellite somewhere was in itself an achievement.
    It's also a perfectly valid point that you can learn quite a bit about a planet's atmosphere by pointing a spectrascope at it, by checking its albedo, etc. It's far from necessary to send some(one|thing) out there to look!

  • Why they might be failing. (Score:5)

    by re-geeked ( 113937 ) on Monday November 15, 1999 @07:11AM (#1531266)
    From the following comments on NASA's mission site, it sounds like the gyros are just too new and different:

    "Why aren't the gyros working?

    The Hubble team believes they understand the cause of the failures, although they cannot be certain until the gyros are returned from space and taken apart. Based on nearly one and a half years of intensive chemical, mechanical and electrical investigations, the team believes that the thin wires are being corroded by the fluid in which they are immersed and ultimately this corrosion causes them to break. The fluid is very thick (about the thickness of 10W-30 motor oil), and in order to force this fluid into its float cavity, pressured air was used. The team believes that eventually, oxygen in the air interacted with the fluid to create a small amount of corrosive material and the wires were partially eaten away. Sometimes the wires were strong enough to carry electricity and some-times they were not and they broke. Pressurized nitrogen is now used instead of pressurized air. Using pressurized nitrogen eliminates the introduction of oxygen into this fluid."

    Sounds like a much more forgivable error than confusing pounds with Newtons :-)

    --


  • Newsflash! (Score:3)

    by deefer ( 82630 ) on Monday November 15, 1999 @07:12AM (#1531267) Homepage
    Engineers working on the Hubble space telescope are reporting their initial findings, according to the a Reliable News Service. The first engineer on the scene is quoted as seeing: "Microslop Hubble Space Telescope OS V1.0" License has expired, please contact your Microslop representative for upgrade. Or pressurise the DoJ into getting it's teeth out of Bills' arse for continued operation of this Microslop installation." The screen is a calming shade of blue. Engineers have been equipped with a LILO boot disk and some downloaded copies of the world famous Linux Operating System; it is expected that the newly equipped Hubble telescope will now run 15% faster. "Kernel tweaks", a computer nerd term for messing with Linux's internal operation (also know by some as "make and pray") will be applied remotely by Linus Torvalds, creator of Linux to the world and "Saint Linus" to Linux users. Upon mission completion, it is expected that Torvalds will be unequivocably given a Nobel prize, and more than likely a knighthood. Following the Linux installation, resources hogged by the previous OS will be utilised to run pattern matching algorithms for new star clusters, analyse SETI-like data on the fly, solve world hunger, bring about world peace, and provide a correct answer to the question "does my bum look big in this?"
  • can operators still send it commands to control its orbit & possibly protect itself from solar flares?

    well without gyros its going to be hard to control the sat.

  • Re:money (Score:2)

    by Yarn ( 75 )
    Yeh, science sucks, if people hadnt invented computers I'd be happier now, as I wouldnt have to read your luddite tripe!

    Everyone else: sorry about the flame, but I'm having a hard time getting a grant for my science career. Some people (governments) are so damn short sighted.
  • Obviously the Hubble must have been about to aim at an alien world.

    Those buggers *really* value their privacy.

  • Hubble Information (Score:3)

    by kamelkev ( 114875 ) on Monday November 15, 1999 @07:16AM (#1531272)
    Just thought I would point out 2 things related the Hubble and the reservicing mission. A) The reservicing mission was actually supposed to take place on october 14th, but due to shuttle problems it had been delayed. Had the mission been done when it was originally planned, there would not have been such a long downtime. B) It was *known* that the gyros were going to fail. It was hoped that servicing mission 3 A would be completed in time to replace the bad gyro, but obviously it wasnt. However this was not due to bad planning by NASA, since is has been widely known here (Goddard Space Flight Center) that the gyros had a limited life span. Nothing lasts forever.

  • Uh oh.. (Score:1)

    by drwiii ( 434 )
    Safe mode? Don't tell me.. [min.net]

    --

  • Does anyone really care about their slashdot moderation? I know I've got better things to worry about (like actual real work).

    Maybe we can figure out some way to trade points, sort of like pollution credits. How about selling them on EBay?
  • Without the gyroscopes controlling the position and pointing of the telescope, will Hubble be spinning when the shuttle gets there for servicing? Even a slow spin rate could make grappling the telescope with the "robot arm" much more difficult. In a previous case, 3 astronauts literally went out into the cargo bay and grabbed a spinning satellite with their gloved hands! But Hubble has a huge mass, and it would seem to complicate this approach.
  • Sure, great idea. Put another two or three up there. Given that much of the research has been done, the cost for new scopes would be greatly reduced. Not only that, but we've learned enough from Hubble to make new scopes truly 'next generation' in terms of usefulness, reliability, and so forth.

    So, um....you gonna pay for it?

    Unfortunately, the HST has received a fair bit of bad press, and the public isn't going to be keen about coughing up more money for another potentially buggy scope. Let's face it, science funding is bloody hard to get out of taxpayers anywhere. Also, there's a huge 'fiscal responsiblity for government,' 'cut taxes' surge across North America (probably worse here in Canada due to our higher taxation), and that's REALLY going to hurt anyone's attempts to launch more 'scopes.

    Which is a damned shame. We need more research done. Ultimately, it saves money, time, and lives. Too bad politicians are too scared to take a stand against the shortsightedness of the populace, mostly brought on by the media.
  • "whoppnig".

    Better watch your typos. You'll have the NAACP a,d the Italian Anti-Defamation League on your ass.
  • My mind is getting a bit fuzzy with age, but I think the Hubble mirror is 200".

    I'll say. The HST mirror is 2.4m (a little less than 94"). That was the largest mirror that would fit into the Space Shuttle cargo bay. I think I heard somewhere that it is actually a surplus Keyhole mirror - can anybody confirm this?

    But you're right that it would have been way difficult to replace the mirror in space, thus COSTAR.
  • HST remains under full control of the ground-based operators. It's just that it won't open the pod-bay doors if the gyros aren't working right. Otherwise it would risk getting pointed at the Sun. That would be bad.
  • At least that's how NASA views it. Part of the reason the Chandra was launched into such a high orbit was that by agreeing to put it out of shuttle reach, there could never be any pressure to launch costly missions to fix it in the future. They reportedly learned their lesson from the Hubble...

    Disposable satellite telescopes anyone? (how about a new Kodak Fun-Hubble and Fun-Hubble w/flash!)
  • Excellent question. I was about to pose it myself, but you beat me to it =)

    I have no idea how this was designed, but I sure hope there's a big nice protective cover for the lens. They should be able to activate that cover regardless of being able to reorient the body to minimize exposure, right?

  • Could be a problem (Score:5)

    by cybercuzco ( 100904 ) on Monday November 15, 1999 @07:23AM (#1531283) Homepage Journal
    I actually worked on the mission to fix the gyroscopes this summer as an intern. We were supposed to send up all the hardware in october, unfortunately, various glitches with the shuttle ( failed wiring etc) Pushed the entire shuttle schedule way back. Now it looks like SM-3A will be going up sometime in december (hopefully). Everyone was just hoping that the third Gyro wouldnt fail, but it looks like the other shoe has dropped. This also sucks since the backlog on the hubble is something like 3-4 years, and if the scope isnt available at your scheduled time, back to the end of the line you go. Were going to see a whole lot of pissed off astronomers.

    I also worked on Servicing Mission 3B, which is supposed to fix the NICMOS Cryo cooler, and add some additional hardware. NICMOS is an infared camera, good for seeing through dust clouds and whatnot. Who knows when that mission is going up now.

  • And yes, I did preview it!

  • Re:Reliability? (Score:4)

    by kmcardle ( 24757 ) <[ksmcardle] [at] [gmail.com]> on Monday November 15, 1999 @07:28AM (#1531285)
    Remember, the Hubble was supposed to be launched in 1986, shortly _after_ the Challenger (RIP) disaster.

    Hubble sat around for a few extra years and had plenty of time to age. The whole problem with the optics on Hubble was that sitting on earth too long deformed the mirror.

    IIRC, Hubble is about 15 years old. It was one of the first (if not the first) satilites (sp?) designed to be maintained by the shuttle. Hubble has been in planning since before the first shuttle flight, so we're dealing with some 20+ year old technology. I would think they are slowly upgrading the old systems with newer tech as they replace them.

    Not sure about the lifespan.

  • Science is worthwhile (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 15, 1999 @07:31AM (#1531287)
    OK, I'm gonna be blunt: "science" is just about the ONLY thing we spend money on that IS worthwhile!

    When was the last time a movie saved millions of lives? I'll tell you: never.

    Science, on the other hand, has saved uncounted millions (maybe billions) of lives. If it weren't for science, we'd all still be worried about contracting smallpox, or the Plague, or smallpox, or even influenza!

    . . . and now I'm sure some smart-ass is going to pop back with a quip about how people still die of those diseases in the Third World. That's not the fault of Science -- blame your local politicians for that one.

    But here's a simple test to see how science has benefitted you: if you disagree with the idea of spending money on scientific research, check your age below and act accordingly:

    • If you are younger than twelve: work sixteen hours a day. Eat miserable meals consisting largely of uncooked roots and half-rotten meat.
    • If you are between thirteen and sixteen: get married and start producing children as quickly as you can. Eat miserable meals (see above).
    • If you are between sixteen and twenty: play russian roulette with two bullets if you're male (to simulate farm accidents and general illnesses). If you're female, use three bullets (to simulate dying in childbirth and general illnesses). Eat miserable meals and work too much.
    • If you are between twenty and thirty: break several bones and joints, in order to better imitate nonexistent medical care (injuries normally accrue over a lifetime, but we're playing catch-up here). Eat miserable meals and work too much.
    • If you are over thirty, commit suicide, as you should already be dead.
    Now, that'll help you get a grip on what life is like without the benefits of science. If you still feel that science spending in "wasted" after doing this little experiment, then I'll congratulate you for the strength of your beliefs.
  • Does this mean that it can't use any drivers and can only take pictures at a crappy 640x480?
  • I never realized that it had sat around so long before reaching orbit. It makes sense that it would age poorly in storage.

    The modular design is definately a Good Thing, and as long as they continue to upgrade it, we can hopefully be impressed by the latest Hubble discovery for decades. (Although some parts are probably difficult to replace entirely, like the housing and the mirror?)

Slashdot Top Deals

Programmers do it bit by bit.

Close