[HN Gopher] NASA returns Hubble to full science operations ___________________________________________________________________ NASA returns Hubble to full science operations Author : DamnInteresting Score : 120 points Date : 2021-12-07 21:18 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.nasa.gov) (TXT) w3m dump (www.nasa.gov) | keyle wrote: | That warms my heart somehow, but I thought I had read that that | was it for Hubble, like a year ago? Why the change of heart? | Anyone got the full story, or did I cross my wires? | pkaye wrote: | There was some equipment failure last year. I think it was | later diagnosed as a power control unit that failed. | Fortunately there was a backup set they could switch to. Little | by little parts are failing with time but they are nursing it | along. | croutonwagon wrote: | I think one of the primary payload computers failed but they | were able to flip to auxiliary/backup. That was in July though | | It's pretty much on borrowed time. I think they spent most of | that outage trying to bring the main up and gave up. | | Must be fun troubleshooting something at like 400 km orbit. | Heck I had to tell a lady she couldn't wfh today because her | cell data tethering wasn't up to snuff to hold a connection to | our vpn or do much of anything. She was seeing spurts of 10% | loss on downstream and 200+ ms latency. | scottyah wrote: | Remembering what you did and what you wanted to do next takes | a lot of notes! It's really amazing controlling the drones on | Mars, with all the traffic routed through a constellation of | satellites, where the rotation even affects the latency. | skurtcastle wrote: | That's awesome to hear. | | I'm excited for Dec 22nd when the James Webb launches. Crossing | fingers big time. | savant_penguin wrote: | *if | bryanlarsen wrote: | 30 days off terror for it to transit and unfold. Scary times! | for1nner wrote: | Even longer for it to actually power up and start "working." | Really excited for it, but feel like something akin to this | hubble issue happening with the JW would be disastrous. | mzkply wrote: | It'll be a Starship mission with astronauts to go work on | it at L2 in 2023/4 then. | bduerst wrote: | What's the timeline to being fully operational? | chowells wrote: | Roughly 6 months after launch for all systems to cool to | operational temperature. | pippy wrote: | NASA could have built two or more as backups, as most of the | cost was in R&D it would have been (comparably) cost | effective to do so. | teraflop wrote: | If the R&D is done anyway, why not just wait and build a | second telescope if the first one fails? I don't see why | that would be any more expensive than building a backup | ahead of time, and it means if the first one fails due to | an undetected design flaw, they have a chance to correct | it. | xattt wrote: | I'm looking forward for some of the photo series NASA probably | has planned, like a simultaneous observation of the same object | with Hubble and Webb. | echelon wrote: | The vibration incident was solved? | | This launch is going to be so scary as it represents the | scientific promise and investments of a generation. | wumpus wrote: | The fixed fairing has been successfully launched twice. | kingcharles wrote: | Yeah, vibration turned out to be a non-issue, everything is | go for launch. | smingo wrote: | Would Hubble be able to resolve Webb? Or vice versa? | NikolaeVarius wrote: | Webb doesn't cover all the capabilities of Hubble. Its a | "successor" not a "replacement" | phinnaeus wrote: | "resolve" here means to see, as in, could Hubble take a photo | of the JWT. | wumpus wrote: | Webb is at L2, so if it wants to look at Hubble in low Earth | orbit, it's going to be pointing at the sun. | sydthrowaway wrote: | Can Hubble and JWST do simultaneous observation to extract more | info of an object? | onetwentythree wrote: | Yes, that is being planned for, but I'm not sure if any cycle | one proposals involve joint observations. | | https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/jwst-opportunities-and-policies/... | wumpus wrote: | Sure, they're different telescopes with different instruments | and different sensitivities. | kunai wrote: | One of NASA's biggest mistakes wrt the demise of the STS/Shuttle | program was not leaving some way lined up to service Hubble in | orbit. The current crop of launch vehicles isn't suited to this | task, despite us being ten years out from STS-135. | | It's proven itself an absolutely invaluable tool for research, | but I think the even more impressive mission Hubble has shown | itself as irreplaceable for is stimulating the public's mind for | science and exploration. There's nothing like seeing photos of | the universe in visual-light spectrum and thinking, "what if we | went there?" | | JWST is amazing and I'm so glad it's finally launching but for | that second use case, it trails Hubble. | duxup wrote: | I thought the experience they had servicing Hubble actually | meant that they generally didn't want to have satellites that | they would have to service due to costs involved. | | Maybe with the new options it becomes cheaper/ more viable. | scottyah wrote: | I think JWST will be an amazing replacement as most space | photos are doctored with visible light "interpretations" of | other wavelengths already and nobody seems to notice/care as | they have their minds blown. The process almost even adds to | the beauty of them. | inter_netuser wrote: | collecting science? | Causality1 wrote: | The purpose of NASA is not only to explore but inspire. In light | of that, I'd be fully supportive of using a Starship launch to | bring Hubble home. | melling wrote: | To service and relaunch for the next 50 years? | NikolaeVarius wrote: | Museum | pkaye wrote: | If they could carry a larger payload, we could have a Hubble | with a larger primary mirror. Some of the risks/costs of the | JWST is all the folding mechanisms to fit the Ariane 5 | payload enclosure. | gotstad wrote: | That does not strike me as the right direction of | progression. We should become better at in-space assembly, | not creating larger payload fairing. | ErikCorry wrote: | Why not both? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-12-07 23:00 UTC)