Comments on: AAS #1: Hubble Servicing Mission update

By: Barton Paul Levenson

Barton Paul Levenson — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:27:32 +0000

R2K posts:

[[If we had kept a Saturn V around, we could have launched a 7 - 10 meter telescope.]]

Hear, hear! Let’s hear it for big dumb boosters instead of “reusable” spaceships that still cost — what? A billion dollars each, plus $400 million for each launch? And Saturn could reach the Moon, which is a heck of lot further away than the shuttle can do. That damn thing has restricted us to low Earth orbit for 30 years.

I’m looking forward to Aries.

By: R2K

R2K — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:08:25 +0000

If we had kept a Saturn V around, we could have launched a 7 - 10 meter telescope.

By: Drive-By-Commenter

Drive-By-Commenter — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 02:28:19 +0000

Another minor goof in the article’s description: I think in the ACS repair the plan isn’t to “keep track of, and then reinstall” the screws that are removed. There is a fairly detailed description of the plan as of last October at http://www-int.stsci.edu/~sirianni/PRESENTATIONS/TIPS2007_October.ppt. If I understand that correctly though a bunch of screws have to be removed to allow the circuit boards to be pulled from the CCD Electronics Box (”CEB”), what goes back in is a replacement box (”CEB-R”) which locks into place much more simply.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 02:13:39 +0000

Well, it seems that my “brother” (we were born 7 days apart) will finally be on its last legs. I know it will make the best of it.

Cheers!

By: Astronomy Cast - AAS #2: Interview with NASA astronaut John Grunsfeld

Astronomy Cast - AAS #2: Interview with NASA astronaut John Grunsfeld — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 22:55:29 +0000

[…] When they service Hubble, they’ll be using a special device to take off and capture the many, many screws of off STIS. I asked him what would happen if he lost one… (Link goes to YouTube video.) […]

By: Ed Davies

Ed Davies — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 22:42:47 +0000

“…and it’s too heavy to bring down safely.”

Surely, that’s one of the few things the Shuttle is good at - bringing stuff down. Non-reusable rockets (e.g, Delta 4 or Ariane 5) can launch similar payloads but only the Shuttle can bring them back in one piece.

Hubble was launched by a Shuttle and they must have been able to re-enter safely with the telescope still on board; what if there had been a problem with the deployment? When they used Shuttles to launch multiple satellites they were always careful to deploy them in the right sequence so if a later one failed to release re-entry with the centre of gravity in the right place was still possible.

Still, I agree - it would not be worth the risk and cost just to put it in a museum.

By: Cindy

Cindy — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:54:16 +0000

Y generation:

Yes, a lot of ground based astronomy goes into many spectacular Hubble images but because the astronomers have to convince the time allocation boards that their proposal is worthwhile and worthy of spending precious Hubble time on it.

Hubble’s stunning images have helped popularize astronomy. Yes, adaptive optics are improving ground-based images but many of those techniques only work for relatively bright targets. Hubble has the clarity even for faint objects.

I think Hubble has captured the popular attention because it’s an optical telescope and the fact that it has been fixed. I was working on Hubble when the problem with the mirror was announced (on my 23rd birthday, no less). The fact that it was fixed thanks to astronauts helps feed the “romance”.

It’s too bad that Spitzer and Galex aren’t given more press.