Hubble in trouble

Compared to the first mission to correct Hubble's "eyesight", a mission to retrofit a new computer should be pretty easy. Considering a new computer that can do way more than the old one could do would be smaller, faster, and operate on less power - there'd probably be room to spare to install a few extra goodies as well.

 

Why should it be any different, easier or harder? They figured out how to implement those 'eyesight corrections' with standard equipment bay swaps.

One of the five instrument bays has been offline, in hibernation, since the last servicing mission. That is where "extra goodies" could be targeted, though that hibernating instrument can also be left as a backup to a particular active instrument.

 

Designing and building a device to make up for flaws in the mirror - and then installing it in space - was a task that nobody even knew would be successful. Which is why there was such elation when it actually worked. It's not like it had been done before - at least not at this scale or under these circumstances. Sure, they conceived, designed, and built something that would fit in a standard equipment bay, but it's not like it was an off-the-shelf spare part. Consider too that NASA had a considerable amount of egg on it's face because of the money and time spent building the thing and sending a defective telescope into space. They pretty much had to fix it to save their reputation and years worth of "I hope you are gonna do this better than Hubbel" jabs every time they asked for funding.

Yanking out a computer card rack and retrofitting it with another, more modern computer, is something that has been done so many times over the past 40+ years that is should be considerably easier.

As for the "extra space" point - look at your smart phone. Now look at one from the 80's.

 

It looks like the biggest ion engine project to fly so far was Dawn. It achieved a delta-v of 25,700 mph on a craft with a dry mass of 1647 lbs, over an engine run time of almost 6 years.

Hubble to ISS needs a delta-v of 7000 mph for a payload of 24,500 lbs, i.e. 4X larger. With Dawn's engines, that will take 24 years. Neglecting air drag on the solar panels powering the engines, which really isn't negligible at that 'low' altitude.

They'd better hurry up with designing and making larger ion engines to get it done while ISS is still operating. The latest decommission date I've seen is 2030.

 

What was he smoking?

 

So far?

12-13 Starships.....

 

It's not hard to beat dot.gov......

 

I was thinking from a science observatory perspective, not a rocket perspective. Put humans on an astronomical observatory in space, and suddenly it is going to need an image stabilizer to cancel out all those vibrations and disturbances from moving humans. Maybe even from their heartbeats.

The waste exhausts continually being vented overboard also won't be great to the instrument functions.

 

NASA is building it with my tax dollars.
Space Launch System | NASA

Of course.....I only own a little bit of it.....

 

I forgot the rule that you have to have done a thing to effectively or accurately criticize a thing.

I'll have to remember that the next time I criticize P45, because despite the fact that I ran and failed to get elected as the 73rd governor of the commonwealth of Virginia....I'm clearly not qualified nor do I have standing to point out that our 45th President probably wasn't our best one.
I can't even point out (accurately, as it turns out) that UNLIKE my more successful opponent in Richmond, I have never worn blackface.

 

In the news:

Google News - Hubble telescope beams back picture of a 'soft, woolly' spiral galaxy

 

The mil spec 386 in the Hubble is much more resistant to solar radiation, emp and thermal events than modern hardware,

Might as well keep what works reliably and add a couple modern touches rather than re-engineering the proprietary equipment

 

Just note that it is a #HubbleClassic view, originally uploaded three years ago, not anything new since the recent computer failure.

 

Ahh…