Anyone else sad about the demise of Hubble?

[Stonius]

Such an iconic piece of space hardware. So many great images. Sad to see it go :-(

https://www.iflscience.com/space/a-computer-glitch-stopped-hubbles-operations-so-far-restart-efforts-have-failed/

Markus

[xelasnave]

This is something I feel very strongly about.
First just fix it...
Second under no circumstances let it fall into the ocean.
At any cost bring it back and place it in the Smithsonian.

These yanks save their old oil advertising signs, star wars dolls, in fact anything that is " its the only one of its kind" rebuild old cars fit for melt down etc etc etc, I know you only need one etc but this is a special case, to the point one could say it is a sickness and yet there seems not a wimper re the most significant science instrument ever constructed...
You cant tell me it cant be returned by a nation who can do anything and really able to manufacture any amount of money required.
Auction it...do we not have any billionaires into collecting...
And if it takes money away from gravity wave research I think the recover of Hubble is money much better spent.

I dont know and ask...what does the "average" USA citizen think? Does anyone care?

Alex

[Hans Tucker]

When NASA and the US Government killed the Shuttle Program they effectively removed any capability to repair or even recover Hubble. Hubble has served it purpose and I am sure has outlasted its projected life time to look at new ventures.

[TrevorW]

Maybe it will prompt them to get the WEBB up and running instead of constant delays :)

[Stonius]

Sure, but I think apart from the science, the outreach value of hubble is incalculable. When People think of pictures of space, they invariably have HST images in mind. Being visual spectrum images, they connect with the public in ways that false colour images of eg, cosmic background radiation doesn't really.


If they are going to let it die I hope they replace it with something even better and in the visual spectrum.


Markus

[multiweb]

Elon's starship will go get it and bring it back.

[Hans Tucker]

Better to have delays than miss something and it fails when commissioned. Remember Hubble and its commissioning saga. Where Webb is going there ain't no Roadside Assistance.

[xelasnave]

Are they putting it next to Hubble?:)

I have this feeling James Webb will never make it as it has already done it job;)

Alex

[Hans Tucker]

Oh .. no ... WST is boldly going where no Space Telescope has gone before ....1.5 million km from Earth orbiting the L2 Point

[xelasnave]

Yeh far enough away so they dont have to fix it...I know how it works.

My view is it has the potential to bring our current cosmology into doubt and that simply can not be allowed to happen...so here I have decided to start a new conspiracy theory..if it does fail that means I am right doesnt it? Anyways better get started on the book I guess.

My little mind looks at what they expect to do and I think no way it will work but sincerely I really hope they pull it off as we will get such a better "view" of our universe one could think.

Alex

[xelasnave]

Anyways...I dont care why it cant be done just fix it and bring it home after the James Webb is up and working.
If it meant votes it would get done...am I right or am I correct?
Alex

[alpal]

This article sounds a bit more positive:
https://astronomynow.com/2021/06/20/nasa-troubleshoots-glitch-with-hubble-payload-computer/


20 June 2021



Engineers are still troubleshooting a glitch with the Hubble Space Telescope’s payload computer that put the observatory in “safe mode,” a sort of electronic hibernation, until the problem is resolved.
The shutdown occurred just after 20:00 GMT on 13 June when the computer, which controls and coordinates observations by Hubble’s science instruments, stopped sending routine “keep-alive” signals to the telescope’s primary computer. That, in turn, activated software that automatically halted instrument operations, shutting down science observations.
Engineers initially suspected problems with one of four 64K solid-state memory modules used by the computer. But an attempt to switch to an alternate module was not successful, prompting another round of troubleshooting.
The payload computer is known as a “NASA Standard Spacecraft Computer-1, or NSSC-1, built in the 1980s and part of the telescope’s Science Instrument Command and Data Handling unit. The computer is fully redundant, with two independent “strings,” either one of which can handle all payload functions. Whichever string is operating uses one memory module with the other three on standby as backups.
As of 18 June, engineers were still collecting diagnostic data and had not yet resorted to attempting a switch over to the alternate computer string.
“The operations team will be running tests and collecting more information on the system to further isolate the problem,” NASA said in a statement. “The science instruments will remain in a safe mode state until the issue is resolved. The telescope itself and science instruments remain in good health.”

[AstralTraveller]

It's hard to imagine a world without Hubble. Even though modern ground-based scopes outperform it the term "Hubble image' is still the byword for quality, such is the legend it has become.

[pmrid]

The 1980s era computers on Hubble have always mystified me. Given the several repair and replace processes undertaken over the past decade or so, I would have thought that the clever folk at NASA would have thought to replace these old systems with some new ones. Is it a question of compatibility? Perhaps the old chips are more resilient or better able to handle the space environment. It would be interesting to know.

[alpal]

Don't quote me but I think that the CPUs can't be
anything above an 80486 as the large transistor size of that old
CPU chip is resistant to cosmic rays.
The latest CPUs wouldn't last an hour with their tiny 7nm sizes.

[billdan]

Just remember folks, the James Webb scope is Infra-Red only (that's why it's at the L2 position), so you won't get pretty pictures like Hubble does.

[raymo]

Its not quite true that Hubble is outperformed by modern ground based scopes; it can operate at IR and UV wavelengths that are not available
to ground based scopes due to our pesky (but obviously necessary: ) atmosphere.
raymo

[Stonius]

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[gary]

Hi Peter,

No, they are way older than that. The computer onboard the Hubble was designed in 1974.

It's fabricated out of custom radiation hardened medium scale integrated (MSI) chips and plated wire core memory.
So the memory pre-dates the widespread adoption of RAM chips.

It does have the neat advantage that it is non-volatile. Switch the power off and it retains its contents.

Also keep in mind that the Interdata Model 70 computer, which is a full-on 32-bit minicomputer from 1973,
which was controlling the Anglo Australian Telescope was only upgraded not that long ago in 2009. And that's here on Earth! :)
It also had core memory. The thing was controlling this giant telescope and just worked, so there was a reluctance to horse with it. :)

Image. The Interdata Model 70 that controlled the AAT between 1974 and 2009 :-

[RobF]

Thought I read somewhere there is still a 2nd redundant computer to control things they haven't fired up yet. All the efforts and articles so far have been about troubleshooting and trying to isolate the problems in the primary computer. Bit early to write her off yet.....

[mura_gadi]

Hello,

Lots of hubbles up there if you include NSA, NASA got two 2.4m scopes given to them in 2012 from NSA redundancies. I'm sure there have been others, just have to wait for them to become redundant from security needs for astronomy use...

This is something I'd love to see pressure on Musk with, get him to retrieve some of the old NSA stuff for recycling to NASA. Make up for some of the light issues from his satellites.



Steve
https://www.space.com/16000-spy-satellites-space-telescopes-nasa.html

[alpal]

I was right - it's now a 80486 CPU.


Jump to 8:20

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWUnC2uf3XY




Video doesn't load using tags.

[gary]

Hi Alpal,

The computer that failed is not the '486 based one, it is the older twin
NSSC-1 computers. :)

As Scott Manley explains at the start, the system that has failed is the
Science Instrument Command and Data Handling Unit.

This has twin NSSC-1's. Built by IBM, it is implemented using medium scale
integrated circuits.

A service mission replaced the core memory with CMOS memory in 2009.

At the 7:17 point, Scott says that the other main computer on the
Hubble Space Telescope is part of the Data Management System.
This was upgraded on a service mission to a '486, but it is not the one that
failed.

As Scott also mentions, most of the instruments on the Hubble have their
own dedicated microprocessors, most of which would be of more recent
vintage than the failed NSSC-1's.

So the NSSC-1's have an architecture designed in the '60's and components
fabricated in the the '70's.

Thanks for the video link.

A link to information on the Science Instrument Command and
Data Handling Unit :-
https://cdn.hackaday.io/files/1804677721100128/Hubble-media-guide.pdf

[alpal]

Thanks Gary,
I may have misunderstood Scott in the video?
It sounded like the old stuff had all been replaced with the 80486 chips.
It is not crystal clear but it doesn't matter -
a computer has failed and we do know that the old 80486 has large
enough transistors that it can go a long time in space
with all the cosmic ray hazards there.

[pmrid]

I hadn’t appreciated the restraints now imposed on future replace/repair missions to Hubble by the retirement of the Space Shuttle with all the manipulators etc it had. It does paint a very different picture for Hubble. We have well and truly entered the age of the throw-away satellite. Pity.

[leon]

OK the Scope is stuffed, :sadeyes: let someone in charge of all the dollars redirect it to a worthy cause, :thumbsup::thumbsup: To the millions that are staving, the forgotten people, the abused, and the list goes on, :sadeyes: lets get it right. :thumbsup:

Let them not forget, and chase something that is just impossible.

Don't bother with a new or refurbished instrument, the Deep Space People here on IIS do a better job anyhow.

just my two cents worth.:shrug:

Leon :thumbsup:

[Hans Tucker]

Agreed .. let Hubble die an honorable death but funding needs to stay with science. Take money from Defence or Casino's but leave science funding alone. Whilst humans exist there will always be starving (Just look at Band Aid) .. there will always be needy
Just my 2 cents worth.

[leon]

Good point Hans, I do agree that science is important, you guys on the ground take better images than that thing ever did ;)

Leon:thumbsup:

[alpal]

Peter,





The Hubble is too complicated to last a long time without servicing.
When the Space Shuttle retired that was the end of Hubble too.
Maybe they should have left a Space Shuttle in orbit beside
the ISS and refueled it etc to retain a repair capability?