Anyone else sad about the demise of Hubble?

[mura_gadi (Steve)]

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-sate...opes-nasa.html

[alpal]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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/180467...edia-guide.pdf

[alpal]

Originally Posted by 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/180467...edia-guide.pdf

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 (Peter)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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.

Leon

[Hans Tucker (Hans)]

Originally Posted by leon

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

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.

Leon

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

[alpal]

Peter,

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.

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?