|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Hubble's Current Condition?
I was watching a show about Hubble last night but...fell asleep (it was very
late) anyway, as I understand it only 3 of he Hubble's 6 gyroscopes are working. Is this correct? What is it's life expectancy? Also, are the images for the VLT in Chile comparable to the Hubble images? Thanks, jojo |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
In article , cgv_2000
says... I was watching a show about Hubble last night but...fell asleep (it was very late) anyway, as I understand it only 3 of he Hubble's 6 gyroscopes are working. Is this correct? What is it's life expectancy? Also, are the images for the VLT in Chile comparable to the Hubble images? Thanks, jojo Hubble is to be replaced by the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) in 2011. http://ngst.gsfc.nasa.gov/FastFacts.htm Just a note: The JWST was formerly known as the NGST (Next Generation Space Telescope). -Chris Swartz |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"jojo" wrote in
: I was watching a show about Hubble last night but...fell asleep (it was very late) anyway, as I understand it only 3 of he Hubble's 6 gyroscopes are working. Is this correct? Could be - the darn things have had to be replaced before. Hubble was offline for some time waiting for a previous servicing mission to replace failed gyros. Hubble is supposed to be decommissioned by 2010 and replaced with the James Webb Space Telescope. I gather that the James Webb will be primarily used for infrared observations. What is it's life expectancy? See above. Also, are the images for the VLT in Chile comparable to the Hubble images? VLT info: http://www.eso.org/outreach/info-events/ut1fl/ L. Thanks, jojo |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
That show is OLD, they have replaced the non working ones and even updated the
computer and one camera. -- "In this universe the night was falling,the shadows were lengthening towards an east that would not know another dawn. But elsewhere the stars were still young and the light of morning lingered: and along the path he once had followed, man would one day go again." Arthur C. Clarke, The City & The Stars SIAR www.starlords.org Bishop's Car Fund http://www.bishopcarfund.Netfirms.com/ Freelance Writers Shop http://www.freelancewrittersshop.netfirms.com Telescope Buyers FAQ http://home.inreach.com/starlord "jojo" wrote in message . .. I was watching a show about Hubble last night but...fell asleep (it was very late) anyway, as I understand it only 3 of he Hubble's 6 gyroscopes are working. Is this correct? What is it's life expectancy? Also, are the images for the VLT in Chile comparable to the Hubble images? Thanks, jojo --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/03 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"jojo" wrote in message . .. I was watching a show about Hubble last night but...fell asleep (it was very late) anyway, as I understand it only 3 of he Hubble's 6 gyroscopes are working. Is this correct? What is it's life expectancy? Also, are the images for the VLT in Chile comparable to the Hubble images? Thanks, jojo There is an article in Astronomy now that says NASA are looking to deorbit the HST into the ocean in 2010 a year before the JWST is placed into orbit For full story... http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0308/14hubblelife/ Stu |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Stu wrote:
[ text omitted ] There is an article in Astronomy now that says NASA are looking to deorbit the HST into the ocean in 2010 a year before the JWST is placed into orbit For full story... http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0308/14hubblelife/ [ text omitted ] ................. Why don't they park the HST in some safe orbit if they don't want to use it right away, rather than destroy it? NASA could then later bring it to the Moon, for example, and operate it from a solid platform there. However, it occurs to me, that the vehicles for Moon transportation of their design drawings may not exist. Have they lost or destroyed the working drawings for the vehicle systems? Is that what we are seeing? Or, is it becoming known, or dawning on NASA management, that the Shuttles can't fly to the Moon. Their wings are useless in the vicinity of the Moon. Why is there no Moon vehicle system? One reason I suspect is because the need for wings was the reason of subjective sentimentalism, e.g., of some imagined notion of safety, or the need to control the flight of a ship that has a blunt front and triangular wings. That translates into NASA management's fear of falling without wings. The principle of the lifting body for re-entry doesn't require wings. Still another reason may be that the winged Shuttle design was selected specifically in order to prevent flights to the Moon. Moon flights would require totally different hardware. Is it not true that for some reason the appropriate hardware cannot be recreated and be the cause of future Moon ventures? The selection of the next generation Shuttle design has probably also prevented the continued exploration of the Moon for the foreseeable future. Moon bases would have followed the ISS, and different types of telescope observatories, small science project labs, and prototype power generation stations would probably have been in place on the Moon by now. The HST may have been a good choice for a starter observatory on the Moon, had it been designed with that in mind. A stacked lift vehicle system was the best design solution from the outset. Early rocket scientists figured that out years prior. That design would have distributed forces evenly with the lowest level of concentrated forces. That translates into lower weight and cost, and, also, structural reliability is a consequence. If a gun can send an object into orbit from Earth, then in 1/6 gravity, a long gun on the Moon could be one way to return some objects to the Earth. Shuttle aircraft may work in the Earth's atmosphere, or for servicing the ISS, but they are good only for work in the atmosphere. The glaring lack is that we missed having the availability of a Moon- Earth space vehicle system. The decision to build more winged vehicles for Shuttles, and to continue the fabrication of the Shuttle/LF_tank/SF_booster system meant that the radical ultra-light weight axial stacked-component-system, or SCS. that had the triangular shape was not to be. The decision to prevent travel to the Moon was reaffirmed at that time. The principle of logic as the main factor of science, engineering, and design was excluded at that time. Social adaptation and authoritarianism had to be heeded at NASA as the over-riding principle principle of vehicle design. The Shuttle plus separate solid fuel rocket boosters plus separate liquid fuel tank system required a relatively large and heavy strut and force distribution system within each of the attached components. There was also the relatively simple and innovative idea to place the insulation on the outside or the liquid fuel tank, but unprotected, it was a lame idea. The insulation could have been incorporated in a protective building structure until just prior to blastoff when it would open to reveal the rocket. Weight wise the insulation and support struts would have been left on the ground. It seemed more important to NASA to place a school teacher in orbit for social adaptation reasons than to use a correctly designed vehicle system and to continue the exploration of the Moon. Ralph Hertle |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: Old Astronomy Books, 23 books at $2 - $6 each | Oldbooks78 | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | October 3rd 03 07:54 PM |