OT What is the big deal about Hubble danger?

Page 2 of 3  
On Fri, 15 May 2009 13:30:48 -0700, Oren wrote:

Previous repairs and upgrades involved replacing parts that were designed from the beginning to be replaced (plug-ins essentially).
The stuff going on this time involves components that were expected to last for the life of Hubble and so now they are actually having to remove screws and such to make the repairs. That hardware can get away from them and become space debris that could be harmful (now or in the future).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 15 May 2009 22:50:02 GMT, Rick Brandt

One mission lost a tool/bag/wrench (?) at ISS.
This mission is said that one component requires the removal 117 screws. Work better left on the ground.
An STS had been hit with a paint chip, traveling at 17 thousand MPH (reported by experts). It looked like bullet hole in your windshield. Thin as a paint chip, but had it been hit by a grain of sand - more damage in that case
Damage to the space shuttle:
http://www.scienceclarified.com/dispute/images/sind_01_img0009.jpg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually they did. Hubble was designed with 15 year life expectancy which would make anything past 2005 a bonus.
--
"Distracting a politician from governing
is like distracting a bear from eating your baby."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

look at the Mars rovers;designed for 3 months,still working after 5 years.
I have a light bulb in a bathroom light fixture that's lasted 23 years,gets daily use. I'm sure that's well beyond its "design life". It's a 130V "contractors" bulb. 40W.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
a bonus.

I hear they are slowing down and predicted to stop this year. There is an issue of dust, I think also, or maybe that is cause of slowing down.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
on 5/15/2009 3:06 PM (ET) mm wrote the following:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_hubble_space_junk
--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
mm wrote:

The contingency plan on all shuttle missions after Columbia is that if they reach orbit and find tile/hull damage they could dock at the ISS and wait for a ride back. Hubble is in a higher and different inclination orbit than the ISS. Atlantis needs to achieve the same orbit as Hubble for the Hubble service mission (STS-125). After doing so they have no way to get to the ISS if they discover tile/hull damage. Then the only way home is for Endeavour to be launched on STS-400 into a similar orbit as Atlantis where they can rendezvous and move the Atlantis crew onto Endeavour.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
George wrote:

Keep your fingers crossed. If they lose another one, even if they save the crew somehow, US manned space flight is likely over. I'm expecting our new prez to pull the plug on Bush's somewhat silly son-of-Apollo moon/Mars program anyway, and the current financial crisis plus another lost ship, would be the perfect excuse to say 'Maybe someday, but not right now'. And once they stop, and the team gets laid off, the odds of it all starting back up are slim and none.
(I'm not a big fan of son-of-Apollo concept. Yes, expendables will likely be cheaper per launch that the mismanaged Shuttle program. But IMHO, it is a step backwards, to old technology. We need to find a cheap reliable way to boost reusables to orbit.)
-- aem sends...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/15/2009 3:31 PM aemeijers spake thus:

For my money, they could lose the entire manned space-exploration thingie.
It's a tremendous waste of resources (and, it turns out, human life as well). Nothing that needs done can't be done by remotely-controlled spacecraft. I'm all for space exploration, just not the macho national chest-expanding style we have now.
And totally against the militarization of space as well. We need a binding international treaty banning weapons in space.
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Nebenzahl wrote:

Robots versus wetware have pluses and minuses on both sides, and it is a valid discussion. But it isn't national chest-expanding I am concerned with. It is for the species as a whole, to keep exploring. Not many unexplored places left on earth. I think once humans stop exploring, it will all begin to seem kind of pointless. Is this all there is, etc?
And as to dreams about making space a DMZ- just exactly how would you enforce such a treaty? By the time you realize somebody has violated it, they already have the high ground. There is no such thing as a binding treaty, if there is no way to make it painful and expensive to violate it. I can't slam the military too hard- without them, neither man nor robot would be in space.
-- aem sends...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's the MOST STUPID statement; once ICBMs are launched,they TRAVEL THRU SPACE to reach their targets. They will also be guided by orbital satellites like GLONASS and GPS.
Space is ALREADY "militarized".

about as well as the agreement North Korea made to not launch ballistic missiles,or Iran with it's Non-Proliferation Treaty violations and nuclear weapons programs.IOW,not at all.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Nebenzahl wrote:

Taking a long term view, though, there's no way we can continue as a species without either a) much stricter population controls than we have now or b) colonization of some other planets (either in our solar system or another)
there's already too damn many people on the planet now, and it's starting to show.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

We still have the original 3 population controls. War, famine, and diesease.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
mm wrote:

well, yeah, those are always fun ones :)
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Nebenzahl wrote:

It is a human drive to go where no man has gone before; it is America's destiny to lead.
We must militarize space. Only the threat of annihilation will keep the barbarians from the gates.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

What if we just militarized the gates?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
mm wrote:

Well, that too. But just militarizing the gates doesn't threaten the invaders' wives, children, relatives, friends, pets, venerated shrines, or way of life.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Er... WHO exactly ARE the "barbarians"? Gitmo. Abu Ghraib.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/17/2009 12:26 AM Amateur spake thus:

"HeyBub" is a perfect example of a barbarian (American genus). But oh so civilized.
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Amateur wrote:

Certainly a small percentage are (were) housed at the two places you mentioned. But I suspect we don't have enough facilities for them all. Probably have to kill them in situ.
For an overview of the issue, check an essay by Thomas Barnett in today's Esquire. http://www.esquire.com/the-side/war-room/obama-nuclear-proliferation-051409?click=main_sr
While the article is about the futility of a "nuclear-free" world, many of the observations apply to space-based weapons as well.
Barnett wrote "The Pentagon's New Map" which changed the way a lot of people - including me - think about future wars. In it, he divides the world into "The Core" and "The Gap." The "Core" includes countries with a relatively high standard of living, rule of law, democracy (or close to it), international trade, long life-expectancy, content citizenry, etc. The "Gap" countries lack almost all these attributes.
Core countries don't initiate wars; Gap countries do.
For example, there is zero chance China, an emergin Core country, would initiate war with anybody over almost anything, including Taiwan.
But, to assuage the concerns of some, we don't really tactically need "space-based" weapons - other than the ones we already have (GPS is a space-based weapon, or at least spaced-based support of weapons). A spaced-based weapon's utility - like nuclear - is primarily the pucker factor.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.