Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Danny Allen
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/14/09
10/14/09
One in _70_. And that, I believe, is the risk of dying on this specific mission, with all the "might tear a hole in your spacesuit" action. Or the point where they thought one guy might end up shattering his faceplate.
10/14/09
Part of the show talked about how they had to come up with all these tools and things to solve their unique problems dealing with this really really expensive piece of technology (ex. not letting the screws flow away for fear of scratching the lens) and I just kept wondering if they had to make it so complicated. With the screws example, there was one panel that had over 100. Couldn't they have used 50 to hold that panel in place?
Another example was developing what was essentially a power screwdriver with a light on it that would function in space. Sure it's necessary but when they were testing the tool underwater, they found that the light was interfering with the lining up of the screwdriver head with the screw. Did they really need to do a full on test where the guys had to suit up, all the equipment get lowered, all pieces in place to test that new tool? Shouldn't a preliminary test have been a guy just holding it underwater and trying it out in his bathtub or something? Think about all the cost wasted because they didn't find out about this issue till later.
I'm sure the Hubble really does need all this precise equipment to maintain, because it's like a very high priced supercar where everything is measured to many decimal points. But then my counter-argument is that what good is it if we find a galaxy over 200 lightyears away if we can't even get a person to Mars and back yet. Shouldn't we be focusing more on improving interplanetary transport methods rather than taking a picture of something we can't reach in several lifetimes?
Again, I'm all for NASA and what they do and I look in awe of the shots that the Hubble takes just like everyone else. But can't we focus on more immediate space things? Do we really need that incredible picture of the far off galaxy right now, this minute? Or can it wait 100 years or after we've got better shuttles and maybe a better station/outpost or two?
10/14/09
The panel with all the screws was something that was not designed with eventual replacement in mind. It was a one-time install, so the number of screws was possibly determined by something more related to the function, such as eliminating a potential source of vibration.
As for testing the tool, they weren't testing the tool. They were practicing the process. That's the entire process, not just some small aspect of it. As they said, there is a long list of all the things that can go wrong on a mission like this, and their job is to catch as many of those as possible before launch day. It's not just about whether that tool will function properly, but also about making sure the astronauts have practiced every aspect of the mission until it's second nature. For two years, that's their job. Learn the mission.
As for waiting 100 years to get started on this stuff, I'm sure if you were an astrophysicist, you'd see the fundamental flaw in that argument.
10/14/09
10/14/09
otherwise, PBS is releasing the whole thing for viewing online if you follow the link at the end of the article. it's supposed to be put up at some point today.
10/14/09
10/14/09
Every time I hear about how important the Hubble is as a scientific instrument, I can't help but think back to those days when it really was NASA's biggest black eye. At the time, I can't recall any media source even entertaining the thought that it could be fixed, so from everything I heard it was like they put a school bus into orbit and that's about as useful as it would ever be. Sometimes it's nice to be proven wrong...