<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Awful Hubble News</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/</link>
	<description>Random samplings from a universe of ideas.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:59:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: An Update on Hubble &#124; Cosmic Variance</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/comment-page-1/#comment-43726</link>
		<dc:creator>An Update on Hubble &#124; Cosmic Variance</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:49:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/#comment-43726</guid>
		<description>[...] when we last left our poor afflicted orbiting telescope, it had lost side A of its CU/SDF (Control Unit/Science Data Formatter), which is responsible for [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] when we last left our poor afflicted orbiting telescope, it had lost side A of its CU/SDF (Control Unit/Science Data Formatter), which is responsible for [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Erwin</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/comment-page-1/#comment-43738</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Erwin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:45:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/#comment-43738</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;... The astronauts are being trained up so that mental decisions, body motions, and technology operate perfectly according to a script.&lt;/i&gt;

I think they&#039;re also well-trained to deal with snags and failures, and to come up with on-the-spot solutions if that&#039;s possible.  There have been a number of cases (certainly with ISS construction, if not with previous HST missions) where astronauts have had alter plans in mid-mission and come up alternative approaches.  It wouldn&#039;t surprise me at all if missions which went exactly as planned were the exception rather than the rule, and that the astronauts are well aware of this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>&#8230; The astronauts are being trained up so that mental decisions, body motions, and technology operate perfectly according to a script.</i></p>
<p>I think they&#8217;re also well-trained to deal with snags and failures, and to come up with on-the-spot solutions if that&#8217;s possible.  There have been a number of cases (certainly with ISS construction, if not with previous HST missions) where astronauts have had alter plans in mid-mission and come up alternative approaches.  It wouldn&#8217;t surprise me at all if missions which went exactly as planned were the exception rather than the rule, and that the astronauts are well aware of this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lawrence B. Crowell</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/comment-page-1/#comment-43737</link>
		<dc:creator>Lawrence B. Crowell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:57:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/#comment-43737</guid>
		<description>There are a number of reasons why that can&#039;t happen.  The biggest is that the orbits are too different.  The energy for nonHohmann orbital changes which change the angular momentum of the orbit is large.  The shuttle would have to loft a fairly large rocket engine to do this, with all types of payload configuration issues which would have to be worked in orbit.  There were plans to loft a Delta motor in the shuttle, but it was realized this amounted to putting a bomb on the shuttle.  The program was scapped.

The Hubble could not be attached physically to the ISS.  The ISS is a large multi-mode vibrational structure, which would prove to be horrible.

Bringing the Hubble back to Earth is not likely either.  The flight dynamics of the ship would be very different and more difficult with a large payload on board.  It would be a very risky venture.

Lawrence B. Crowell</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are a number of reasons why that can&#8217;t happen.  The biggest is that the orbits are too different.  The energy for nonHohmann orbital changes which change the angular momentum of the orbit is large.  The shuttle would have to loft a fairly large rocket engine to do this, with all types of payload configuration issues which would have to be worked in orbit.  There were plans to loft a Delta motor in the shuttle, but it was realized this amounted to putting a bomb on the shuttle.  The program was scapped.</p>
<p>The Hubble could not be attached physically to the ISS.  The ISS is a large multi-mode vibrational structure, which would prove to be horrible.</p>
<p>Bringing the Hubble back to Earth is not likely either.  The flight dynamics of the ship would be very different and more difficult with a large payload on board.  It would be a very risky venture.</p>
<p>Lawrence B. Crowell</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Count Iblis</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/comment-page-1/#comment-43718</link>
		<dc:creator>Count Iblis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:37:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/#comment-43718</guid>
		<description>Why not put a telescope on the ISS?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why not put a telescope on the ISS?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lawrence B. Crowell</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/comment-page-1/#comment-43725</link>
		<dc:creator>Lawrence B. Crowell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:43:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/#comment-43725</guid>
		<description>Last summer I watched Niel DeGrasse-Tyson&#039;s program on PBS &quot;Science Now&quot; which went through what was required to make this repair.  In a word it appears that the repair job amounts to fixing a Swiss watch while wearing welder&#039;s gloves.  There is also only one chance to do it.  The main camera&#039;s circuit board needs to be replaced, and if done on Earth it could be done without so much as a sneeze of a problem.  In orbit the astronauts need to remove these small screws, they can&#039;t lose any of them for it might rattle around the optics and damage them, remove the malfunctioning board or data module, insert the new one and replace the panel enclosure with the screws.  The whole operation must go flawlessly.

The astronauts are being trained up so that mental decisions, body motions, and technology operate perfectly according to a script.  It looks as if anything that could go wrong could hex the Hubble Telescope for good.  I am not privy to the inside information on this, but maybe there needs to be reconsideration of the whole protocal.

Lawrence B. Crowell</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Last summer I watched Niel DeGrasse-Tyson&#8217;s program on PBS &#8220;Science Now&#8221; which went through what was required to make this repair.  In a word it appears that the repair job amounts to fixing a Swiss watch while wearing welder&#8217;s gloves.  There is also only one chance to do it.  The main camera&#8217;s circuit board needs to be replaced, and if done on Earth it could be done without so much as a sneeze of a problem.  In orbit the astronauts need to remove these small screws, they can&#8217;t lose any of them for it might rattle around the optics and damage them, remove the malfunctioning board or data module, insert the new one and replace the panel enclosure with the screws.  The whole operation must go flawlessly.</p>
<p>The astronauts are being trained up so that mental decisions, body motions, and technology operate perfectly according to a script.  It looks as if anything that could go wrong could hex the Hubble Telescope for good.  I am not privy to the inside information on this, but maybe there needs to be reconsideration of the whole protocal.</p>
<p>Lawrence B. Crowell</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ed</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/comment-page-1/#comment-43736</link>
		<dc:creator>Ed</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:13:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/#comment-43736</guid>
		<description>Roman: &lt;blockquote&gt;Re-entry with that much additional weight - wouldn’t this even be possible?&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Yes, it must be possible.  Hubble was launched on the Shuttle and they must have had the option to re-enter with it still on board in case there was a problem with deployment.

Back in the days when they used the Shuttle to launch multiple satellites they took care to release them in the right order so if the second (or third?) failed to deploy after the first (or second?) had been released the centre of gravity would be in the right range for re-entry and landing.  If the first had failed to deploy then it would have been, literally, suicidal to attempt to release the second.

Concerns about folding it up (particularly the replaced solar panels - remember that the panels on it now are not the ones which folded out after its initial release from the Shuttle) and issues of contamination sound very real to me, though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Roman:<br />
<blockquote>Re-entry with that much additional weight &#8211; wouldn’t this even be possible?</p></blockquote>
<p>Yes, it must be possible.  Hubble was launched on the Shuttle and they must have had the option to re-enter with it still on board in case there was a problem with deployment.</p>
<p>Back in the days when they used the Shuttle to launch multiple satellites they took care to release them in the right order so if the second (or third?) failed to deploy after the first (or second?) had been released the centre of gravity would be in the right range for re-entry and landing.  If the first had failed to deploy then it would have been, literally, suicidal to attempt to release the second.</p>
<p>Concerns about folding it up (particularly the replaced solar panels &#8211; remember that the panels on it now are not the ones which folded out after its initial release from the Shuttle) and issues of contamination sound very real to me, though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dio</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/comment-page-1/#comment-43735</link>
		<dc:creator>dio</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:13:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/#comment-43735</guid>
		<description>Strangely, there is no updates in the STScI site, however &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/080929-shuttle-hubble-update.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;
there is an updated information:
&quot;Replacing the 136-pound (62-kg) data formatter box should be relatively straightforward for Atlantis&#039;s crew, requiring about two hours during one of the mission&#039;s five back-to-back spacewalks to perform...&quot;
Regarding the adaptive optics on the ground-based telescopes and the HST, there is a nice
&lt;a href=&quot;http://sco.stsci.edu/second_decade/html/prefirt_meeting_inputs_20.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;page&lt;/a&gt;, or
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.aura-astronomy.org/nv/hst_vs_ao_2.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PDF document&lt;/a&gt;. The major conclusion is:  &quot;Ground-based telescopes are an essential tool for astronomy, but will not
surpass Hubble&#039;s optical imaging performance by 2015.&quot;
What is surprising to me is that there is no discussion in the astronomical community concerning the future optical-UV replace of the HST. I am aware of only one project &lt;a href=&quot;http://wso.inasan.ru/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the WSO/UV&lt;/a&gt;, which appears to me inferior to the HST with its 1.7 meter primary mirror diameter.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Strangely, there is no updates in the STScI site, however <a href="http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/080929-shuttle-hubble-update.html" rel="nofollow">here</a><br />
there is an updated information:<br />
&#8220;Replacing the 136-pound (62-kg) data formatter box should be relatively straightforward for Atlantis&#8217;s crew, requiring about two hours during one of the mission&#8217;s five back-to-back spacewalks to perform&#8230;&#8221;<br />
Regarding the adaptive optics on the ground-based telescopes and the HST, there is a nice<br />
<a href="http://sco.stsci.edu/second_decade/html/prefirt_meeting_inputs_20.html" rel="nofollow">page</a>, or<br />
<a href="http://www.aura-astronomy.org/nv/hst_vs_ao_2.pdf" rel="nofollow">PDF document</a>. The major conclusion is:  &#8220;Ground-based telescopes are an essential tool for astronomy, but will not<br />
surpass Hubble&#8217;s optical imaging performance by 2015.&#8221;<br />
What is surprising to me is that there is no discussion in the astronomical community concerning the future optical-UV replace of the HST. I am aware of only one project <a href="http://wso.inasan.ru/index.html" rel="nofollow">the WSO/UV</a>, which appears to me inferior to the HST with its 1.7 meter primary mirror diameter.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/comment-page-1/#comment-43722</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2008 04:28:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/#comment-43722</guid>
		<description>Apart from all the financial reasons why HST could not be retrieved and relaunched, I suspect that it would be difficult (not impossible) to fold it back up - mostly the solar panels, and possibly internal moving parts - and pack it to guarantee that it would survive the trip back; you&#039;d have to rebuild a lot of the telescope once it was down here.

And I think it actually would be impossible to get it down to Earth and back up without an unacceptable level of contamination, which would then outgas and cause all sorts of problems.  Yes, everything on Hubble started from Earth, but it went from a clean room to the launch vehicle to orbit.

I suspect a real accounting would show that it is always cheaper to build and launch a new thingy than to retrieve and relaunch one.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Apart from all the financial reasons why HST could not be retrieved and relaunched, I suspect that it would be difficult (not impossible) to fold it back up &#8211; mostly the solar panels, and possibly internal moving parts &#8211; and pack it to guarantee that it would survive the trip back; you&#8217;d have to rebuild a lot of the telescope once it was down here.</p>
<p>And I think it actually would be impossible to get it down to Earth and back up without an unacceptable level of contamination, which would then outgas and cause all sorts of problems.  Yes, everything on Hubble started from Earth, but it went from a clean room to the launch vehicle to orbit.</p>
<p>I suspect a real accounting would show that it is always cheaper to build and launch a new thingy than to retrieve and relaunch one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brad Holden</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/comment-page-1/#comment-43734</link>
		<dc:creator>Brad Holden</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2008 03:36:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/#comment-43734</guid>
		<description>There is an interesting &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/science/space/W30hubb.html?ref=us&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NYT article here&lt;/a&gt;.

I am going to admire Kai saying &quot;sizeable field of view&quot; and &quot;Hubble&quot; in the same sentence (and have that sentence be correct!)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is an interesting <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/science/space/W30hubb.html?ref=us" rel="nofollow">NYT article here</a>.</p>
<p>I am going to admire Kai saying &#8220;sizeable field of view&#8221; and &#8220;Hubble&#8221; in the same sentence (and have that sentence be correct!)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lab Lemming</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/comment-page-1/#comment-43733</link>
		<dc:creator>Lab Lemming</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2008 02:10:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/#comment-43733</guid>
		<description>Why can&#039;t you relaunch on a normal rocket- and at the same time, put it in a better orbit (for observational purposes).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why can&#8217;t you relaunch on a normal rocket- and at the same time, put it in a better orbit (for observational purposes).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kai Noeske</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/comment-page-1/#comment-43721</link>
		<dc:creator>Kai Noeske</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2008 01:53:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/#comment-43721</guid>
		<description>Roman: very good point. I did not even think that far. Do you know more about this?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Roman: very good point. I did not even think that far. Do you know more about this?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kai Noeske</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/comment-page-1/#comment-43732</link>
		<dc:creator>Kai Noeske</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2008 01:48:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/#comment-43732</guid>
		<description>Lab Lemming: I think the issue are 2 flights instead of 1, at a 1/700 economy-bailout pricetag (I recall a shuttle flight is a billion, ballpark), and it means twice the risk for crew and shuttle. This risk is very non-zero, I read something like a 1/60-1/80 chance of total loss; this is worse than flights to the ISS due to a higher density of space debris on the way to Hubble. Not an expert, just parrotting what I recall from the news. But yes, this way they could give dear Hubble a much-deserved total makeover, and we could all line up to hug and love it.

Kuas: adding to Julianne&#039;s points, Hubble is very sensitive to faint sources. This is because of its high resolution - all the light goes into one tiny sharp spot, which means high contrast - and in the near infrared the absence of the atmosphere: you get rid of much thermal and non-thermal atmospheric  background. It is very hard to push even a 10m telescope on the ground to the same sensitivity as Hubble just because of that issue - let alone to push a TAC to allow you to expose forever . Plus, Hubble can survey substantial areas with its sizeable field of view, while AO still has a quite limited corrected field. For any deep survey of the distant Universe, you want sensitive infrared, that&#039;s why everyone is having wet dreams about the new WFC3.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lab Lemming: I think the issue are 2 flights instead of 1, at a 1/700 economy-bailout pricetag (I recall a shuttle flight is a billion, ballpark), and it means twice the risk for crew and shuttle. This risk is very non-zero, I read something like a 1/60-1/80 chance of total loss; this is worse than flights to the ISS due to a higher density of space debris on the way to Hubble. Not an expert, just parrotting what I recall from the news. But yes, this way they could give dear Hubble a much-deserved total makeover, and we could all line up to hug and love it.</p>
<p>Kuas: adding to Julianne&#8217;s points, Hubble is very sensitive to faint sources. This is because of its high resolution &#8211; all the light goes into one tiny sharp spot, which means high contrast &#8211; and in the near infrared the absence of the atmosphere: you get rid of much thermal and non-thermal atmospheric  background. It is very hard to push even a 10m telescope on the ground to the same sensitivity as Hubble just because of that issue &#8211; let alone to push a TAC to allow you to expose forever . Plus, Hubble can survey substantial areas with its sizeable field of view, while AO still has a quite limited corrected field. For any deep survey of the distant Universe, you want sensitive infrared, that&#8217;s why everyone is having wet dreams about the new WFC3.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Roman</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/comment-page-1/#comment-43731</link>
		<dc:creator>Roman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:52:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/#comment-43731</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;bring it back to Earth&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Re-entry with that much additional weight - wouldn&#039;t this even be possible?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>bring it back to Earth</p></blockquote>
<p>Re-entry with that much additional weight &#8211; wouldn&#8217;t this even be possible?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Awful Hubble News : Sophoblog</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/comment-page-1/#comment-43730</link>
		<dc:creator>Awful Hubble News : Sophoblog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:14:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/#comment-43730</guid>
		<description>[...] Awful Hubble News [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Awful Hubble News [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Professor Danger &#124; Cosmic Variance</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/comment-page-1/#comment-43724</link>
		<dc:creator>Professor Danger &#124; Cosmic Variance</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:52:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/#comment-43724</guid>
		<description>[...]        &#171; Awful Hubble News &#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;    digg_url = &#039;http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/professor-danger/&#039;; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...]        &laquo; Awful Hubble News &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;    digg_url = &#8216;<a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/professor-danger/&#039;" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/professor-danger/&#039;</a>; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lab Lemming</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/comment-page-1/#comment-43723</link>
		<dc:creator>Lab Lemming</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:45:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/#comment-43723</guid>
		<description>Can the shuttle capture the hubble, bring it back to Earth, and have normal humans fix it, upgrade it, and relaunch it on a normal rocket?

Costwise, how would that compare?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can the shuttle capture the hubble, bring it back to Earth, and have normal humans fix it, upgrade it, and relaunch it on a normal rocket?</p>
<p>Costwise, how would that compare?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: chuko</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/comment-page-1/#comment-43729</link>
		<dc:creator>chuko</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:02:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/#comment-43729</guid>
		<description>Maybe we could ask the Chinese to please fix it for us.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maybe we could ask the Chinese to please fix it for us.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JohnR</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/comment-page-1/#comment-43728</link>
		<dc:creator>JohnR</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:48:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/#comment-43728</guid>
		<description>I find this just another lie by NASA who has wanted an excuse for years now to kill off the hubble

With the stealing and billions of dollars NASA has taken from us taxpayers and 50 years later we still are just flying an airplane at higher distances then a normal plane

I do not believe they ever landed man on the moon and are now fronts for Europes space agency.

NASA should be killed off and let the common man make it possible to travel to the stars for when NASA spends over 500 million dollars to scrape dirt for 4 months on mars and cannot even do that right it is time to get rid of them and most of their employees that are even Americans.

All I can recall of NASA is a woman wearing a diper going to Texas to kill off her married boyfriend&#039;s lover and 6 million dollar portapotty.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I find this just another lie by NASA who has wanted an excuse for years now to kill off the hubble</p>
<p>With the stealing and billions of dollars NASA has taken from us taxpayers and 50 years later we still are just flying an airplane at higher distances then a normal plane</p>
<p>I do not believe they ever landed man on the moon and are now fronts for Europes space agency.</p>
<p>NASA should be killed off and let the common man make it possible to travel to the stars for when NASA spends over 500 million dollars to scrape dirt for 4 months on mars and cannot even do that right it is time to get rid of them and most of their employees that are even Americans.</p>
<p>All I can recall of NASA is a woman wearing a diper going to Texas to kill off her married boyfriend&#8217;s lover and 6 million dollar portapotty.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Julianne</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/comment-page-1/#comment-43720</link>
		<dc:creator>Julianne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:50:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/#comment-43720</guid>
		<description>Kuas -- Not even close.  AO is good for some things (is that one lump or two?  is that a disk or a point?), but precision photometry is very very difficult (compared to the stability of space), and you can&#039;t work at optical wavelengths.  There&#039;s also no UV sensitivity from the ground at any spatial resolution.  I&#039;m not saying AO is bad/useless -- just that it&#039;s very limited in the things it can do well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kuas &#8212; Not even close.  AO is good for some things (is that one lump or two?  is that a disk or a point?), but precision photometry is very very difficult (compared to the stability of space), and you can&#8217;t work at optical wavelengths.  There&#8217;s also no UV sensitivity from the ground at any spatial resolution.  I&#8217;m not saying AO is bad/useless &#8212; just that it&#8217;s very limited in the things it can do well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Carter, FCD</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/comment-page-1/#comment-43727</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Carter, FCD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:39:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/29/awful-hubble-news/#comment-43727</guid>
		<description>I suppose it could have been worse: the data handling and communications system could have failed &lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt; the service mission.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I suppose it could have been worse: the data handling and communications system could have failed <em>after</em> the service mission.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk
Page Caching using disk

Served from: blogs.discovermagazine.com @ 2012-02-14 13:26:44 -->
