SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the (with-reverb)-Space-e-e-e-Telescope-e-e-e dept.
NASA is continuing to diagnose a problem with the payload computer on the Hubble Space Telescope after completing another set of tests on June 23 and 24. The payload computer halted on June 13 and the spacecraft stopped collecting science data. The telescope itself and its science instruments remain in good health and are currently in a safe configuration.
The spacecraft has two payload computers, one of which serves as a backup, that are located on the Science Instrument and Command and Data Handling (SI C&DH) unit. There are various pieces of hardware which make up both payload computers, including but not limited to:
- a Central Processing Module (CPM), which processes the commands that coordinate and control the science instruments
- a Standard Interface (STINT), which bridges communications between the computer’s CPM and other components
- a communications bus, which contains lines that pass signals and data between hardware
- and one active memory module, which stores operational commands to the instruments. There are three additional modules which serve as backups.
Additional tests performed on June 23 and 24 included turning on the backup computer for the first time in space. The tests showed that numerous combinations of these hardware pieces from both the primary and backup payload computer all experienced the same error — commands to write into or read from memory were not successful.
Once you have eliminated the impossible, what ever remains is only highly unlikely. Hardware issue?
Since it is highly unlikely that all individual hardware elements have a problem, the team is now looking at other hardware as the possible culprit, including the Command Unit/Science Data Formatter (CU/SDF), another module on the SI C&DH. The CU formats and sends commands and data to specific destinations, including the science instruments. The SDF formats the science data from the science instruments for transmission to the ground. The team is also looking at the power regulator to see if possibly the voltages being supplied to hardware are not what they should be.
They have tried turning it off and turning it on again, so as a Microsoft Certified Engineer, I am all out of options.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 28 2021, @05:44PM (2 children)
Not really. Dragon is probably capable of getting to Hubble, but it doesn't have an airlock and isn't designed for EVA, neither are the spacesuits it uses. It doesn't have a way to grapple the telescope either. The spacesuit situation is probably manageable but the others are much more difficult. Starliner and Dream Chaser were also mentioned in the last article about this and they have the same problems but are not operational yet. (Well, Dream Chaser has an airlock, but it's unlikely to ever be operational for crewed missions although it sure looks cool).
NASA is capable of doing clever things and can probably find a way to deal with the lack of a robot arm (maybe with an external control module?) but there are so many challenges.
I think they will eventually fix this computer problem, and hopefully there won't be any more serious problems before Starship (which has all the necessary gadgets) is ready.
Even Starship might not be as straightforward as the Shuttle was. The cargo version is supposed to be able to grapple satellites, but it's never been explicitly stated, as far as I know, that it will be able to carry humans as well. Service missions might require both a crew and a cargo version to both be on station. This shouldn't be a serious problem, although it might require a bit of extra effort from the mission planners.
The last Shuttle mission attached some kind of general purpose docking adapter, but supposedly it's only there to allow for deorbit. It might solve the docking problem for capsules, and make it possible to do service with Dragon or Starliner if a solution to the EVA problem is found. That's a bunch of ifs, but it could happen.
One of the reasons NASA doesn't like to talk about this sort of thing is budgetary. Talk tends to turn into money, and NASA is bysy burning that on SLS and JWST instead of on things like actual working telescopes that do actual science.
Since Arecibo literally fell apart recently, hopefully there will be enough public interest so that they won't just let Hubble fall apart too, once they have an alternative.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 29 2021, @12:07AM (1 child)
With the supposed cost and frequency of a Starship launch, you could send two Starships, a Crew Starship and a Cargo Starship, for the mission. The Cargo Starship can grapple and secure Hubble while the Crew Starship serves as the base for astronaut repair operations. Alternatively, as others have pointed out, just capture it with an automated or semi-automated Cargo Starship, bring it back for repair, and launch it again. Or, my personal favorite, create a relatively cheap, mass-produced space telescope and lunch them in the many tens, hundreds, or even thousands (a la Starlink) and even place them in interesting orbits, such as the various Lagrange points. The science gains for even moderately capable space telescopes deployed at scale would be astounding.
If Starship gets even close to the cost and cadence that Musk suggests, it is a complete game-changer with the way we will think about space operations.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday June 29 2021, @03:43AM
Yup, you nailed it. And while there is no limit to the amount of telescopes that could be useful, we should also see some gigantic modular telescopes that are assembled in orbit. Blow up a rocket carrying 1% of the segments, doesn't matter.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]