Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hubble is back

nasa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 128 posts

Re: Hubble is back

#31

Post by Obi_Juan_Kenobi »

SpikeDad wrote: post #18

Reading about the specs and the planned degradation of the gyros is a very interesting exercise in planned reduction of a service. They know the gyros will eventually give out and they have contingency plans around what kinds of science they can continue to do even when they're down to 1 gyro. Very impressive. I'm always discouraged hearing people say NASA is wasting money and science and that's just not true IMHO.

Wasting money criticism with regard to SLS is valid, I think, but is more of a political reality than a NASA issue.

Re: Hubble is back

#32

Post by TheAceOfHearts »

jjuhl wrote: post #21
TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ECMAScript spec is actually quite thorough and freely available to read online. In addition, it has a very large suite of tests to check for compliance. I don't think there's any other language with as many independent production-quality implementations. In what way do you think it could be better specified?

"I don't think there's any other language with as many independent production-quality implementations." - C++?

Yeah, it looks like you might be right. I just looked it up and there's a ton of C++ compilers I'd never heard of before.

Re: Hubble is back

#33

Post by azurezyq »

Interesting read.

On the other hand, I remembered that hubble was manually repaired by astronauts mutliple times back in the space shuttle era. I'm wondering that, do we have capabilities to perform in-space non-ISS-kind repairs now? Soyuz may be able to do in-space rendezvous but cargo space is limited. Soyuz+Progress composition (may be too complicated)?

Re: Hubble is back

#34

Post by Entalpi »

pmorici wrote: post #29
SpikeDad wrote: post #18

Reading about the specs and the planned degradation of the gyros is a very interesting exercise in planned reduction of a service. They know the gyros will eventually give out and they have contingency plans around what kinds of science they can continue to do even when they're down to 1 gyro. Very impressive. I'm always discouraged hearing people say NASA is wasting money and science and that's just not true IMHO.

You can achieve impressive results and still be "wasting money" if there were more cost efficient ways to achieve an equivalent result. I don't have an opinion on NASA but that could be the point of view those people are coming from.

The problem with having non-science people run an organisation of science people is self explanatory.

In the Netherlands they have outsourced the organisation and managment of health care to the doctors themselves (roughly speaking). It is often cited as one of the main reasons the Netherlands rank #1 in health care ratings over the years.

Re: Hubble is back

#35

Post by ourmandave »

From this link...

http://hubblesite.org/the_telescope/team_hubble/#hubbletime

Each year astronomers from dozens of countries vie for precious minutes of Hubble's unrivaled view of the cosmos.

A review committee made up of experts from the astronomical community determines which proposed observations address pressing scientific questions and make the best use of the telescope's capabilities.

Each year more than 1,000 proposals are reviewed and approximately 200 are selected, which represents roughly 20,000 individual observations.

I feel bad for all the projects that got delayed. I wonder if they'll be rescheduled, or have to be resubmitted or are just out of luck.

Re: Hubble is back

#36

Post by seibelj »

Entalpi wrote: post #34
pmorici wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can achieve impressive results and still be "wasting money" if there were more cost efficient ways to achieve an equivalent result. I don't have an opinion on NASA but that could be the point of view those people are coming from.

The problem with having non-science people run an organisation of science people is self explanatory. In the Netherlands they have outsourced the organisation and managment of health care to the doctors themselves (roughly speaking). It is often cited as one of the main reasons the Netherlands rank #1 in health care ratings over the years.

In the US, the American Medical Association is run by doctors and they artificially limit the supply new doctors by capping the number of medical schools. So sometimes having the fox guard the henhouse is not the best way to save money.

Re: Hubble is back

#37

Post by craftyguy »

azurezyq wrote: post #33

Interesting read. On the other hand, I remembered that hubble was manually repaired by astronauts mutliple times back in the space shuttle era. I'm wondering that, do we have capabilities to perform in-space non-ISS-kind repairs now? Soyuz may be able to do in-space rendezvous but cargo space is limited. Soyuz+Progress composition (may be too complicated)?

No we no longer have this capability. Soyuz capsules are not really designed for EVA.

Re: Hubble is back

#38

Post by Tomte »

TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #32
jjuhl wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I don't think there's any other language with as many independent production-quality implementations." - C++?

Yeah, it looks like you might be right. I just looked it up and there's a ton of C++ compilers I'd never heard of before.

Sure, but the number might fool you. Not every C++ compiler is standards-compliant, and at least on the PC side, many of the good compilers bought the frontend from the Edison Design Group and focussed on the backend.

Re: Hubble is back

#39

Post by glfharris »

Entalpi wrote: post #34
pmorici wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can achieve impressive results and still be "wasting money" if there were more cost efficient ways to achieve an equivalent result. I don't have an opinion on NASA but that could be the point of view those people are coming from.

The problem with having non-science people run an organisation of science people is self explanatory. In the Netherlands they have outsourced the organisation and managment of health care to the doctors themselves (roughly speaking). It is often cited as one of the main reasons the Netherlands rank #1 in health care ratings over the years.

Something similar happened in the UK with GPs, and it's been one of the least popular health reforms ever to take place.

Re: Hubble is back

#40

Post by planteen »

pmorici wrote: post #29
SpikeDad wrote: post #18

Reading about the specs and the planned degradation of the gyros is a very interesting exercise in planned reduction of a service. They know the gyros will eventually give out and they have contingency plans around what kinds of science they can continue to do even when they're down to 1 gyro. Very impressive. I'm always discouraged hearing people say NASA is wasting money and science and that's just not true IMHO.

You can achieve impressive results and still be "wasting money" if there were more cost efficient ways to achieve an equivalent result. I don't have an opinion on NASA but that could be the point of view those people are coming from.

Yep. I love space and science, but after working with NASA for a while, you see some of the problems. NIH syndrome is a huge problem, especially between GSFC and JPL. There are incompetent engineers who will have a well paying job at NASA for life. And then there the passionate, brilliant scientists and engineers the that dream and make it all work. A reduction in force of dead weight would go a long way but it will never happen.
Post reply on HN