Haha!!!

Press 2 to removed from the call list and be automatically added to the call list on the desk of the person next to me in the call center.

Take an old phone or other audio playing device and use it to play generic fax machine/dailup internet noise back at the caller.

If they bought it on their Gold Card, they get an extra year warranty for free.

Underrated comment

even so JWST is not particularly a replacement for hubble, JWST is primarily infrared

JWST Won't even be in the same light spectrum. Hubble is definitely unique.

It's a shame :( purchased by the US taxpayers , run by the US "make work boy" prison system.

That’s true, it’s embarrassing how badly delayed that is, but it’s a sad that the JWST won’t have the same visual range as Hubble, Hubble is unique in terms of visible light observation, I hope for a Hubble too someday.

send up the 2 "spare" hubbles that the NRO secretly built

hubble is just from 1990...so max 30years old.

@@worldnews4347 However a lot of the computers (especially the ones it launched with) were a good bit older than that

Probably runs on JavaScript

@@490o • LoL 😂

Oooo - ouch!

Yeah. Sadly the shuttle's design was plagued with flaws, including some that made it unsafe in ways that nobody realized until it had already been in service for a long time. Not having a new vehicle in development long before the shuttle was taken out of service was the real mistake, but unfortunately the SLS and its predecessor designs have had so many changes by different administrations and representatives trying to put their own stamp on things and keep the jobs programs going that it will never be able to fill the shuttle's shoes even if they eventually manage to bring the price down. Competition and getting away from cost-plus contracts, as in the current commercial crew program, are really the way forward now... The time has come. But it's still going to take those years of development, even if the future results of that approach should be better and cheaper in the end than they would've been under the old paradigm.

@@TallinuTV yes, the private sector has already brought the cost down a lot. Hopefully they get things back on track and i can one day retire on my space yacht.

There is probably no direct computer replacement available - I guess space qualified computers have moved on since Hubble was designed.

To me that happened when Apollo 18/19/20 were canceled & they retired the Saturn V.... Who knows where the US would be if they kept building on a proven system...

@@johnmurrell3175 Remember--Hubble went into orbit in 1990. We're talking about a piece of hardware that's been in space for 31 YEARS now. Hubble original "life-span" was supposed to be about 15 years. The fact that its doubled that amount of time is a testament to how well it was built and the reliability of the equipment in there.

"Give me a long enough lever and I will move the world" - Aristotles He just hadn't met Sir Isac Newton and his third law of motion... :-)

A very, VERY long paperclip

@@thiesenf sorry but this famous quote isn’t from Aristotles, but from Archimedes

@@thiesenf Lever it on something that is 10x heavier easy.

@@thiesenf Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world. Archimedes

Only if its running windows!

@chi sam not stupid at all! Windoze IS a memory hog, fact

That computer was put together using bear skins and Stone knives.

@@davidbowman2716 state of the art for its time. Remember the design was decades before its launch and at the rate technology changed they never would have gotten it in orbit if they chased technology

i dont think it runs a linux kernel, but if it would run a public avaliable kernel, it would be linux 100%

not obsolete.. it would be if there was a better sucsessor... no instead its been used up.. each onecof them has a parralel to share with the hubble.. they were used for more than twice their designed lifespan... and the western world in the 90's had this "hey the coldwar has ended! lets sitback, cut costs and wait for em to make a come back" so here we are..

As I understand it the Shuttle orbiters were getting extremely difficult to keep operational.

@@H-77 They were buying up old IBM first generation computers and floppy disc drives to keep the space shuttle operational towards the end.

Pay the Russians enough and they will happily visit and do a swop out.

@@H-77 Yeah, just try going on Rock Auto and asking about parts for 1981 Orbiter...

I see what you did there

So NASASpaceflight IS NASA. Always knew it.

Is it in any way related to the robot army?

I like the video work "NASA Spaceflight" does, but I have no sympathy for them when someone uses their footage. They invited confusion when they borrowed the name.

And I made a mistake - NASA Standard Spacecraft Computer

And they had to use rotary dial, land line phones to do it.

Lol

Space Cowboys - -

Lol i remember the scene from the movie battleship when the navy guy goes to the the old ship and ask help from veterans lol

And probably some from beyond the grave......I hope not

Is it possible to fix without physically going to it? I'm banking on no, but I'd like to ask someone who knows his stuff

Check the fuse first! .... Do they even put fuses in something like this?

Hang on, let me get my 121GW and I'll go check.

First rule: Visual inspection

@@JohnHoranzy yes

Because it's shot in a film studio in Hollywood .....

@@craigstaggs8597 except Hollywood film studio is not located on the planetary orbit.

@@SkrovnoCZ ... Another brain washed soul that will believe anything they were lied to in school !!

@@craigstaggs8597 so I'm glad that I'm not the brain washed and paranoid one.

39 bits? Who built that one, IBM?

Univac (a.k.a. Sperry, a.k.a. Unisys) had machines with 36 bit words with quarter word operations (9 bit). Three quarters is 27 bits. Best architecture ever in my opinion.

@@absalomdraconis MIT

Mostly I have Wheatbix for breakfast - milk and a little brown sugar.

Check out Curious Marc. He has detailed vids about the Apollo flight computer. And Odd ball data busses.

Yeah. I was rocking that in 1990! Writing BASIC programs like a boss (read: like the 13 year old noob that I was) and playing Boulderdash!

64k of *core* memory, that stuff is large enough that you can easily see the bits with the naked eye, 64000 of them is quite a lot :p commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KL_CoreMemory.jpg Each of those beads is a bit. This is 1k, so another 63 of these

​@@andersjjensen Hand-me-down computer?

@@andersjjensen, Right. lol

Ah, yes. The hot plastic smell of '80s computer gaming greatness. RIP my olde pair of Commodore 64s, used until some of the keys ultimately failed.

The world has indeed gone backwards.

@@Daimo83 Only temporarily. Sometimes, you need to back up a bit to set your footing, before you leap forward. We have some great leaps ahead of us, and they'll start Real Soon Now (tm).

Not surprising at all. We are talking about a government bureaucracy.

We really forced space travel though, think about how much cheaper it is nowadays. Besides the GPS system, and telescopes, space travel didn't really make sense until this latest decade. I'm kinda glad our gov didn't burn a bunch of money trying to oneup another country. Much cheaper when people who earned the money are motivated independently to pursue space exploration

Then JWST blowing up on an Ariane 5

@@synonys Oh gowd I hope not

@@michaelcoelhojr6851 : ... Or Ariane 7, in maybe 35 years.

We really need to replace Arecibo. Perhaps on the Moon, as part of the Artemis Project.

@@darylh8657 That'd be cool, but constructing something that large on the moon will probably require much more time and work.

Indeed. And as Scott said at the end of the video, it deserves to fly and operate for many more years.

You mean universe?

@@paradisebreeze1705 One of the more informal definitions of "world" is the material universe/all that exists.

Even if it did initially require sending up a seeing-eye telescope to guide it. :D (Sorry, reference to a cartoon Dave Berry once drew.)

it is old though, imagine what they could do with modern hardware inside it.

And a mini CanadaArm!

@@jilka-b would all have to fit inside the trunk, and the manipulator would have to be long and capable enough to pull the airlock out and dock it to the docking port, and it would have to be cheap since there's no way to bring any of this back, but its *probably* possible. It might make more sense though to develop an arm for the Starship though.

I guess another possibility is that, if on the off-chance that the side hatch can be opened in orbit, then you could dock the dragon to the IDA port that was left on hubble, then de-press the cabin and do EVAs right out of that hatch. I don't think that's possible though, or at least would require enough redesigning of the hatch to allow it to be opened in orbit, that it might be easier to just make the airlock/arm.

@@kargaroc386 of course. We're all just kind of shooting from the hip here since we obviously don't currently have the required capability, and neither is there any sort of replacement hardware ready to go.

Or a Starship with an open cargo bay like the space shuttles

Probably very doable, you need an open cargo bay

Prolly hard because half of it is fuel tank.

there is no reason why the moon landing variant could not do this with the addition of a Canada arm or some other mechanism. its will already have the airlock.

@@fransdebruijn6763 an airlock will not fit hubble, also it doesnt have re-entry capability.

@@aarosundvall I think he means an airlock that can be used for space walks. Don't need to bring Hubble into the starship or back to Earth to fix it, just have to be able to allow work to be done via airlocks and a manipulator arm.

@@Nighterlev that is most definetly not the only reason why. many more reasons why programs or files these days are massive is because devs dont really have a size limit anymore. just look at modern video games. the devs that develope those probably never heard of file compression. These days if you code something and you need a function you import it from a library instead of writing it yourself. though most of the time that makes the program way bigger than it would need to be because libraries are usually bigger and have more functions than you need for your application. or in other words, compare the size and the memory consumption of windows 10 to the size and memory consumption of arch linux when in both cases your goal is to watch a youtube video. in arch you specifically install what you need, making your system lightweight and resource friendly, while windows comes with all sorts of shit you dont need or dont even want

Yes I remember writing assembly code in the early 80’s - TBH if you wanted smooth speed execution other than Binary there was no choice with the memory limitations. Nowadays they use off the shelf bloated routines, and cobble them together. We have gone backwards with less and less being able or being taught to eloquently code. Sad really - imagine what could be achieved now, by using less.

worked well on my Commodore 64..

Apple dude right? All new overpriced x8 apple 1 you'll never beleive whst you can do we charge you 6x for hardware

@@derrekvanee4567 No, that was a famous quote by Bill Gates.

@@weschilton He was calling out Mr. Smity, as an Apple fanboy. Since Apple haters immediately do that when someone jokes about Bill's shortcomings.

@@weschilton he never said that, and it was 640k on the ibm PC anyway.

Pentium 4, the cooker

Satellites die all the time for no real reason. The radiation is a genuine problem and modern ground-stuff just isn't built for it.

486Dx 133.. windows '95 baby! The rocket it's flying up on is a 286 that my grandma helped design.

@@astrodiver1 I'm pretty sure it isn't actually running Win95. QNX would be far more likely.

@@DrewNorthup Thanks Drew. win95 was an excellent OS in '96.

NASA uses old tech for just that reason - its age-hardened. They know it works and therefore its less risky than brand new untested stuff, even if the new stuff is theoretically "better" in some way. Of course that doesn't last forever. Eventually they want to build instruments that have more than 64k memory and other such limitations, and they have no choice but to try and test a new generation of technology as best they can and hope to hell they didn't overlook anything. I mean they're generally really good at their jobs so they mostly get it right, but its still a huge investment in both time and money compared to just pulling a tried-and-true component off the shelf that they already know will work for 10, 15 or 20 years or possibly longer. Its always a balancing act between new features and old reliability, and cost constraints (especially not knowing whether their budget will be up or down by a billion dollars every bloody year) means they tend to err on the side of the latter as much as they can. Commercial contracts help level that out a bit because they can buy multi-year contracts during years when Congress gives them a lot and those contracts will still be in effect the following year even if Congress screws them over, whereas they constantly have to pause or even shutter and re-start projects that run off their annual budget more directly. The downside of course being that the commercial providers are only really willing to take on contracts for things they can potentially sell to other buyers later. Launch capability is a no-brainer, and hopefully remote manipulators and EVA capabilities will join that list in a timeframe that Hubble can withstand.

Not very simple.

Did you refer to the repair EVA from the space shuttle point of view? If so that's one of those nice benefits of analog film, it may be old but if the master tapes are still around that same chemical film can be rescanned with something that has a higher resolution. Most other recordings (digital, various cassettes, etc) are stuck with that resolution forever (unless you count upscaling as a useful thing to do). Oh and I guess the space shuttle with such a large cargo bay could carry some nice cameras too when the space wasn't needed for payload. That's one of the reasons why older films and TV series shot in film if the original negatives are still around can be remastered in close to HD quality. However more recent but not to modern standard productions that were filmed digitally are pretty much stuck with what they used at the time.

@@extrastuff9463 Thats why I can spend hours looking at the high res hasslblad scans from each Apollo mission 🥺

@@extrastuff9463 when i was 10 in 2003 i watched many movies, and what always struck me odd, that those "old" movies from the 80´s had better quality than those that came out recently in 2003, as you explained it, analog has still benefits, and those who like high end audio swear on analog audio, combined with a tube amp. also in case there´s a UFO you better have an analog camera with you, as modern technology seems to not work around these objects

Yeah, the question is how, though. We don't really have plausible options at the moment, sadly. We'll just have to hope that the "boffins" manage another of the miraculous software hacks they seem to pull off at least once per mission. ;)

Cost less to build a better and newer one, and launch it fresh than launch multiple EVA servicing operations which need to rendezvous with the telescope (very complex). You need to do all the physical diagnostics in space, on delicate electronic equipment, with a clumsy space suit on. It's not as easy as sending a TV repair team up on a rocket for a few hours then bringing them home.

@@TallinuTV one option I found is to send one of those recovery vehicles to push it rendezvous with the ISS to be repaired and re-orbited

On the other hand if your hardware lasts this long, a failure by then should be celebrated :)

I mean id be thrilled to know my spaceflight hardware failed, if it had just spent 30 years reliably rewriting astronomy books. I mean 30 years is not even expected of a computer here on the surface.

Any failure they can't pin an exact blame on becomes "power supply failure"

are you actually working on something?

As long as I'm not the guy who died it's all good.

Interesting enough, on the first shuttle servicing missions to Hubble they had a devil of a time with the doors for gyroscopes on the first spacewalk. They wouldn't close. The doors wont close on one of the most expensive pieces of equipment ever built, its the size of a bus, and they didnt really have any sort of ground to push against to force them shut. Talk about stressful.

@@theq4602 Ya know? I do remember that. Ah, the memories....

Tough luck... Clint is still talking to that empty chair!

Space Cowboys!

i thought that was the Skylab guidance system? or was skylabs guidance system also in Hubble?

@@swedmiroswedmiro1352 So, Bruce Willis and his team is it then. Let's nuke this computer until it works again.

I was just about to post this!

4:35 for joy

I was looking for this comment lol

"International Ultra-violent Exploder" is what I heard.

Yes, he did say that 💥

hard drive 1 meg...me "I'll never fill that up"

@@bullwinkle5445 I literally would create bogus files on my Amiga 500s Supra 20MB hard drive to fill it. Three years of use never filled that baby. I wasn’t taking pictures of the Crab Nebula though.

4x banks of it. Beast of a machine.

@@fensoxx member when an entire game was less then 1 meg and we still used upper memory?

@@bullwinkle5445 dungeon master, first “3D” game I remember falling in love with, fit on a floppy. Everything seemed to bloat after that 😊

send them into space to repair it! ^^

Moto Do they make space suits with Fancy PantsTM?

with his simulated Apollo lander skills, that young guy Mike would have zero trouble getting up there

@@MotokoKaiousei Ken and Marc would do it.

@@MotokoKaiousei Would be a pain hooking up the analyser whilst it’s floating around.

And it still works much better than the rickety wires and sockets they like to use with modern hobbyist things.

@@tsm688 : Yeah, but I'm one of the few folks that's bought a wrapper tool in the last decade, and the only stuff I could even use it on is simple diodes & such.

I made an 8 bit computer with wire-wrap, I should do a chip count, there is quite a lot in there, 48K ram made from 2K static chips, floppy controller & 3 serial ports.

@@absalomdraconis I'm not so sure. They still sell them somehow, and if you wanted it wouldn't be hard to use them with all sorts of arduino hardware etc.

Yep. A good wire wrap would last forever!

Thanks, this is why I should write scripts.

Yeah, although Hubble is really the only other thing up there we'd want to get at, so makes sense there hasn't been much development in this area. I imagine fitting a Starship with a cargo bay could be closest thing we'll have to a shuttle.

@@trogs2022 : Which will probably be done in some variant or another, though for a work vehicle I'd rather see a Dragon variant designed for in-orbit utility work instead of reentry.

Welll...if we never developed space shuttle Hubble might be designed in a way to be serviceable by automated crafts, and we would have those. I remember seeing ancient designs of apollo like capsules with manipulators designed precisely for situations like this, but then dildo shuttle happened :(

@@randomnickify Its more likely the other way around - if we didn't have the shuttle, Hubble would likely not have been designed to be repaired at all (like most satellites) and would have been decommissioned years ago already.

@@altrag Hubble is basically a modified KH-11 spy satellite, with different mirrors. They used it, because they could use the same facilities they use for making the components of the spy satellites. The KH-11 lasted usually less than 10 years until they got replaced with other KH-11 or newer stuff in future. Contrary to Hubble there's enough money für spy satellites, the budget for military space flight (means spy satellites) is higher than the Nasa budget

Perhaps a video on the evolution of spacecraft computers?

It would be hard to make a video about that topic, because the state of the art gets older the further you get from Earth -- not just because of travel time, but also because older hardware has been more thoroughly tested and is more reliable, which is the most important feature for any hardware we launch billions of miles into space.

Didn't it literally use the masa standard flight computer...

Guys... why we have there 1 more chip than required? For the lolz boss!

Probably Voyager 1 and 2 at 45 years old, last I heard they were still functioning

Answer---a LOT. HST orbits around 600 KM....ISS orbits around 400 KM. The big issue here is that HST has no engines. It uses gyroscopes to maintain or adjust its position in orbit. So, then you're left with moving the entire ISS structure to the ISS's orbit....which again, would be impossible with the limited fuel on board for thrusters or from an attached spacecraft like Dragon or Soyuz.

Worse part is the difference in inclination, that’s the real delta-v killer.

The problem is, it's in a completely different orbit. So not only do you need to drag it down, but it needs a large direction change too....this could be done, just a case of doing it at the right moment when the orbits overlap, but it would require a lot of Delta-v.

Given that they're in different orbital planes, *alot.*

@Todd V. I mean it for sure could be done. Question is how many Dragons would be needed.

Rocket Labs have this Kick Stage vehicle... Use one to push around a TransHab with an airlock and all the parts. Must be a business model for satellite service calls. Heck, Tom Barnard did a cold gas thruster variant of a Quadcopter, scale that up and jet the parts and people over from ISS to Hubble 😊

have you done the math on the amount of delta V for a TREMENDOUS plane change?

A service mission wouldn't be impossible, but you'd go *too* Hubble not move its orbit. But there's not really a vehicle for it. Not quite Kerbal where we can just tell somebody to hop out from a crew dragon and hit it with a wrench.

@@toonarmycaptain "not trivial",... But one heck of a ride. And a potential future business market, commercial satellite maintenance.

Interesting idea. But I think the tug spacecraft would have to massive. HST itself masses ~11 tons. Inclination change alone would take at least about 3km/s of delta V.

The space race as well as the rest of the Cold War seriously beefed up our tech

And microscopes, and colliders etc. what's on your list of 'best tech'?

Agreed!

According to Scott (who is my only source atm so ymmv), the dragon capsule doesn't have EVA capability either (would require airlocks and whatever else to allow astronauts and their massive suits to get in and out of the capsule without depressurizing the entire thing.. and I'm sure lots more requirements that make it harder than simply "a door"!) Certainly not impossible, but its definitely not a "just". There would be a lot of development and testing required to ensure safety and whatever that the existing module has simply never had to deal with. The manipulator arm is probably easier as they could (at least in theory) have it entirely external to the capsule and just bolt it on (or sink it into a trench on the outer shell or something, though that would likely require a whole new round of stress testing to make sure the trench doesn't become a weak point). No matter what way they go, it won't be easy or fast. Hopefully they can figure out something from the software end to hobble it along until we've got a proper fix ready to be deployed.

We needed a Freedom Space Station to build exploration vehicles, but it got bastardized into the ISS.

Nah, Starship is coming in quantity, at least one will be fitted with the proper equipment to perform routine on-orbit repairs and replacements, much better than the shuttle.

@@colinsouthern I'm pretty confident they will. Elon and a plethora of others at Spacex have the desire, the drive and the means. Starship changes everything if and when it does make it up and back in one piece. ☺

they have the James Webb space telescope that has been supposed to launch years ago that should be launched soon if I'm not mistaken

@@daltonpethel5697, it’s a different type of telescope from Hubble. It’d be nice to get a Hubble-style telescope, but with a more powerful and better-designed mirror as well as better equipment.

Not sure if starship will be rated for that much mass on landing, nor if Hubble would survive the belly flop but if so absolutely!

That is a good idea

It would be amazing to bring it hope but honestly I don’t think any technology we’ve built would be capable of it, except the shuttle. It would be brilliant if they could get one of them back into action and rescue it, but I find it unlikely. I feel like hubble repair missions should be possible without shuttles, using existing rockets, so I’m surprised no one has tried that.

@@LordOceanus Could perhaps bring a heatshield and parachute pack up, install that, and then pull hubble into a suborbital trajectory and detach and separate. Hubble wouldn't really need to "survive" per-se, it would just need to be good enough to put in a museum. Even so, it's probably not practical though, better to just build a decent model. I'd rather spend the money on more science.

Another option would be to just move Hubble into a much higher orbit where it can stay until it eventually CAN be repaired or returned to Earth. Just having the Hubble burn up in the atmosphere is wrong for numerous reasons. Tax-payers funded the Hubble. We should have a voice in what happens to it.

Me too!

They're on 30 degree different inclinations... so A Lot(TM) would be the delta V answer.

I was thinking the same.

Someone in another thread calculated that a falcon-9 second stage might do the job, if it can grab the HST. Once at station, they can also replace reaction wheels and other worn parts.

I like the idea of a dragon capsule mission there … maybe also a dragon cargo modified to be a mini space station as a utility module

Dragon does not have an air lock. It can only dock to an already pressurised vehicle (so: the ISS).

@@andersjjensen That makes sense, I wish there was a way they could retrofit it for a mission like this. Giving up on Hubble just feels wrong, the sheer data that has come from it and the amount it could still collect with a proper service mission seems like it's worth it.