Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

GraemeSkinner · 2004-12-22 07:45:18

About this analogy... If I could afford a brand new car that would last three times as long, get better milage, and wouldn't need any repair for its entire life (which is possible with gyro/battery conservation at Lagrange)...

A car with gyro/battery conservation at Lagrange? :;): :;):

Only joking!

Thats a fair enough view point that a run of the mill car becomes at some point in its life obsolete, but this does not apply to all cars, some are worth saving.

from GCNR 21/12/04

I am presenting not one, but two very good reasons not to try and repair it besides the fact that any repair will only last a few more years

I know what you are presenting, but I was asking which you would invest in.

Graeme

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-22 09:28:15

"some are worth saving."

You are trying to dodge the inescapable truth of the analogy: why are old cars worth saving? Why? They have inferior performance, they have inferior operating costs, inferior lifespans, and would be equally expensive to repair then to replace... inferior in every practical way to a new car.

The only reason therefore is not practical at all:

Its sentimentality

...Which has no place in the consideration of multibillion dollar scientific investments. I personally think that large ground based telescopes, some of which are already built and going into operation as I write this, are the best choice for high performance optical astronomy.

SpaceNut · 2005-01-04 06:52:59

The question that just will not go away. Can and should we service the Hubble or for that fact any space orbiting device or even the ISS if unmanned.

IEEE-USA Urges 'Safe Servicing' of Hubble Space Telescope for Humankind

NASA should "strive to develop procedures, technology and equipment that would allow the safe servicing of the Hubble Space Telescope, including the possible use of tele-operated robots,

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-04 09:17:38

*Shakes head* Hubble-huggers are almost as bad as Shuttle-huggers it would seem.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-04 11:40:34

Oh by the way, there are now only about two years, thats 24 months, until Hubble likly loses attitude control and is lost for good.

GraemeSkinner · 2005-01-05 05:49:42

*Shakes head* Hubble-huggers are almost as bad as Shuttle-huggers it would seem.

No, not at all, it's easy to revert to name calling just because people don't agree with a point of view - its just not constructive.

Oh by the way, there are now only about two years, thats 24 months, until Hubble likly loses attitude control and is lost for good.

I'm sure you and many others will have a party, I think its a mistake to waste Hubble, but I also this it will be burning up sometime in 2007/08

Graeme

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-05 09:34:34

*Shakes head* Hubble-huggers are almost as bad as Shuttle-huggers it would seem.
No, not at all, it's easy to revert to name calling just because people don't agree with a point of view - its just not constructive.

The label seems apt to me because the only reason to save Hubble is because of sentimentality. The only reason to save Shuttle is because of sentimentality (Shuttle Army layoffs, people asthetlicly in love with Shuttle, etc). There is simply no good practical reason to invest in fixing Hubble, this isn't a matter of subjective opinion, this is simply a matter of fact. Better telescopes are available for less money and much less risk... thats all there is to it.

Fits like a glove.

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-05 09:43:26

The only reason to save Shuttle is because of sentimentality (Shuttle Army layoffs, people asthetlicly in love with Shuttle, etc). Fits like a glove.

I must agree, this is the heart of it.

My initial reaction was to save Hubble, surely we shouldn't waste a perfectly good telescope, but after looking at the various options and expenses it just doesn't make much sense.

Though a shuttle mission to fix it makes some sense in the same sort of convulated circular reasoning behind shuttle in the first place.

From a practical standpoint, Hubble is dead, time to move on to better things. It had a good run, but so did the dinosaurs.

GraemeSkinner · 2005-01-05 10:19:02

The label seems apt to me because the only reason to save Hubble is because of sentimentality. The only reason to save Shuttle is because of sentimentality (Shuttle Army layoffs, people asthetlicly in love with Shuttle, etc). There is simply no good practical reason to invest in fixing Hubble, this isn't a matter of subjective opinion, this is simply a matter of fact. Better telescopes are available for less money and much less risk... thats all there is to it.
Fits like a glove.

Hubble and the Shuttle are two completely different arguments, you can't just decide that because you don't think its worth saving something then you can label it sentimental because that adds nothing to the discussion - I'm not a big fan of the Shuttle, its no longer efficient enough to be useful; Hubble can be with the right application of modern technology. However there are too many detractors that say they are all for space yet find fault with every aspect of it, you find them everywhere, on this forum, in government, in the media - thats why we don't have an effective prescence in space and thats why Hubble will become a molten mass in two years.

Graeme - my glass is half full!

SpaceNut · 2005-01-05 10:41:53

The worst part about all of the discussion on shuttle, Hubble, Iss is not that we have them but that we do not get enough science from them, that they cost to much, that there is to much risk in using them and that we can not repair them robotically in the time frame left ect.... wa wa wa

First space does cost a lot
second we must take some risks
Third we must do and succeed by doing, oh we can not do it

GraemeSkinner · 2005-01-05 10:45:56

First space does cost a lot
second we must take some risks
Third we must do and succeed by doing, oh we can not do it

Well put IMO

Graeme

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-05 11:55:51

Hubble and the Shuttle are two completely different arguments, you can't just decide that because you don't think its worth saving something then you can label it sentimental because that adds nothing to the discussion - I'm not a big fan of the Shuttle, its no longer efficient enough to be useful; Hubble can be with the right application of modern technology. However there are too many detractors that say they are all for space yet find fault with every aspect of it, you find them everywhere, on this forum, in government, in the media - thats why we don't have an effective prescence in space and thats why Hubble will become a molten mass in two years.
Graeme - my glass is half full!

Adds nothing to the discussion? On the contrary, I am pointing out the one and only reason that people, including yourself Graeme, support the continued operation of the HST and required servicing missions. It "adds to the discussion" by being frank and not beating around the bush as to why the "save Hubble!" camp thinks the way they do.

In this case, the only practical reason is that you want to see Hubble saved for sentimental reasons. Shuttle-Huggers want to see Shuttle saved for sentimental reasons. Seperate issues yes, but similar in that their cause is the same.

I am not activly trying to be a wet blanket here, I will be thrilled when we get off this rock and get somewhere, but throwing away money for no good reason is counter-productive and actually puts the goal of extending humanity further out of reach.

Yes Hubble can be saved through application of technology available today, but I want to remind you yet again that this will come at a price. In order to have any chance of saving Hubble, we should assume that the December 2007 launch window is the last chance we'll get before Hubble is lost. This means that NASA has only one year from today aproximatly to finish development of a repair bot in order to begin construction, and another nine or ten months or so to finish construction, testing, and integration.

As you well know, doing a "rush job" on anything complicated will not come cheap, and right now the projected cost for such a robotic adventure would cost aproximatly $2.0-2.2 Billion dollars.

That is enough money to pay for all the modifications Boeing would need to make the Delta-IV powerful enough to reach the Moon. Enough money to restart the NERVA nuclear rocket program to make it practical to reach Mars. Enough money to build a prototype ISRU plant probobly. Enough money to develop the lander stage for Moon or Mars. Enough money to build the pressurized rover and then some. Enough money to develop the regenerative LSS system perhaps. Enough money to outfit a Martian science lab and design new super-suits.

Enough money to do lots of things... all spent to squeeze another two or three years out of an obsolete telescope which is about to be massively out-classed by ground based scopes'.

And then there is the risk... a robot repair mission will have an aproximatly 50/50 chance of suceeding if we started work today, and that is assuming there is no additional risk by it being a rush job. I think that it is safe to assume that the odds are against a robot mission working.

As for a manned flight, well, every Shuttle is already tied up by international treaty for the ISS, and there would be a ~2-4+% chance of the crew not coming home. Even better, Hubble would still only have an additional two or three years of life in it, since some HST componets can't be serviced on orbit. And finally, losing another Shuttle crew in that death-trap to do something so dumb would obviously be held over NASA's head, which could very well doom the agency for a generation or more.

So, I am forced to conclude that the only reason you want to fly a repair mission to save Hubble is because it has sentimental value... and so it should not happen at all.

Edit: SpaceNut, as sage sounding as your lymric is, it has no place in deciding why we should spend money and take risks. Money should be spent and risks taken, but not frivilously and without careful consideration.

GraemeSkinner · 2005-01-05 13:31:18

Adds nothing to the discussion? On the contrary, I am pointing out the one and only reason that people, including yourself Graeme, support the continued operation of the HST and required servicing missions. It "adds to the discussion" by being frank and not beating around the bush as to why the "save Hubble!" camp thinks the way they do.
In this case, the only practical reason is that you want to see Hubble saved for sentimental reasons. Shuttle-Huggers want to see Shuttle saved for sentimental reasons. Seperate issues yes, but similar in that their cause is the same.

No, there are more reason than sentimentality, many more, but in one way I'm happy to admit that I'm a sentimental person - there is nothing wrong with being sentimental.

I am not activly trying to be a wet blanket here, I will be thrilled when we get off this rock and get somewhere, but throwing away money for no good reason is counter-productive and actually puts the goal of extending humanity further out of reach.
Yes Hubble can be saved through application of technology available today, but I want to remind you yet again that this will come at a price. In order to have any chance of saving Hubble, we should assume that the December 2007 launch window is the last chance we'll get before Hubble is lost. This means that NASA has only one year from today aproximatly to finish development of a repair bot in order to begin construction, and another nine or ten months or so to finish construction, testing, and integration.
As you well know, doing a "rush job" on anything complicated will not come cheap, and right now the projected cost for such a robotic adventure would cost aproximatly $2.0-2.2 Billion dollars.

Realistically if NASA leave it any longer it will be too late, a rush job is not going to work this time. Like I said earlier in this thread I expect to see Hubble melt in 2007.

That is enough money to pay for all the modifications Boeing would need to make the Delta-IV powerful enough to reach the Moon. Enough money to restart the NERVA nuclear rocket program to make it practical to reach Mars. Enough money to build a prototype ISRU plant probobly. Enough money to develop the lander stage for Moon or Mars. Enough money to build the pressurized rover and then some. Enough money to develop the regenerative LSS system perhaps. Enough money to outfit a Martian science lab and design new super-suits.

Perhaps enough money for Being to sort out the timing mechanism on the Delta-IV
So we rob peter to pay paul? I don't like compromise in space (not that it comes out of my pocket being in the UK )

Enough money to do lots of things... all spent to squeeze another two or three years out of an obsolete telescope which is about to be massively out-classed by ground based scopes'.

Yes the amazing all singing all dancing adaptive ground based telescopes, which still don't make Hubble obsolete. I'm not in favour of a two year fix (I think I mentioned it somewhere else) I believe Hubble can survive for many years to come if its given the chance.

And then there is the risk... a robot repair mission will have an aproximatly 50/50 chance of suceeding if we started work today, and that is assuming there is no additional risk by it being a rush job. I think that it is safe to assume that the odds are against a robot mission working.

And yes the sky might fall in, the sun will explode...... Nothing is certain in this life.

As for a manned flight, well, every Shuttle is already tied up by international treaty for the ISS, and there would be a ~2-4+% chance of the crew not coming home. Even better, Hubble would still only have an additional two or three years of life in it, since some HST componets can't be serviced on orbit. And finally, losing another Shuttle crew in that death-trap to do something so dumb would obviously be held over NASA's head, which could very well doom the agency for a generation or more.

Any deaths from a shuttle accident would spell and bad period for NASA, using the risk factor as a negative in repairing HST is a double edged sword.

So, I am forced to conclude that the only reason you want to fly a repair mission to save Hubble is because it has sentimental value... and so it should not happen at all.

No, see the start of this post, you gave it a sentimental tag, its not my view at all.

Graeme :blues:

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-05 13:52:45

"No, there are more reason than sentimentality, many more"

Okay. Name them. Name some pragmatic reasons for fixing the Hubble Space Telescope instead of spending that money on somthing else.

My point about the 2007 deadline is that NASA doesn't have time for a repair mission to be anything but a rush job. It has to be a rush job, it has to be because NASA has less then two years to get the thing on the pad before Hubble's luck runs out.

And yes, actually, ground based telescopes with adaptive optics DO make Hubble quite obsolete. You could buy two or three (or more) of the very largest telescopes that are each nearly an order of magnetude more powerful then Hubble for the very same money. In fact, some older large telescopes are being modified with adaptive optics right now today.

"I'm not in favour of a two year fix (I think I mentioned it somewhere else) I believe Hubble can survive for many years to come if its given the chance."

Really? Why? That you believe or feel that Hubble will last longer is irrelivent, only the truth is. And that truth is that Hubble will not operate much longer even with a servicing mission: for example, the camera that recently failed did so not because of a fault in the instrument, but in the power supply for it. There is no possible way to replace the power control hardware on orbit even with astronauts, as it was never designed to be replaced in space.

The NASA Hubble "Alternative Options" assesment, authored by professional engineers, does not believe that HST will last more then another 2-3 years. By what basis do you believe otherwise?

They also calculate that a robot mission will have a 50% chance of sucess more or less which includes the growing and signifigant probability that Hubble will fail before the end of 2007 on or abouts, which makes a repair mission worthless. That is a HUGE statistical risk that you will simply be pouring billions of dollars down the drain for nothing.

No nothing is certain in life... but you want to flip a coin with $2.2 Billion dollars going to the shredder? And for what?

...So, unless I hear of convincing arguments that contradict the above or present a worthy practical reason to salvage the antique HST, then there is simply no reasoned basis for your support for a repair mission... which automatically labels you as being sentimental about this extremely large investment of money.

This is, overall, a nearly zero-sum game. If money goes to fix Hubble, the majority of it is going to have to come from some place else. You may not "like" having to compromise somthing else for Hubble, but there is no choice in the matter.

Grypd · 2005-01-05 14:00:11

The Hubble has done a lot for science and the basic understanding of the Universe but it is old and has reached the end of its useful life as components wear out.

But it has been said in this thread and is a reasonable idea that we design and build a replacement with the lessons we have learned in space observatory operation and with all the advances in optics that have happened we could replace the Hubble.

The Hubble cost 1.5 $billion to create in 1990. We are considering a robotic mission to extend the Hubbles life for 5 years max that will cost 2.2$billion.

Does anyone else see the sense in this idea. Admited the ability to have telerobotic repair and construction techniques is a good idea but the Hubble really is not designed to use them and the money spent could easily make something better. And better means with greater capacity than the Earth based telescopes which are almost as good as the Hubble now.

GraemeSkinner · 2005-01-06 00:38:43

...So, unless I hear of convincing arguments that contradict the above or present a worthy practical reason to salvage the antique HST, then there is simply no reasoned basis for your support for a repair mission... which automatically labels you as being sentimental about this extremely large investment of money.

So all I've got to do is make a convincing argument to save Hubble and you'll change your mind? Can I not prove that the sun will rise in the West instead

Sounds like a good challenge - the former, not the rising of the sun - but it'll have to wait until I've time to attend to it properly (and not after a night shift! )

Second problem..... to prepare a good convincing argument that addresses all your concerns will likely take longer than the expected lifespan for HST!

Graeme

SpaceNut · 2005-01-06 07:44:51

With regards to all the contracts to rescue the Hubble it sure would be interesting to find out what escape and or condition clauses these all contain.

Space Robot Maker MDA Nets Hubble Repair Deal

MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd. said on Wednesday it has signed a $154 million deal to help NASA's controversial repair mission to fix the aging Hubble Space Telescope.
The Canadian firm that built the Canadarm robotic arm technology used on NASA's space shuttles won the contract "to provide a potential information and robotic servicing solution" in a rescue project being eyed for 2007.
"It's a proving ground for the human race, whether we can do this (repair work) in space," Friedmann said.
MDA signed a C$6.5 million ($5.3 million) deal in December with Lockheed Martin Corp. to work on docking technology that would allow a spacecraft to rendezvous with Hubble for repairs and, at a later date, remove the space observatory from orbit.

corporate news releaseMDA Signs Contract Valued At $154 Million U.S. To Provide Hubble Rescue Solution

Canadian space robot may make Hubble service call

Dextre is the dual-armed robot built by MDA under contract to the Canadian Space Agency to conduct exterior maintenance of the International Space Station. The robot is specially designed to perform complex tasks in the harsh environment of space, such as installing and removing batteries, power supplies, computer units, and scientific payloads. It will be adapted to replace batteries, gyroscopes, and perhaps an instrument on the $1.5-billion scientific Hubble Space Telescope to extend its life.

MDA space robots to the rescue, maybe Deal with NASA holds great potential for the Richmond company

The big "if" associated with the deal is because NASA is also considering an alternative rescue plan using a space shuttle and its crew. If NASA picks the shuttle option, the MDA contract can be revoked.
The target date for launching a rocket that will carry the robots to Hubble is December 2007, although a NASA official cautioned that the space shuttle-based rescue is still being considered.
The pressure on NASA to consider such an option increased last month when the main U.S. association of scientific advisers, the National Research Council, said a space shuttle mission was the most secure option for performing crucial maintenance on the aging Hubble.

Vir Stellae · 2005-01-06 21:14:48

Great.... not only now are we going to throw away money to save hubble we couldnt even keep it(money) in country!?!

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-06 21:23:00

How much has NASA spent or contracted on Hubble repair now, about half a billion?

That would buy you enough rocket to set up a HAB module on the Moon or a good long ways to building a Solar/Ion tug or design an HLLV.

Martian Republic · 2005-01-06 23:17:57

This is one time that agree with GCNRevenger, trying to save the Hubble Space Telescope is a waste of money. As a single issue salvage of the Hubble Space Telescope, it just not worth it.

The only way that I could even vaguely see an attempt at trying to save the Hubble Space Telescope would be to put it in a larger picture of developing an entire transportation system of being able to move things around in space and salvage work. There not prepared to do that because that would double or even quadruple the expense, so they will spend two billion dollars to salvage it and not have a workable transport system or salvage system in place after the repairs have been made.

This is just a flat waste of money and that all there is to it.

Larry,

RobertDyck · 2005-01-07 01:44:22

Don't forget, you can't count any of the funds for space centers that support Shuttle. Congress and the President have decided to return Shuttle to flight to complete ISS, so the only launch cost is the increment costs of another flight. That's less than an expendable launch vehicle. From a cost management point of view, returning Shuttle to flight doesn't make sense if it's only used to complete construction of ISS, so repairing Hubble justifies the decision Congress already made. Cancelling Shuttle with no alternative manned vehicle will not redirect more funds to Mars, it could cancel all manned exploration of space entirely.

Supporting Hubble supports congressmen; cancelling Shuttle now risks cancelling all human space activity. Which would you decide?

SpaceNut · 2005-01-07 05:36:45

I think if a shuttle mission to Hubble is to be done, IMO it should also have a bigelow inflatable Hab sent just prior to launch to aid with in space shuttle inspection, possible repair and to serve as a safe haven if they are forced to wait. This would give the inflatable all the test trial that it would need and would give Nasa back some confidence that it can do this style of mission. It would also set in motion the oportunity for stepping back into space as a start to creating supply chain infrastucture to not only keep the ISS manned but also the new Habitat as well. The more places in orbit we have to go and do science within the more chance we will have at getting launch cost down and possibly more of a chance for private industry to finally start building without contracts. So as to have ships ready and off the shelf for such activity.

GraemeSkinner · 2005-01-07 08:16:06

In order to give a thorough argument on the merit of saving Hubble I decided to do further research into adaptive optics (to increase my knowledge on the subject as its been a while since I looked at them). I wish people would give up to date information on science related web sites - one says that the biggest adaptive optics telescope is just under 5 meters in diameter, another states that one is 8 meters... the list goes on and on.
Maybe my google search phrase "adaptive optics ain't worth sh...." does not help
Does anyone have any uptodate info on adaptive optics or links to sites that does.

Graeme wanders off to look for a keyboard that has a 'w' you don't have to punch

SpaceNut · 2005-01-07 08:43:08

The other part about adaptive optics is the atmospheric oscillation caused by air movement and density changes.
The use of Lasers to create a false star that gets measured in order to do the atmospheric cancellation from the star that we wish to observe is one of the more recent forms that it is done.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-07 10:27:57

Congress and the President have decided to return Shuttle to flight to complete ISS, so the only launch cost is the increment costs of another flight. That's less than an expendable launch vehicle. , so repairing Hubble justifies the decision Congress already made. Cancelling Shuttle with no alternative manned vehicle will not redirect more funds to Mars, it could cancel all manned exploration of space entirely.
Supporting Hubble supports congressmen; cancelling Shuttle now risks cancelling all human space activity. Which would you decide?

Nonsense

A Shuttle mission will obviously still not be cheap nor easy because of the planning, training, and replacement part construction. Space missions do not come free. I imagine that the costs will still run in the region of a billion; the cost of the main tank and SRB refurbishing already top $110-120M alone, Orbiter refurbishing probobly more then this, and then there is integration and checkout. The cost of a new space telescope to fly the replacement HST cameras is estimated at around $800M. I believe the NASA estimate for Shuttle HST repair is around $1.5Bn.

I also wonder how you intend to pull a spare Shuttle mission out of your hat: if you haven't noticed, we only have three Orbiters to finish the job with in only five years. Unless there is a serious elimination of ISS componets, I have doubts that NASA can pull it off, much less mount a side trip to Hubble. Shuttle processing is not a quick nor easy procedure, it takes time, time that isn't available for distractions.

There is also no time to develop a HAB module and auxillary power/LSS systems to use as an emergency shelter in the ~2-3% (some say more) chance of TPS failure. Such an option would be expensive too, like all modifications of Shuttle are. O'Keefe wasn't kidding when he thought a mission to Hubble would be too big of a risk, with the ISS as safe haven then you cut the TPS risk in half or even eliminate it with Soyuz flights. The TPS system has failed twice now (Columbia destroyed, Atlantis damaged) and damaged thrice, plus Lockheed admits that foam shedding is impossible to fix entirely.

"From a cost management point of view, returning Shuttle to flight doesn't make sense if it's only used to complete construction of ISS..."

Absolutely it does, the "cost" is simply political and not economic. It does because the United States has promised by international agreement with the ISS partners to bascially finish the station to core complete, especially launching their lab modules. Do you really think that we would be flying Shuttle any more if we didn't have to? ...Finishing the ISS cannot be done in a timely fasion by any vehicle except Shuttle, which is nessesarry because the ISS is aging and so construction cannot be delayed much longer.

And this notion about canceling Shuttle being the end of NASA... Shuttle can't fly forever. The Orbiters will eventually wear out or be lost through attrition and there aren't going to be any replacement vehicles. Then what? And then what?

Shuttle costs at the very least a few billions of dollars a year to operate. Just the Shuttle and its launch complex, not JSC or related facilities. This money and the ~$1-2Bn spent on the ISS is serious money... enough money to proceed with the VSE program, EELV+, and related systems. However there is no way we can afford to start the VSE in earnest AND fly Shuttle at the same time.

So you see, we will have to "run the risk" some time. This is unavoidable. We will not have the money to proceed with VSE and to fly Shuttle simultainiously and this is not going to change. Nor is there a snowball's chance on Venus of the US buying Russian hardware to do the job. One day the last Shuttle will explode or be retired, and then where will we be?

Hence your "Shuttle or death?" question is irrelivent, we will be faced with this situation inevitibly anyway, and I say sooner rather then later since Shuttle's cost is holding us back.

I never figured you for a devotee to Golden Goose or a person who would ignore the hard facts about Hubble's worthlessness.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-12-22 07:45:18

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#27 2004-12-22 09:28:15

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#28 2005-01-04 06:52:59

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#29 2005-01-04 09:17:38

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#30 2005-01-04 11:40:34

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#31 2005-01-05 05:49:42

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#32 2005-01-05 09:34:34

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#33 2005-01-05 09:43:26

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#34 2005-01-05 10:19:02

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#35 2005-01-05 10:41:53

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#36 2005-01-05 10:45:56

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#37 2005-01-05 11:55:51

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#38 2005-01-05 13:31:18

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#39 2005-01-05 13:52:45

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#40 2005-01-05 14:00:11

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#41 2005-01-06 00:38:43

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#42 2005-01-06 07:44:51

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#43 2005-01-06 21:14:48

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#44 2005-01-06 21:23:00

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#45 2005-01-06 23:17:57

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#46 2005-01-07 01:44:22

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#47 2005-01-07 05:36:45

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#48 2005-01-07 08:16:06

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#49 2005-01-07 08:43:08

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#50 2005-01-07 10:27:57

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

Board footer

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed