Ed

Hey all, this is Ed.

Kara

And this is Kara.

Ed

And this is your day's dumpster fire. So, how's it going?

Kara

Not bad. Vegin' out, doing nothing. Actually, I'm not doing nothing, but I'm not doing work. So that's here that's where I'm at.

Ed

Yeah, yeah. I'm I'm I'm right there with ya. Um those past couple of weeks of this past semester have been absolutely growing. It's uh uh I I I remember teaching before, I remember like that last couple of weeks is just insane, and that's back when I had like 130 students. Now when we have a fraction of that, and it's like, why is this taking longer?

Kara

Why is this harder? I don't understand.

Ed

Well, and I and I felt so bad the the the last few weeks of the semester because I remember this time last year, uh, because I was working at a at a different place than you were, and you're like, I can't record, I I've got to get this stuff done. Yeah, and I'm like, Kara, you you you have like less than 20 students, like come to me to complain when you're at 130, then we can talk. And then I got into it, and I'm like, oh, oh, this is a lot more involved.

Kara

Yep.

Ed

A little foot and mouse syndrome there.

Kara

That's okay.

Ed

But yeah, no, that kind of that kind of ties us into our uh we have a mutual trash campfire. So I remember we ended the semester with like all these grand plans of mapping up the rest of the semester, creating all this new content, and we were over our holiday break, we were going to revolutionize all of education.

Kara

Over our two-week period.

Ed

For our two-week period, we were going to do what no other institution or teachers have ever done, and that is perfect education. And we were fully prepared to do that, and now we're like halfway through it, and we're we're we were just talking how much we have not gotten done.

Kara

Now, to be fair, I've been doing a lot of art.

Ed

That's true.

Kara

It's not nothing. Um, but yeah, no work.

Ed

Yeah.

Kara

No work stuff. Sorry, sorry, children.

Ed

But no, we're we'll be fine. Uh because what what will happen is probably about starting Wednesday or Thursday, we'll start dabbling in it. And then by the end of the week, or by the time we have to go back, we will have a lot of stuff planned out and mapped out and created and all that kind of stuff. But yeah, it it it people I don't I don't I don't think unless you've worked in education, you just don't realize how much I don't want to say physical energy is needed to teach, but the mental energy is a lot more taxing than what people I think fully understand.

Kara

Yeah, it's brain-frying, like the most brain-frying thing that I've ever done in my life, which is not a bad thing, it's just it's exhausting.

Ed

Yeah, yeah, it's it's just like because you you you have to look at every single student individually as a human being, and you have to accurately figure out what it is they know and what they don't know and what needs to be worked on, and then you've got to somehow group people uh based on what it is that some need or don't need or or whatnot, and yeah, and and there's no such thing as a teacher hating a student. Uh I you we'll have a lot of teenagers that will say, Oh yeah, this teacher hated my guts. Like, no, not necessarily. If they truly hated your guts, then they're in the wrong profession. So, like when you're coming up with these grades and these reports for the parents to see, it's like you really, really, really have to analyze and internalize everything that is going on with that kid. And I think that's what really sucks the brain power out because every kid is in a completely different spot.

Kara

Yeah. Even even when we try to make groupings, the groupings are difficult to make because everybody's so spread out. Which is fine.

unknown

Yeah.

Kara

It's just it's it's it's w it's work, I guess. I mean work is work, but you know.

Ed

Yeah, it's one of those things like you can go out into your backyard and rake up a bunch of leaves or whatever, and then you can come inside and and and for the most part your body may be a little sore, but you you could still do office work. Uh with education, it's the exact opposite. It's you could sit at a computer screen for eight hours, if you're obviously not teaching during that, but you could stare at a computer screen and not type up a single thing, but you'll have figured out a ton of stuff, and you just want to go home and close your eyes and not think about anything anymore for the rest of the day.

Kara

Yep.

Ed

Because it's that's it's it's a completely different form of energy, I think, than than say physical manual labor. I've done both, and I I can definitely tell you being mentally fried and being physically fried both sucks. I agree. So, yeah, speaking of being a uh hot mess, mentally fried brainstem, if you are listening to this episode and you have not listened to episode 18, you might want to go back and listen or even re-listen to episode 18. Uh, because in episode 18, we went over the Hubble Space Telescope and how like what were the advantages of putting a telescope into space orbiting Earth, you know, what would be the cost associated with it? We kind of went over really how this thing, the Hubble Space Telescope, was really kind of engineered right around the the and I I just found this out today. Uh the Hubble Space Telescope was kind of like the brother to the space shuttle program. They they both kind of started together. So we uh we kind of went over, basically put the instant they decided, hey, let's put a telescope into space, it was one issue after another. They're right off the bat, it was supposed to be like a five million dollar project, and it was supposed to be done in a couple of years. No, it took like over a decade to even get this thing in a position where it could be put into space. They had budgeting issues the whole way through. The uh company that was supposed to be making them here, uh Perkins Elmer, they just they yeah, it seemed like they had time management problems, they had they had what we'll find out uh instrumentation issues, uh, they had managerial issues, and it it was just getting pushed back over and over and over. And then in 1986, it was ready to go. What cool? Let's get this thing up there. And then the Challenger explosion. So the Challenger explosion, obviously, that the that that was that famous case. We had now I may look into that in a future episode, but basically there was like an O-ring surrounding one of the uh engine thrusters or something like that, and it basically leaked all the fuel to the outside of the shuttle, and then within a second, it just absolutely blew up into a million pieces. And NASA does not like rushing stuff like that. Whenever something like that goes down, NASA likes to uh shut everything down and analyze exactly what happened and how to prevent that. So our lovely like what is it? I think they finished it. It was at eight or nine billion dollars or something like that. And now Hubble was grounded for like four more years. This fancy telescope had to sit in a sterile room. You just can't, like, you just can't wrap this telescope up in newspapers and then stick it in your attic. It it doesn't work like that. Uh, they had to keep it in a heavily monitored, heavily uh controlled clean room, which is like millions of dollars a month to just have it sit there for you know for four years. And so I guess the benefit of that was that during that four years, I mean 1986 to 1990, there's a lot of technological development that came down. So, like the processors that they came up with in the early 80s that they put in the Hubble, like, wait, it's 1990. It's like like, dude, you're getting a Dell. Like you you've got so much horse, uh, much more horsepower that can go in, the the cameras, like everything during that four-year time period was being incrementally updated. And that that was pretty cool. It's not like they just sat there, forgot about it, and then sent up an obsolete uh telescope. It was actually pretty state-of-the-art when it did go up. So then 1990, they get it up there, and they were, you know, it takes a couple of weeks to get everything situated, make sure everything's calibrated and all that kind of stuff. And you know, it was getting ready to take its its first picture, and there were millions of people around the world. I mean, news stations were in on this. Uh I think every single astronomer in the world was hovering around their televisions waiting to see this because the idea is that when you're using a space telescope, you are you're not having to look through Earth's atmosphere, which is really distorts everything in this in the nighttime sky. Nobody had really seen what these galaxies and nebulas and even planets would look like outside of like the Voyager probes and stuff like that. Like, what would it look like without that blur of Earth's atmosphere? And so they pointed it at a very, very famous galaxy. It's called M100. Uh, it's a catalog number. It's they call it the Pinwheel Galaxy, and for all intents and purposes, it's actually it's a pretty simple uh galaxy, it's a uh spiral galaxy, it's face-on. It's a good test subject for this. If you factor in inflation, what would have been a 24 billion dollar telescope if you factor in everything that they put into it? Jeez. That first image came in of M100 and it was blurry.

Kara

Can you imagine how disappointing that would be? Oh well, all this work to get it up into space, you get past the atmosphere and all of that fun stuff, you spend all this money on it, and and it's blurry.

Ed

Oh, yeah, and all the heartache and the logistics issues and all that. Because the people that that work on these things, it's uh you may not may not realize it, but even like the Mars rovers and and these probes that we send out, there are these people that have been attached to this object for decades. Like they were in their 20s and 30s working on this thing, and now they're in their 40s and 50s. Retirement is around the corner, kind of a thing, and they've been working on this singular object for all that time. Yeah, it's unfortunate. And then find out, yeah, and and it really is kind of a uh optically for the no pun intended, optically to the media, this was an absolute disaster because the world was like, okay, NASA, what happened with Challenger? And now you have a failed telescope. Like, is NASA really up for the task? And I I wanted to find actually I did find a whole bunch of like late, late night shows and and all this kind of stuff that were the hosts would come out and they would just rag on NASA about Hubble. And then a lot of them are pretty funny, but I also didn't want to get us like into copyright issues, so I didn't. I didn't include them until I know the the copyright laws a little better. But um you you can just YouTube it and it is just relentless, like the world is just dogging on America and NASA. Yeah, because this was also the same time that America was dealing with a lot of issues in the Middle East, and yeah, it it was just a uh it was a very unfortunate time. And and it's not uncommon for a telescope to be pointed at an object and not have it be sharp. The issue was that they they couldn't focus it.

Kara

So they couldn't even fix it, yeah.

Ed

Like they were literally turning the digital focus knob on their computer, and it takes like a minute and for the telescope to receive the signal, and then like, okay, let's move this lens back, and there's there's a type of a camera in there. It it's a uh oh, where was it? There was oh man, where was it? Oh, with pick. So the whiff pick camera is the but for like the news media for you and I, the Wiff Pick camera, the WFPC camera, is the ones that are the most important is the camera that's most important to us. See, the Hubble had five cameras on there, and four of those cameras produced absolutely nothing that you could see. It just collected infrared data, red shift data. It that the output, that's what the astronomers want. That's what the astrophysicists want. That's that's what they want. And the Wiff Pic though is the camera that produces the beautiful pictures of galaxies and nebulas and planets and stuff like that. Believe it or not, that camera has very little scientific use at all. But it's something that we as the media consumers want to be able to see these cool pictures. And these cameras had the ability to focus this light. And what was interesting is that the Hubble telescope, the primary mirror on that thing, is like 2.4 meters in diameter. How many feet that is, I don't know. It's it's a lot of feet.

Kara

It's it's a lot, it's the lot, don't worry.

Ed

Yeah, it's it's it's we'll say it's plenty of feet. Oh, perfect. My assumption it would be like stacking two humans on top of each other, but that's what I think is equivalent to it. So uh that primary mirror bounces the light up to the very, very nose end of the telescope where there's a mirror up there called the secondary mirror, and then that mirror takes all that light data and then or the the photons and it sh it condenses it, like it makes a cone, and it beams it through the hole that sits in the middle of the primary mirror, and then from there that's where all these instruments sit, and they look like a you know, like a like a cheap drawing of like a house where it's like a square with a little like pointed roof type of thing on it.

Kara

Okay, yeah.

Ed

That's what these instruments looked like, and they were kind of thin, and they were about the size of a telephone booth, but they would basically slide in it like a cone, it would slide in, and at the very ends of those points of those cones, they had the instruments that would collect the light and send it to whatever instrument that it was going to. And so the whiffpick had the ability to focus, and there's like there's dozens of little lenses in there. Some of them I was reading, some of them were like the size of a dime. They were trying to maneuver all these lenses, no dice. That it it they couldn't they couldn't fix it.

Kara

Yikes.

Ed

Now, what's interesting is that the rest of the instrumentation didn't care if the image was sharp. Like, if you're getting a spectral analysis of a star, it doesn't have to be sharp. You just need to know what what molecules are absorbing what part of the light spectrum, and whether it's tack sharp or blurry doesn't matter. So, like the telescope was still able to collect a lot of data, and for the time period that NASA was working on a fix, it was it was doing good research, but to people like us watching the news, we don't want to see pages and pages and pages of numbers, we want to see cool looking pictures. Right. This is where like like the the the media ran with this, and it was it it was a very, very, very, I want to say expensive disaster because a telescope for the most part was still able to you know to collect information. It's just it's not sexy, it's not beautiful, it's not pretty. Um, that's what we want as as consumers. So there was an investigation done, and of course, NASA immediately just pointed their fingers at that that Perkins Elmer company.

Kara

Of course.

Ed

There was a commission headed by Lou Allen, he was the director of the jet propulsion laboratory. Like, he just targeted the the lens company, not lens, but the mirror company. He's like, somewhere in all these years of screw-ups and mismanagement and managerial issues, somewhere in all of this has to be the root cause. Somewhere in all this is where you guys screwed up. And I know I don't even know if this Elmer Perkin company is still around today. Perkins, Elmer, oh, they have stock. I like this, their motto is for the better.

Kara

Nice.

Ed

Oh, they're trading at $110 per share. So assuming that this is the same company, uh, I mean, they they walked away from this thing. Um, but yeah, anyways. Um so somewhere in all this, uh, this Lou Allen guy is like, there's there this is your fault somehow, some way. And he did find a lot of issues. There there was all sorts of stuff that from a logistical standpoint that they had set up was was a disaster. And what Perkins Elmer really wanted to do is they're like, hey, look, we've got these really, really cool, fancy computers that can grind this mirror way better than any of our normal hand machines could do.

Kara

Okay.

Ed

And NASA was like, no, no, we we we want this done the right way. We want because like NASA knows that computers have issues. Like, hello, Theric25. Yeah, they would know, yeah, they would know, and or look at the entire Apollo program where it seemed like every mission had an issue where there was a software glitch that wasn't working right. Perkin Elmer wanted to go one way, and NASA's like, no, you're gonna do it the old-fashioned way because we know that it works. How do you measure something so like how do I want to word this? If you were to go up to the Hubble telescope's primary mirror, and like you walk right up to it, it would look flat. You would not be able to tell unless you looked at it from the very, very edge, you would not be able to tell that they're that thing is curved. Uh the same thing with like these giant telescopes, like the one that we have down by uh uh at like Kit Peak Observatory, right? You know, these things are just massive, massive mirrors, and if you go up to it, you can't see that they're curved. That's how shallow of a grind they are. And then you take something as big as 2.4 meters, you know, yeah, sure, that mirror is only two inches thick, but still, like, how do you measure the accuracy of that? What they have to use is a device called a null corrector. And what a null corrector does is it, for the lack of better words, it basically helps it helps the the mirror grinders see where they need to take off more material because you can't take off too much. If you take off too much, you can't put it back on. It okay, yeah, because it you know, glass doesn't grow that way. So they have you have to like grind it very, very slowly, and you have to run it through this null corrector, you know, a lot. And basically what it does is it is basically a fancy flashlight, but at the very very end of it, you are shining this beam of light. It's very, very bright, but you are shining like this little beam of light through this hole that is really not much bigger than that of a human hair.

Kara

Okay.

Ed

When you shine this and you hit that uh you hit that that mirror, you can use it to create like a grid. And where parts of the grid look a little warped, that's where they need to grind. Because that null corrector is like, okay, this mirror has to be ground parabolically. So for those of you out there who may not know, a a parabola is if you ever look at a graph where it kind of comes down as a like a point at the bottom where it's like they both curved lines come down to a single point. That that's a parabola. Uh a spherical mirror is like imagine like a basket. It doesn't come down to a single point quite like a uh a uh parabolic mirror does. A parabolic mirror means that whatever light hits that you know that that curved part, it will bounce off at anywhere at any angle, it will bounce off, and then a both sides of that parabola, meaning that the light will bounce off the sides and then come to a s a point in the middle of that parabola, depending on how shallow or deep or you know the the slopes of the the curves and and all that kind of stuff. Uh that that determines where that focus is going to be, or in math, I think it's called the foci. But a para uh parabolic mirror means that wherever light hits that mirror, it will bounce and hit at that same point every single time.

Kara

Nice.

Ed

Most like Newtonian type telescopes, like the big, tall, round ones that uh you see people like towing behind their cars, uh, those will use a parabolic mirror. Whereas a compound telescope, like a Schmidt-Cassegrain or whatever, and you you can you can look them up, but they use spherical mirrors uh because they have a corrector plate in the front that corrects for that that sphericalness. Because a spherical mirror doesn't send all the light to one point, it only sends that light to like another curved surface, meaning you have another mirror that is curved spherically that will then help bring that light to a point, and you have a corrector plate that that mirror sits on that helps correct it. And that's why that's why you still have uh uh spherical mirrors, they they serve a very big purpose. But the Hubble was supposed to be ground to a parabolic mirror, and this null corrector they found out that there was like a like a little scratch. So there at the very end of it, uh there was like a tiny, tiny little scratch on there. The technicians were like, Well, we can fix it, but it's gonna mess with the mirror. And the Perkins Elmer was like, we don't care what you gotta do, fix it. They're like, okay. So they fixed this tiny little scratch at the end of it, and in doing so, they they weren't somebody forgot to adjust the settings because now that grid is gonna be altered a little bit. They forgot to factor out the fact that, hey, by fixing this little paint chip or scratch at the very end of it, that's gonna alter the accuracy of that tool, and the tool can still be used, but you have to adjust your calculations after that, right? It's kind of like um, you know, like let's say the uh you're driving a pickup truck and you buy new tires for it.

Kara

Okay.

Ed

This time you decide, hey, let's go with bigger tires. Well, when you're driving 45 miles an hour down the road with the stock tires, and then you're driving 45 miles an hour with the new bigger tires, you've got to account for the fact that the bigger the tire is gonna mess with your velocity because one rotation of that tire goes further on the bigger one than it does on the smaller one. So even though your speedometer is like, oh yeah, the you know, the axle's spinning at this rate, so we're clearly going 45 miles an hour, but in reality, you pick you could be going 47, 50, 52 miles an hour, and if you don't know that, you can't account for that, and next thing you know, you're getting speeding tickets left and right.

Kara

Okay.

Ed

It's like it's okay to alter the tool, but you've got to go back and make sure that afterwards you've accounted for that alteration, and uh that's where the ball got dropped. They were in such a rush to get this mirror out because it had been delayed so much that they forgot to account that this null corrector was off a little bit, and when we're talking off a little bit, it was like a thousandth of a human hair, ease. That's all it was, and so what happened was that the mirror, especially around the edges, were ground spherically, and the center was more parabolic. And again, like you could you could get the you you could look at a correct mirror that was done start to finish and look at the Hubble mirror, the same exact to make and model and everything. You could not look at these mirrors and tell that one of them is off. There's there's just no way you you could identify that. So they looked at it and they're like, all right, cool, pack it up, ship it out, let's get it out there.

Kara

Okay.

Ed

Basically, the edge of the mirror was ground at a slightly different grinding angle, I guess, than the middle. And so when you have that, no matter how many times you turn that focus or knob, you will never, ever, ever get that focused. It's the the proper term in optics is called a spherical aberration, and it's uh usually a product of very cheaply ground mirrors, which when you're spending billions of dollars on a telescope, having the term cheaply manufactured mirror is not a good look.

Kara

Yeah, you don't want that on your yeah.

Ed

I I was reading up on my uh um my mom for I think it was my 13th birthday, she got me a book about the Hubble telescope, and so this was like fresh in everyone's mind, but there was a line in there where they talked about this this issue. The issue was that the mirror wasn't ground imperfectly, it was imperfectly ground perfectly.

Kara

That's confusing.

Ed

It's not like they used crap equipment, they it's not like they used uh bad methodologies. Well, actually, they kind of use bad methodologies, but but it's not like it's not like they set out and uh you know different parts of it were ground completely incorrectly, certain parts of it weren't um it wasn't like they were trying to necessarily cut a lot of costs on it, even though that's kind of what happened. Based off that null corrector, they ground it perfectly. That null corrector said, Hey, this is what you're telling me to measure, this is my output, and you guys ground this thing based off of me being a null corrector, this this is a perfect grid. So they ground it perfectly, they just ground it to the wrong shape. That's what botched everything up.

Kara

Way to go, guys.

Ed

Once they found that out, like there's a lot of people that have been in charge of this um Hubble program since day one. You know, we're talking people have been on this thing for you know half their working careers, they're like, Well, I guess we're done for. Like, we can't we can't do anything about this now. But NASA likes to hire people with very diverse backgrounds. Okay. One engineer, uh, I think he came from the jet propulsion laboratory.

Kara

JPL, yeah.

Ed

And he's like, Why, why are we giving up now? What I mean, this is kind of kind of a trivial problem. And of course, the people that are in charge of all the directors and stuff like that, like, how is this a trivial problem? And then this engineer is like, well, what do you what do humans do when we have bad vision? But what what do we do if somebody is nearsighted or far-sighted or has myopia or or whatever? We wear glasses, we wear glasses, and it's it's just interesting how NASA, NASA uh have all their brains at that top leadership, they never thought that this is a fixable problem, and it and it stems from the idea of you can the your eyes, right? The back of your eyeballs have absolutely no idea that the front of your eyes have any issues, like they it can't tell, or does it really care that you may have a deformity in your lens in your eye or whatever. No, it doesn't. So let's stop pretending that the mirror is defective, and instead, let's write a prescription.

Kara

Okay.

Ed

The prescription couldn't have come at a better time because how do you how do you fix something like this? Well, there was a part of the Hubble telescope that all the marketing and all the media conferences, all that stuff, there was a part that they didn't really hit upon that much. Uh they the everybody was asking these all these reporters were asking, like, oh, what can we see? You know, what it's gonna look like, and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But remember when I said at the beginning of the episode that the Hubble was kind of like the blood brother of the shuttle program?

Kara

Right.

Ed

Well, the shuttle program was a huge divergent from the Apollo program in that with the Apollo program, every rocket you send up, it is a one-time use thing. That is it. Like your lunar, your lunar module is stuck on the moon, right? Uh everything, the the rocket boosters fall off and they burn up in the atmosphere. Like, really, when when you have this billion-dollar mission uh permission to go to the moon, the only piece of hardware that you're left with out of all of that material and all those resources and all that engineering and and you know technical information and all that kind of stuff, the only thing that you have left is a space capsule that may weigh like one percent of the entire craft, and that's all you return back with, and a sack full of moon rocks.

Kara

Well, that sounds useless.

Ed

Yeah, all of that is completely wasted. And and the shuttle program is like, okay, well, the idea behind a shuttle is that you shuttle people forward and backwards. So the the whole space shuttle program, and it's a geniusness, is like we can use a vast majority of this spacecraft over and over and over again, which means that we're designing this really, really fancy telescope, and the given, like, because I mean, if you think about it, like you look at the computer revolution, look at how far because the inception of the shuttle program, the inception of Hubble, and all of that started in the 70s, and then you fast forward all the way to 1990. I mean, my god, the amount of computer technology and engineering and the robustness of like it it had I can't calculate how many times it has doubled itself in its capabilities. So they're the way that they were looking at it is like, okay, well, if we're gonna build this fancy telescope and we've got this new shuttle program, we can set up service missions. And NASA baked in to the budget, they baked it in where like every three to maybe five years, they would send up a space shuttle with a bunch of really, really smart astronauts, and they would make upgrades. Okay, or make corrections, or like there should be no reason why this thing couldn't last for like 10, 15, 20 years, right? That's what they had. They had service mission number one, and the service mission number one was originally supposed to be it was supposed to fix some known errors, like there was some gyroscopic issues, there was issues with the solar panels, there was like a couple of other things that they were going to upgrade, and I actually have a full list of what they did do, uh, because it is yeah, they they they did a lot. They were in 1993, these astronauts started to work on two things. Oh, by the way, I I'm looking at my notes here. I wanted to throw on one thing.

Kara

Uh-huh.

Ed

You know, like James Webb telescope?

Kara

Yeah.

Ed

The fancy new one. Do you know how far away it sits from Earth?

Kara

I have no idea.

Ed

A million miles. Dang. They we designed Hubble to be serviceable. The James Webb telescope is not.

Kara

Yeah, yeah. I don't know how you'd be able to fix something a million miles away, aside from trying to get it back.

Ed

Yeah, even still, you can't do that. It's it's it's stuck in a Lagrange point where a Lagrange point is basically it is sitting so far away from Earth that Earth's gravity is pulling it in at the same rate that it is orbiting the sun. So it just stays in the same spot every time.

Kara

Oh, good.

Ed

Yep. So it will sit there forever and ever. And if you try to alter that that path at all, like if you bring it in too close, then it's just gonna start orbiting Earth in this really elliptical orbit, and then that thing's gonna be useless. The James Webb telescope, the reason why it took them so long to make it is because they had to make sure that thing was functionally perfect and nothing could go wrong, because there's hardly anything they could do. And for the most part, it worked out great. The only issue they've had is they had uh it was they said it was a speck of dust that hit one of the mirrors at I don't know, some unfathomably high speed, and that piece of dust knocked that mirror out of alignment. That's that that that that's a piece of dust that's moving.

Kara

That is that's an impressive little piece of dust. Yeah, I like that little piece of dust, even though he caused a lot of mischief and mayhem, but that's why I like it.

Ed

Yeah, I mean, well if you think about it good for the dust. Yeah, yeah. Uh dust one, telescope zero. Pretty much. Well, it it it it's just so funny because it's like most of the most of the mass of a galaxy is dust.

Kara

Yeah, go go dust.

Ed

So yeah, like I wanted to kind of put that out there in comparison because like with Hubble, it was designed to be serviceable and upgraded and all that stuff. So 1993, a rather complex and fairly dangerous mission, was put together to fix the Hubble. I remember like seeing this mission when I was a kid, and I remember hearing about it on the news, and they kind of played it off as like, oh yeah, they just did some some upgrades and that was it. No, man. Like when I when I dug into what it is they had to do to fix Hubble, they had to use tools that haven't been invented yet, with procedures that haven't been fully tested, they had to figure out how to haul machinery so large that that had never been done before. Because normally when you put a satellite up into space, you just fling it out there and you just move on with your life. But here they had to like connect to it, they had to dock to it, they had to like they were practicing, these astronauts were practicing for like six to eight months prior, just rehearsing how to just attach to the Hubble telescope, let alone all the procedures that they had to do to update it. Imagine, imagine trying to be an astronaut with those big giant gloves, you're having to use machinery that was better suited for brain surgery. Wow. So, yeah, these these guys and and Gal, yeah, I I didn't realize it, but when I was kind of digging into it, it and I'm gonna leave a lot of it out uh just for the sake of time, but the amount of work that they had to go in to figure this thing out was it insane. Just the procedures and all of that stuff. So, how was the fix done? Well, the fix was broken down into two parts, and I mentioned one of them earlier. It's called the Wide Field Planetary Camera. Uh, the first one went up with the Hubble Telescope in 1990. The other one, number two, it was it was like a backup, and it wasn't done yet. It wasn't finished when the Hubble telescope went up, but it's done now. And the idea is that that wide field planetary camera, that's the moneymaker. That's what people want to see on on the news and newspapers and and all that stuff. So they figured, well, okay, if this if the uh Wiff Pick, as they called it, if Wiff Pick 1 breaks down or whatever, we can just go up there with you know in a service mission and swap it out, and we're good to go. Wiff Pick 1 was supposed to be up there for quite a few years, but they're like, okay, we've got Wiff Pick 2. That was the one that they modified. So when they went up there, they would ultimately swap that out. They modified that with the corrective contact lenses, basically.

Kara

Okay.

Ed

And I think they they they said that there was like four sets of lenses that they had to install into the Wiff Pick in various different places, because when you when you take a picture of a galaxy or a nebula or a planet or whatever, what you want to do is you want to separate at all the colors, you want all the colors to hit different sensors.

Kara

Okay, that makes sense.

Ed

And so, like, for example, I think the Wiff Pick had 48 different colors. So when you're looking at a picture of Jupiter taken by Hubble, that is the product of 48 different colors all being measured and calculated and then composited into one image. And so, like, they had to have lenses for a lot of these components in here that match the prescription exactly. Now, if you think that a giant mirror, a 2.4 meter mirror, if you think a mirror like that could only be off by a fine uh tiny fraction of a human hair, how accurate do you think these lenses would have to be the like the size of a quarter or a nickel or a dime? Like, try scaling that down. If something that is the diameter of a car can't be off by any more than a human hair, that that those tiny little lenses, they they would have to be like quantumly perfect, I think.

Kara

Jeez, man. That's too much.

Ed

Like, yeah, is it yeah, like props to them though. When you kind of do the math or the rough math in your head, and you're like, oh my gosh, I would hate to be the optician that had to manufacture those things. And they probably didn't go through Perkinumer either.

Kara

They probably That's just so much.

Ed

So so yeah, so they what they did is they they modified with pick two, and that's what they were going to swap out when they got up there. Now for the really, really cool name. It's called CoStar. And CoStar was only used very briefly, and I'll I'll explain that in a minute. But CoStar stands for Corrective Optics Space Telescope Axial Replacement.

Kara

Wait, one more time.

Ed

Corrective Optics Space Telescope Axial Axial Replacement.

Kara

So replacement contact lenses for a telescope.

Ed

Yes. So the reason why they the the idea, well actually the reason behind Coastart was that okay, we have Wiff Pick, that again, that's the moneymaker. We need to modify that camera to be as optically perfect as possible, and that one is going to take a priority, much to the chagrin of all the astronomers and physicists out there that were like, like, we don't care about the pretty pictures of Jupiter. We need we need to see the infrared, we need to see the X-rays, we need to be able to see you know redshifting data, we need to see all this information that we can plug into equations. A pretty picture of Jupiter does not fit in any equation, like it just doesn't do anything for the actual hardcore science folks. So what they did was they created CoStar, and CoStar would be a lens system that would work on all the other cameras on board.

Kara

Okay.

Ed

So it wouldn't be as optically perfect as the Wiff Pick camera, but it would definitely clean up the data a lot more for all the other instruments. And that was funny because that one isn't anywhere nearly like optically, it doesn't have to be as insane as WiffPick, but it's got a lot of moving pieces in there because if you're trying to focus a infrared beam versus an ultraviolet beam, if you're like you have to really move these lenses around to make things work depending on the frequency of light.

Kara

Okay.

Ed

So what's interesting is this CoStar thing was the size of a telephone booth, and this thing like weighed as much as a car. And imagine there's videos out there, you could see these astronauts, they're like moving around this gigantic shiny metal telephone booth, and that was a thing that made it really, really dangerous. Because they had to they actually I think they had to sacrifice a separate camera. So when it was all said and done, there was only uh four cameras instead of five. I think that's correct. Uh hit me up if I'm wrong. Um if I'm wrong, I'm off by one. Um but yeah, they had to like shove this gigantic can of lenses, but more importantly, mechanical parts that would deflect the light to the corresponding cameras to make sure like it's it's focusing properly and accurately for them. Whereas like the Wiff Pick camera is just strictly visual, that like the Wiff Pick isn't doing much with infrared, it's not doing ultraviolet, it's not doing X-rays, it's not it's not doing all these other things. It it just really is just there to suit the human eye. And so the CoStar, that was the other fix to it. Now, what's funny to note is that the co star was only used for a very short period of time because all those other cameras, those original cameras, they've all been Swapped out over the service missions. And the manufacturers of these new cameras are like, wait, well, if we know the issue, why don't we just manufacture a new camera?

unknown

Right?

Ed

Because we want something more accurate or more precise or more, you know, that that can hit a wider range of infrared or whatever. Like we can, instead of relying on that co star, we can just incorporate those optics into that camera, and then we don't have to worry about the co-star thing anymore.

Kara

Okay.

Ed

And so like it only get used for a short period of time until those other service missions came along and they would take out the uh they would take out like because the idea was, hey, if you get rid of the co-star, then we could put another camera in.

Kara

Garvey. Yeah.

Ed

Right? And we could put another camera in that is manufactured specifically to account for that defect in the primary mirror.

Kara

Okay.

Ed

Which that that that kind of makes sense.

Kara

Yeah.

Ed

And then you you free up a ton of space in there. So that's what they did is they they the astronauts got up there. They believe they left like December 2nd uh of uh was it 1993, and then they came back on December 13th of 1993. So it was a 10-day mission. They sent up, what is it? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven astronauts. So Richard Covey, he was the commander. Kenneth Bowersox was the pilot. He actually, I didn't know this, but he administered a pretty wicked maneuver that actually pushed the Hebel telescope further away from Earth, thus improving its orbital lifespan. Nice. Uh all satellites will come out of the sky. Okay. Everything will eventually fall because Earth's atmosphere does exist up there, but it's just super, super thin. But over the course of years, as kind of gets involved with the Earth's way upper atmosphere, it will slow down very incrementally. And when things in space slow down, then they're more affected by gravity and they want to fall in. Like that, that's eventually what's going to happen to the International Space Station. Is they're just going to let it drift down to the point where it's just going to burn up in the atmosphere. Think that's going to be sometime in 2030. And what they'll do there is they'll position it so that when it does hit Earth's atmosphere, it's like on the south side of the Pacific Ocean. So it's like the south side of the east side of Africa. Okay. And then it will burn its way through the atmosphere at like 200 miles a second, as it, you know, that's that's the speed that it's going to hit the atmosphere, and it's going to head up towards Alaska, and it it will be vapor by the time it gets up there. But anyways, I digress. Uh so yeah, Kenneth Bowersocks, uh, he he was the pilot. Catherine Thornton, she was the uh the lady had the she had to fix the solar panels because they weren't opening and closing correctly. Story Musgrave, uh, he was the guy that did a lot. I think he was the one that did uh the installation of the Wiff Pick and the Co-Star systems. Claude Nicollier, uh, he was the guy who was in charge of actually capturing the Hubble. Wow. Because if you think about it, you have two objects that are hurtling around Earth like tens of thousands of miles an hour, and you've got to somehow align up with this thing and then clutch it, like grab it with this um grab arm boon thingy. That in two itself is I I don't know how in the world they caught it, but good on him.

Kara

Yeah, for real.

Ed

Uh, and then you got Jeffrey Hoffman and then Thomas Akers. They were other technicians, kind of like Catherine Thornton and Story Musgrave. They were, you know, they did a lot of electronics work, the gyroscope work, and and and all that kind of stuff.

Kara

Okay.

Ed

So they were up there for 10 grueling days. They had to do five spacewalks. And yes, spacewalks were kind of considered common, but it it you use just to go up into space to do one required a lot of prep work, let alone doing five. And they did one like every day for five days straight. It and and these were massive, massive amounts of work that they were doing. So, and these were probably the most dangerous spacewalks ever done, because so much of what needed to be done had never really been done in space before. You were having to operate under conditions uh that you know it's never been tested. We've never actually had to go up and fix a space telescope before. And so, yes, the main goal was to get Withpick and CoStar uh up and running, but these Australian astronauts, these astronauts, gotta say it with an accent, they also had to address the following issues. Uh they had to repay replace the failing solar arrays by detaching the old ones and throwing them back at Earth and attach new ones. That that was crazy because like this whole thing was like flopping around, and you if you see those solar arrays, they were like the same length as the Hubble telescope, and so Catherine had to go out there and try to detach them and not get caught up in it and launch them off into space because they sucked.

Kara

Okay.

Ed

I feel like she could write a book about that because there was some really crazy stuff that went on with that. Then they had to replace the solar array drive electronics. So the Hubble telescope, you they have these motors in it where they can basically roll and unroll the solar panels. And I'm not exactly sure why they would need to, uh, but you they still wanted to retain that capability. Uh they had to upgrade the magnometers, uh, they had to install code processors for the flight computer. So they, like I was mentioning before, technology was improving so fast in the 80s and 90s that you know what? Let's upgrade the uh processing power of this thing. Since it's already been three years and you know, we've we've like tripled our computing uh capabilities. Uh install two rate sensor units, install two gyroscopes and they're yeah, the two gyroscopic uh electronic control units. So the gyroscopes are probably the most important thing. How do you figure out what you're pointed at in space? Well, you take a spinning object, like you've probably seen those videos where like the the professor takes a bicycle wheel and he's holding the axle in each hand and he's they spin it really, really fast.

Kara

Oh yeah, I've seen that.

Ed

And then as he tilts the wheel, then he starts spinning like on a pivot. Not sure if you've ever seen those.

Kara

Yep, I have.

Ed

Okay, that's a gyroscope. And so when like you could have say, like, a 50-pound wheel spinning at you know 10,000 RPM, that wheel is going to stay perfectly flat every time. Meanwhile, the rest of the spacecraft will move around it, and because that gyroscope is sitting perfectly parallel to a certain degree on Earth, no matter where that telescope is pointed, you it will tell you what angle everything is at. And it's very precise, very complicated, very expensive uh piece of machinery. So they actually, I think they said there was five, and three of them had already gone out, so they put two more in there, and then uh install the Goddard high-resolution spectrograph redundancy kit. Because if there's anything that NASA loves, they love redundancy. Like the James Webb telescope has redundant everything, everything they they they put so many redundancy like backup computers and it for good measure, right? You can't service it. So if something takes a dump on you, sure, it's good to have a backup.

Kara

Yeah.

Ed

So and especially when you don't have to worry about like all you have to worry about is just getting it to a certain point, then yes, spend extra money and let's load up on redundant stuff. So, like, as opposed to like say like the Mars rovers, not as much redundancy because you don't want that thing being too heavy, because yeah, it's one thing to get it up in space, but then it's another thing to actually get it out of space and get it to land somewhere. So like the Mars rovers, they don't have a lot of redundancy, but say like you've got your visual camera and you have your infrared camera, but they designed like your visual camera without an IR uh band pass filter on it, meaning there's no IR blocker on it. So if they had to use the visual camera in a pinch for an IR situation, they can.

Kara

Okay.

Ed

It won't it won't be as good as a dedicated camera, but it can still get a job done. So that's how they that's how they get around that with rovers. And then of course they had to replace with pick one and install CoStar. So these astronauts have been practicing and that NASA's giant swimming pool facility. I would love to see that thing where they actually have like full-scale models of the Hubble telescope inside of a swimming pool.

Kara

Yeah, that'd be pretty cool.

Ed

Yeah, it's just wild. They were working out for six to eight months in preparation for the mission. And then on December 10th, Hubble was patched up and re-released back into its orbit. And on December 13th, the crew of the Endeavor landed safely back at the Kennedy Space Center. They were exhausted. I remember seeing pictures of them after they landed. They had they had not slept well. Because, you know, here are you and I, like, we're talking about being mentally brain fried at the end of a semester.

Kara

Right.

Ed

These guys and gal, not only were they mentally brain fried, but they were also physically fried because it was just non-stop yikes. Yeah, gnarly, huh? Well, and if you think about it, like um Catherine Thornton, I saw a video on her today. She's like, the most exhausting part of any spacewalk is when you open up that hatch and all you see is Earth below you.

Kara

Yeah, that's terrifying.

Ed

Yeah, like you don't know, you don't know which way you're really pointed, you don't know which way you're going, and you she's like, you you eventually figure it out, but your brain is constantly having to correct because it's not like your ears can tell you anything. That's our our ears on Earth are our gyroscopes. That's why we get seasick, right? Uh, our ears are telling us while we're bouncing around on a boat, our ears are saying one thing, but our eyes are saying a different thing, and that's what gets us dizzy and sick. That's the same thing in space, except for in space, your ears can't do anything for you because what's up?

Kara

Right. Yeah, it's confusing, Richie Brain.

Ed

Exactly. Yeah, and so like she said that that that you have to always be thinking about that all the time. And then if you're changing an angle or something like that, you have to, you know, if it's a hey, I've got to turn this thing five degrees, but I'm sitting at a 15-degree angle from the baseline, and we are moving at a 30-degree angle across a certain path of this orbit, you have to do all the math in your head to figure out exactly what does five degrees look like. And so I could see it, I could totally see why they would come back and just be absolutely exhausted from something like this.

Kara

Oh, yeah.

Ed

Here comes what I think is the worst part, right? You get the astronauts home and you're like, cool, let's fire up the Hubble, let's get it out there, let's see what it can do. Not so fast. Not only like you you had to wait the 10 days for them to actually finish the mission, but then it takes like three to four weeks to go through and update all the software because they made a lot of computer changes. They have to do all this debugging stuff, they have to test everything. It is that it's like a whole litany of checkboxes they gotta go through while a bunch of engineers with thick glasses and smoking lots of cigarettes in the background doing whatever it is that engineers do in a in a period of time like that. And you know these astronomers all over the world are just like losing their minds. What is taking so long? Yeah, they had to align, calibrate, triple check, all the systems, fix bugs and all sorts of stuff. In January 1994, the first images came rolling in, and the very, very first image that came in was a picture of four stars.

Kara

A picture of four stars.

Ed

Yeah, it's is the most underwhelming thing ever.

Kara

I don't know what else to say to that.

Ed

Is your mic off?

Kara

No, is that better?

Ed

Oh yeah, okay, that's better. I I don't know if your mic cut out and you were using your laptop mic.

Kara

No, no, we're good. Sorry.

Ed

Okay. Yeah, it is a picture of four stars, and the name of this star is a very sexy name.

Kara

What is it?

Ed

And where it's located is even hotter.

Kara

What is it?

Ed

HD 96755.

Kara

That's not sexy. I was hoping for something else.

Ed

If you're R2 D2, that is the hottest thing in the world. I mean, I guess, but I mean if you're if you're C3PO, you would date that in a heartbeat.

Kara

But I'm not.

Ed

Okay, fine. The the galaxy, uh, or like the not the galaxy, the star cluster that this HD96755 is located in, is in the luxurious catalog of NGC3532.

Kara

Still not sexy. It's just it's just blah.

Ed

I know. I know. At least we know we know this. It's in the southern constellation Karina.

Kara

Yeah.

Ed

Finally, we we got a name. The reason why they chose this is because they wanted to test the maximum resolution of the optics that they put in. If you just immediately bring up a giant galaxy, you're not you're not going to be able to see, right? There's there's parts of it that won't work right because you're just focusing solely on the colors that are coming in. Here, they didn't care about the colors, they were just strictly testing the whiffpick lenses that remember I mentioned earlier had to be ground uh quantumly perfect to fix these issues. So this star is actually a double star. It is not only like super far away, but these two stars are so dang close that no earth-bound telescope, including these giant hundred-inch telescopes like in Chile and all that kind of stuff, like the one that was in uh in Chile, I think it was the Campanas Observatory. Right, these things are at the top of the earth, it's a hundred inches, like they use this to resolve the most finest details possible, uh, the most accurate uh resolution known to mankind. In telescope manufacturing, there's always a principle that is bigger is better. The bigger the lens, the bigger the mirror will always be more precise than a smaller, even better ground lens or mirror.

Kara

Okay.

Ed

So, in other words, you have yourself a hundred inch, yeah, you have yourself a hundred-inch uh mirror on Earth compared to that 2.4 meter telescope, like if you had them both on Earth, there would be absolutely no comparison. That 100 incher would destroy the Hubble in any resolution test.

Kara

Okay.

Ed

This is the reason why they chose this star is because these stars are so close together that like with the uh Campanias observatory, they look like they look like a kind of an oblong blob. But when Hubble looked at it, you could clearly see two separate stars, and that is all they needed. That meant that the resolution of this 2.4 meter telescope is now vastly superior, it is 50% superior than the 100-inch telescope in Chile.

Kara

Ease. That's pretty cool.

Ed

Yeah, that that's that's what they were going for. That that's the reason why that first image is like to you and I, it's like who cares? But to these engineers and these astronomers, that was the proof that they needed that this thing is tack sharp. And then it was shortly after that that the images came rolling in.

Kara

Okay.

Ed

Everything from I think the the first one they really took, the most beautiful one, was the pillars of creation and the eagle nebula. They obviously went back to their old nemesis, the M100 Pinwheel Galaxy, and they they they slewed that dragon instantly. Uh they shined this thing at the uh at Orion and the yeah. From there, we I think we kind of know that the rest is history.

Kara

Yeah.

Ed

The uh the Hubble telescope was originally only designed to be like a 10-year telescope, and then they were like, okay, maybe with service missions, it maybe we could stretch it out to 20 years. In May of 2009, they sent up the last service mission, it was the fourth one, and they obviously upgraded cameras and did all sorts of stuff to it, and they haven't touched it since. And now we are going on what 30 years of operation with what is it? Uh 2000. It's pretty it's pretty close to 2024, so it's going on what 15 years past it's 2009 uh service mission four.

Kara

Ooh, it made me feel old, but yeah, it's about right.

Ed

It is still going strong to this day. Something that was originally supposed to be 10 years lifespan is now exceeding 30, and it is still going strong, and yeah, it it does pale. Like the James Webb telescope gets a lot of attention, and for good reason. It's a pretty incredible piece of engineering. But I mean, that Hubble, I mean, keep in mind James Webb doesn't that it doesn't take visual images like the Hubble does. The James Webb is strictly infrared. Okay. Right. That telescope is designed to look at the beginning of the Big Bang kind of a thing. Whereas the Hubble is more of a good all-arounder. That's to say, like, James Webb has pointed at at Saturn and Jupiter, but they're not like the really cool pretty pictures that you would want to see that Hubble can do. Uh, but yeah, that thing is still gone. And as long as it doesn't misplace his glasses anywhere, it should be good to go until it falls out of orbit one day.

Kara

Nice.

Ed

And that is how you introduce a two-part series on a topic, finish the first episode, and completely forget about the second one for like two more episodes.

Kara

It's fine. We did it. We finished it.

Ed

So hopefully this wasn't as arduous as some of the other science-y ones that I do. I'm trying to I'm trying to bring up my inner Neil deGrasse Tyson where he can just explain things so clearly in words, it's it's godlike. I'm so jealous.

Kara

Yeah, that man is a treasure.

Ed

So yeah, that's the uh that's the story of Hubble needing glasses. So uh what uh what do you got coming up?

Kara

Um well a couple housekeeping things real quick. Because I forgot to do that in the beginning.

Ed

Oh, okay.

Kara

Um so if you uh wanna email us, contact us, ask us questions, give us ideas for an episode, we really do want to hear from you. Uh our email is thedaysdumpsterfire at gmail.com. If you want to hit us up on the instas, you can just send us a direct message. One of us will see it for sure.

Ed

And if you have a podcast of yourself uh that's kind of nerdy, like hit us up. We can do a shout out. Yeah. So for sure. We wanna if you guys help us out, we will help you out. Like it's there's there's plenty of room for for all us podcasters out there. So the only way we grow is by working together. For sure.

Kara

Yeah, that's all I got. Uh the next uh the next episode that I am planning on doing is going to be the Battle of Thermopylae, or what a lot of people know it as is the Battle of the 300. Uh, but it's I'm going to switch the perspective a little bit. Usually when that story's told, it's told from the Greek side. Uh, I'm gonna talk about the Persians a little bit more than the Greeks. We're still gonna go over the you know the whole thing with the rundown and all of that fun stuff, but um we're gonna uh kind of take a different a different perspective on on that battle, considering it was quite the dumpster fire for the Persians, so we're going to take it that way. So that's what I've got going on.

Ed

Okay.

Kara

Followed by an app.

Ed

No, that that's that's that's gonna be a good episode just because like we we all know the movie, we've all seen it, and there's things that it it gets right, but it's also it's a very stylized Zack Snyder movie, right? Uh it's entertaining. Yeah, it's very entertaining. And it's I mean, regardless of which way you know you you you you sit on things, it's not like the the visuals on it in terms of all the characters are not hard on the eyes.

Kara

Like it's uh I mean I can't complain about that part.

Ed

Yeah, I mean, uh don't get me wrong, I'm straight as a shoot, but I mean though the the the spray on abs are they're pretty glorious.

Kara

Yeah. They do they you know, makeup, costume department. Great work, guys. He did a good job.

Ed

Well, and who's the guy who's the guy that plays the king, that emperor, not the other Persian, what was his name?

Kara

Oh, the Persian King?

Ed

Yeah. I don't remember. Um I can't remember the the character's name, but his outfit was wild. Xerxes? Xerxes, yeah. Because all the the chains and the golds and the makeup and Yeah, he didn't really look like that.

Kara

But I mean But in terms of It's pretty cool for the movie.

Ed

Yeah, yeah. That's that's the thing. It's like they made him out to be this villain by making him visually like, holy cow, what is this guy up to? But I don't think the real Xerxes looked like that at all.

Kara

No, he looked like a human. That Xerxes looked like an alien.

Ed

Yes, yeah, yeah. So no, that's gonna be cool. I I I'm curious to see what you come up with from the Persian side of things because in any dumpster fire, they thought this would be a quick, easy, one battle, one and done, and now it's going on for days, and thousands and thousands of bodies are piling up. Yeah, this is not going to plan.

Kara

Yeah, you really could call the entire Persian war situation a dumpster fire for them, but we'll just kind of stick to one battle because for simplicity's sake, you're welcome. Um But yeah.

Ed

No, that's cool. No, I'm looking forward to that. So, and then I'm still debating I'm still debating if I'm gonna do the uh Radium Girls, where we're talking about that earlier because I've been getting a little bit more information on it. There's a book out there I needed to read on it. That but I feel like I I feel like I'm the guy who does all the radiation stories.

Kara

You are. That's okay.

Ed

Everything from you know, you know, nuclear bombs. Chernobyl, yep.

Kara

Uh you know, all those things.

Ed

Um I don't know. I'll I'll I'll I'll dig in a little more, see if I can make uh try to put another take on it that people don't really understand. I I I I know the story well and I know what happened, but for me, it's more like how the women were treated. Is it it was absolutely appalling and how these women were treated for speaking up about these issues. That's kind of the perspective I want to take on it, uh, but it's not something I can really talk about easily and not sound like I'm I don't know, what's the word I'm looking for?

Kara

You don't want to mansplain.

Ed

Yeah, yeah. I don't want to mansplain a very prominent feminist issue in the early 1900s.

Kara

Yeah, I think you'll be all right. I think yeah, I'm here to support you.

unknown

Yeah, yeah.

Ed

Tell me that you're mansplaining it. Shut up.

Kara

It's the token lady.

Ed

So, all right then. Well, I hope you guys enjoyed it and uh keep it a hot mess.

Kara

Thanks for listening.

Ed

Bye.