Re: [math-fun] one crazy idea
While we're on the subject of speculation, I saw a TV program last night that suggested that the Hubble Space Telescope's original lens design _wasn't an error_, but a 'cover story' for some nefarious classified tests by the US DoD. After all, the company making the Hubble's lenses was the same company that had been making lenses for spy satellites since the beginning, and it's hard to see how they could have made such an 'error'. After these classified tests were done, the Hubble's new optics were installed (& other stuff removed??), and the Hubble went on to perform its (unclassified) mission. I'm not sure what those classified tests might have involved, but the 'error' in the Hubble's optics has been pretty well documented, so it might be possible to 'reverse engineer' what the original 'design' might have been used for. At 02:07 AM 7/17/2013, Simon Plouffe wrote:
Hello,
I was thinking at how we could procuce energy in a simple way, like having solar ovens with mirrors and such devices. This lead me to Archimedes and the way he used to 'toast' roman warships from the Syracuse citadel, apparently that idea was somewhat validated once, they found a way to toast a pile of plywood resembling a roman ship with plates of metals used at the time.
I don't believe this. I looked at the error quite carefully at the time, and it really was just that they misplaced a set of washers on the test jig, due to a misplaced laser beam. And they didn't believe the "less reliable" tests that showed things were wrong. Here's Mitch Waldrop's article at the time: From the NASA technical failure analysis report: The spacing of the field lens in the corrector was to have been done by laser measurements off the end of an invar bar. Instead of illuminating the end of the bar, however, the laser in fact was reflected from a worn spot on a black-anodized metal cap placed over the end of the bar to isolate its center (visible through a hole in the cap). The technician who performed the test noted an unexpected gap between the field lens and its supporting structure in the corrector and filled it in with an ordinary metal washer. [www.ssl.berkeley.edu/~mlampton/AllenReportHST.pdf] A fascinating (somewhat morbid) read is the single author article by the fellow who figured the lens, explaining proudly and in great detail how it was < 10 nm p-p accurate and how he achieved this level of precision. Published, of course, before the error was discovered. I believe it is in one of the SPIE journals. On Jul 17, 2013, at 10:00 AM, Henry Baker wrote:
While we're on the subject of speculation, I saw a TV program last night that suggested that the Hubble Space Telescope's original lens design _wasn't an error_, but a 'cover story' for some nefarious classified tests by the US DoD.
After all, the company making the Hubble's lenses was the same company that had been making lenses for spy satellites since the beginning, and it's hard to see how they could have made such an 'error'.
After these classified tests were done, the Hubble's new optics were installed (& other stuff removed??), and the Hubble went on to perform its (unclassified) mission.
I'm not sure what those classified tests might have involved, but the 'error' in the Hubble's optics has been pretty well documented, so it might be possible to 'reverse engineer' what the original 'design' might have been used for.
At 02:07 AM 7/17/2013, Simon Plouffe wrote:
Hello,
I was thinking at how we could procuce energy in a simple way, like having solar ovens with mirrors and such devices. This lead me to Archimedes and the way he used to 'toast' roman warships from the Syracuse citadel, apparently that idea was somewhat validated once, they found a way to toast a pile of plywood resembling a roman ship with plates of metals used at the time.
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
The operative element here is "TV program", which in this case was fictional. But I'd be willing to bet that there were conspiracy theories floating about at the time the Hubble flubble was discovered. One of my undergraduate friends, Rodger Doxsey (now deceased) was in charge of the Hubble astronomy program for many years. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/science/space/19doxsey.html October 19, 2009 Rodger Doxsey, Astronomer Who Worked on the Hubble, Dies at 62 By DENNIS OVERBYE Rodger Doxsey, an astronomer who played a crucial below-the-decks role in keeping the Hubble Space Telescope flying and doing science in good times and bad for almost 20 years, died Tuesday in Towson, Md. ... As head of mission operations at the institute, Dr. Doxsey was the go-to guy for making the Hubble telescope work and squeezing the last bits of data out of it. Starting work a decade before the launching, he helped it deliver data in its first troubled days and led the search for ways to extend its useful life when NASA stopped sending manned missions to repair it. ... At 08:17 AM 7/17/2013, Tom Knight wrote:
I don't believe this. I looked at the error quite carefully at the time, and it really was just that they misplaced a set of washers on the test jig, due to a misplaced laser beam. And they didn't believe the "less reliable" tests that showed things were wrong. On Jul 17, 2013, at 10:00 AM, Henry Baker wrote:
While we're on the subject of speculation, I saw a TV program last night that suggested that the Hubble Space Telescope's original lens design _wasn't an error_, but a 'cover story' for some nefarious classified tests by the US DoD.
Hello, as far as I know : the Hubble telescope is not exactly a kind of any spying equipment for good reasons, the device is equipped with 2 '386' pcs , it is good at doing one job which is to take astronomical photographs at high precision, it has some special filters and many things aimed at astronomical photography. The computing power of the thing is just enough to process images in a very precise way aimed at specific tasks only, this is not James Bond or Star Trek, it takes a lot of preparation. In other words, what such a small device can do apart from taking photos ?, it has no weapons of any kind. Those machines are placed into orbit with everything that comes with it and it is prepared years in advance. At the time , it was considered even funny that the incredible Hubble telescope only runs on very ordinary computers. But, for the ones that do not know what kind of devices are sent into space : these are industrial strenght computers, they need heavy shielding, they need to be solid and reliable, these are not the same ones we used to have at home at all, the level is really not the same. In order to prepare and test and pass all the stress tests, these devices have to be resistant to all sorts of rays, temperatures, etc. Even today, the same applies, you just can't place into orbit a thing which is good enough for the house into space, this is not the same thing at all. This takes months and years to put in place properly. this is my opinion, Simon Plouffe
After all, the company making the Hubble's lenses was the same company that had been making lenses for spy satellites since the beginning, and it's hard to see how they could have made such an 'error'.
The story at the time was that they were not allowed to use test equipment from the classified programs in bulding the Hubble mirror. I think the Earth is too bright for Hubble to look at so if they were doing something secret, it is hard to imagine what it would have been. My devious imagination fails at finding something who's coversion is so great that the cheapest way to do is was to fly an otherwise unneeded service mission to the Hubble. Whit
Confirmation of the existence of aliens ? On 17 Jul 2013, at 17:52, Whitfield Diffie wrote:
<snio>
My devious imagination fails at finding something who's coversion is so great that the cheapest way to do is was to fly an otherwise unneeded service mission to the Hubble.
Whit
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
The meaning and purpose of life is to give life purpose and meaning. The instigation of violence indicates a lack of spirituality.
participants (5)
-
David Makin -
Henry Baker -
Simon Plouffe -
Tom Knight -
Whitfield Diffie