HST Mark II?

wrote in message
ups.com...
Yes, computer modelling was in its infancy in late 70's /early 80's but
it DID NOT EVEN EXIST in 50's. Orbital elements, amount of fuel etc.
were calculated BY HAND, on a piece of paper ! Nothing digital onboard,
ultra primitive servos, no fancy insulation materials, no carbon fibre,
ceramics and glues used in Shuttle, kilometers after kilometers of
ordinary wires tied by cotton threads, and most important no decades of
knowledge built up in 30+ years of space exploration. Gagarin didn't
even know what was in store for him up there. To do it in something
that was best described as zero generation ICBM with a tin can on top,
screwed and welded together by a workforce that if you didn't live in a
communist country you really don't have any idea, well yes, *in my
opinion*, was bravest act of them all.

We should not forget to mention John Glenn, who flew the first manned Atlas
flight after the Atlas had failed twice in five previous launches.

No, the original mirror distorted once the HST was put in orbit. There
was a miscalculation when the mirror was ground and the difference in
gravitational stress between ground level and zero-g was not properly
accounted for.

I believe that was urban legend. The problem was in the null test and should
have been caught by a cross check with different method, but that would have
cost too much.

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

Are you interested in understanding optics?
Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ATM_Optics_Software/

************************************

CLT wrote:
Of course, there was the work crew who went out to hammer on a fully fueled
rocket intended to become their moon rocket. Not particularly intelligent,
but it does show the mentality of the people driving them to their work!
(which adds to the danger Gagarin faced)Anybody know where there are photos
of the explosion results? (other than the satellite photos) I don't imagine
too many pictures were taken, but there has to be at least one.

I'm pretty sure I've seen video--truly horrific.


--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply have a physician remove your spleen

Bratislav wrote:

... Gagarin didn't even know what was in store for him up there.
To do it in something that was best described as zero generation ICBM
with a tin can on top, screwed and welded together by a workforce that
if you didn't live in a communist country you really don't have any
idea, well yes, *in my opinion*, was bravest act of them all.


Without question, Gagarin was a very brave man. But consider that
American astronauts were forced to ride rockets cobbled together
from components and systems made by numerous independent companies
-- companies deemed qualified for their respective tasks on account
of each being the lowest bidder.

--
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Mark Gingrich San Leandro, California

... Gagarin didn't even know what was in store for him up there.
To do it in something that was best described as zero generation ICBM
with a tin can on top, screwed and welded together by a workforce that
if you didn't live in a communist country you really don't have any
idea, well yes, *in my opinion*, was bravest act of them all.

Without question, Gagarin was a very brave man. But consider that
American astronauts were forced to ride rockets cobbled together
from components and systems made by numerous independent companies
-- companies deemed qualified for their respective tasks on account
of each being the lowest bidder.

Years later, when the Apollo-Soyuz flight joined up, the concern was it
would put American astronauts at risk by making their life dependent on
Soviet engineering.

Given a choice between going up in Gagarin's ship or going up in Glenn's, I
would choose the Mercury/Atlas every time. That doesn't even take into
account the support team behind if something went wrong like Apollo 13 ---
where it broke and the support team still got them home safe again. If you
had been up in a busted ship like that, would you want the American team or
the Soviet team behind you?

It's not simple patriotism or "our engineers are better than yours." It was
a workplace environment created all the way at the top. In the one case:
"You will get a man up there, no matter how many you kill doing it." vs.
"Make sure you get them back safe as we can't take the propaganda hit if you
kill someone." (not the only reason --- this is oversimplified)

Look at the response to the Apollo 1 fire. Do you really think that would
have slowed the top Soviet leadership down to the same degree, or caused the
same level of improvement that happened in the Block II capsules? If the
Soviet's had had that big of a lead, they would have pushed ahead to make
sure they got there first --- lives of the astronauts were not nearly as
important. You've got to be brave (or crazy) to get into the capsule when
you know there is not as strong a push to make sure you survive.

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

Are you interested in understanding optics?
Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ATM_Optics_Software/

************************************

Mark C. Farrington wrote:

No, the original mirror distorted once the HST was put in orbit. There was a miscalculation when the mirror was ground and the difference in gravitational stress between ground level and zero-g was not properly accounted for.

Well, maybe you heard this on the 'distortions' of the History Channel,
but I'm afraid it isn't true. The mirror was figured incorrectly on the
ground due to a tester problem and not due to any gravitational
distortion. The null corrector for the testing setup was installed
incorrectly, and thus the testing yielded the wrong information for
those doing the final figuring of the mirror. Clear skies to you.
--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 12th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 31 - Aug. 5, 2005, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

David Knisely wrote:
Mark C. Farrington wrote:

No, the original mirror distorted once the HST was put in orbit.
There was a miscalculation when the mirror was ground and the
difference in gravitational stress between ground level and zero-g was
not properly accounted for.


Well, maybe you heard this on the 'distortions' of the History Channel,
but I'm afraid it isn't true. The mirror was figured incorrectly on the
ground due to a tester problem and not due to any gravitational
distortion. The null corrector for the testing setup was installed
incorrectly, and thus the testing yielded the wrong information for
those doing the final figuring of the mirror. Clear skies to you.

Thanks for the correction. In regards to the original question though,
is the backup mirror configured correctly?

--
Mark C. Farrington
http://stellar.heroeshideaway.com

and they thought it was gone! Bu****es.


Dave Mitsky wrote:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=16050

Personally, I think it's a great idea.

Dave Mitsky

CLT:
Years later, when the Apollo-Soyuz flight joined up, the concern was it
would put American astronauts at risk by making their life dependent on
Soviet engineering.

Given a choice between going up in Gagarin's ship or going up in Glenn's, I
would choose the Mercury/Atlas every time...

It's not simple patriotism or "our engineers are better than yours." It was
a workplace environment created all the way at the top. In the one case:
"You will get a man up there, no matter how many you kill doing it." vs.
"Make sure you get them back safe as we can't take the propaganda hit if you
kill someone." (not the only reason --- this is oversimplified)

Vastly. I was "involved" with the Soviet space and missile programs in
the 1960's in an intelligence collection and analysis capacity in the
U.S. Air Force. I disagree with your implication that there was
complete disregard for Cosmonaut's lives in the Soviet program.

If the Soviet's had had that big of a lead, they would have pushed ahead
to make sure they got there first...

The Soviets had no lead at all. We only collected, analyzed, and
reported; the nation's political leadership decides how intelligence is
to be used to further their own agenda.

Davoud

The "Hubble Origins Probe" (HOP, what's been referred to here as "HST
Mark II") would use a new lighter-weight mirror, presumably to allow a
lighter structure and accommodate a cheaper launcher (Atlas, not
Shuttle). The instruments would also be new: the ones built for the
now-doubtful HST repair mission, not pulled out of some museum exhibit.
See http://www.pha.jhu.edu/hop/

One billion dollars is what NASA now says it would charge against its
budget for an HST repair flight, which is just one more way for NASA to
try to kill the idea. Weighing costs and returns (and ignoring the
small incremental risk to the Shuttle itself), to me the HOP proposal
looks better than HST repair.