SpaceShip One to Fly at Oshkosh

"Morgans" wrote ...

I'm not as up with all of the satelite stuff, but am interested. What is
the HST optics, and what does that have to do with Hubble, and a black
project, right in front of our eyes?

Jim

HST means Hubble Space Telescope. After the one point five billion dollar
Hubble was launched it was discovered that that it couldn't see the stars
very well. An investigation discovered that the wrong mirror had been built
into the spacecraft. Like they've got large mirrors laying around
everywhere and this was a simple mistake. Oops. Or was it a mistake? The
company that made the mirror also made mirrors for US spy satellites. Could
it be "the wrong mirror" was installed on purpose so that the hubble became
a replacement spy satellite?

Rich

"Richard Isakson" wrote

HST means Hubble Space Telescope.

Duh! I should have caught that!

After the one point five billion dollar
Hubble was launched it was discovered that that it couldn't see the stars
very well.

Yep, I'm up with that.

An investigation discovered that the wrong mirror had been built
into the spacecraft. Like they've got large mirrors laying around
everywhere and this was a simple mistake.

It was my understanding that a rather stupid mathmatic mistake had been
commited. Is that wrong?

Oops. Or was it a mistake? The
company that made the mirror also made mirrors for US spy satellites.
Could
it be "the wrong mirror" was installed on purpose so that the hubble
became
a replacement spy satellite?

Rich

But would the "wrong mirror" in the Hubble be able to focus on terra firma?
I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Are spy satelites mirrors as large as the Hubble's?
--
Jim in NC

Richard Isakson wrote:
wrote ...
The original LST ws planned to be 120 inches aperture and scaled
down
to be shuttle deployed.

That doesn't clarify the issue. Supposedly nobody knows what
happened
to the 'spare' HST optics fabricated by Kodak. One supposes they
went
into a KH-12.

I've always wondered if putting the wrong mirror in Hubble was an
accident.
Is it possible that they launched a black program right in front of
our
eyes?


ONe summer at Stellaphane (Amatuer telescope makers' convention)
I heard a talk by the Kodak guy. He said that they tried to talk
NASA into having a contest--test both sets of optics and use
the best of the two in the Space Telescope. Nasa declined (one
presumes that would involve making changes to the existing
contract with Perkin Elmer(?) which they would probably fight
as they would not want to risk losing the good publicity
they'd get from THEIR optics being in the Space Telescope.
Boy did that work out well for them!

So, no to your theory. The contract Kodak won was for
designated back up optics from the moment the RFP was
released.

Unless of course somehow the Kodak and PE optics were
swapped. But that would imply that the fault was discovered
befor the optics went to be assembled--in which case one
hopes they'd have been fixed.

--

FF

Richard Isakson wrote:
"Morgans" wrote ...

I'm not as up with all of the satelite stuff, but am interested.
What is
the HST optics, and what does that have to do with Hubble, and a
black
project, right in front of our eyes?

Jim

HST means Hubble Space Telescope. After the one point five billion
dollar
Hubble was launched it was discovered that that it couldn't see the
stars
very well. An investigation discovered that the wrong mirror had
been built
into the spacecraft. Like they've got large mirrors laying around
everywhere and this was a simple mistake. Oops. Or was it a
mistake?

No, they did not put the wrong mirror into the Space Telescope
(It wasn't named for Hubble until after launch). During
figuring and testing of the primary mirror one of the optical
elements in the test aparatus was installed backwards. This
introduced spherical aberration into the test aparatus, and so
the primary mirror was figured to remove that same amount of
spherical aberration from the ensemble, which means the
primary was figured WITH spherical aberration that
compensated for that in the test aparatus.


The
company that made the mirror also made mirrors for US spy satellites.
Could
it be "the wrong mirror" was installed on purpose so that the hubble
became
a replacement spy satellite?

No. PE (or whoever it was) got the contract in part because of
their expertise in making large mirrors for spy satellites.
However the people who were experienced in that work were not
allowed to work on teh Space Telescope mirror so it was made
by less experienced people.

Kodak won the contract to make a second set of optics,
a back up set to be used if something happened to the
set being made by the primary contractor. AFAAK, Kodak
did a good job.

That second set has supposedly disappeared and the rumor is
it was used in an KH-12, the issue was moot by then as
it was certainly never possible to replace the primary
mirror in the HST on-orbit.

Unless Kodak screwed up and the mirros were switched so that
it IS the Kodak mirror that is in the HST AND NASA
decided to just use the mirror known to be defective
instead of having it refigured.

OR, I suppose, unless PE was working on a KH-12
mirror at the same time and again, switched them
and didn't bother to fix the bad optics.

Remember, the optical elements were fully completed at
the contractor facility and then shipped to NASA for
assembly into the ST. It's not like the whole telescope
was made at PE and then inserted into a satellite.

Prior to assembly of the Space Telescope, re-figuring
of the primary mirror would not have been a major task.
After assembly, swapping mirrors was not feasible.

So the "mirrors were swapped" theories are a non-starter.
Not a problem for the run-of-the-mill conspiracy theorist.

--

FF

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 22:31:18 -0800, "Richard Isakson"
wrote:

If you think the Shuttle isn't a military craft, you should try and
dig out
the spec mission that sized the payload bay.

The sad thing is, much of the shuttle requirements were based on
military
requirements...but the Air Force pulled out of the program in the
'80s,
including mothballing the brand-new Vandenberg shuttle launch
complex.


The weather at Vandenberg is often too cold to launch the
shuttle which may be a major reason why the facility there
was mothballed when the drometer problem was fully
appreciated. That, and there were problems with the
launch pad foundation.

The DOD only 'pulled out' in terms of infrastructure and
purchasing DOD-only shuttles. Military payloads are
routinely launched by the NASA shuttles. Previously,
NASA often benefitted from the use of ICBM boosters
for lauching satellites (and in the early years,
astronauts), but befor the shuttle, NASA support for
DOD was less commonplace and remains a sore point
among a lot of NASA civilian scientists.

I've no idea as to whom is subsidizing whom, in terms
of budget.

--

FF

wrote in message oups.com...

The weather at Vandenberg is often too cold to launch the
shuttle which may be a major reason why the facility there
was mothballed when the drometer problem was fully
appreciated. That, and there were problems with the
launch pad foundation.


What is too cold? Vandenburg doesn't get too cold...

The primary reason that I heard was that the shuttle could not lift a large enough payload into the polar orbit that was
the priamry mission for launches from Vandenburg...

The whole facility build was a boon to the central coast economy for many years tho', and is used for delta launches
today...

Ron,
Neither White Knight, nor SpaceShipOne are government-owned. That's
why this was such a big deal. Space is going commercial.
Brad


On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 02:26:25 GMT, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 01:48:58 GMT, "Vaughn"
wrote:

Actually, SpaceShip One takes a glider rating. Don't know about the space
shuttle.

Government-owned vehicle...no FAA license required.

Ron Wanttaja

He was not argueing the White Night. The comment was "Don't know about the
space shuttle." By not saying it was wrong about the glider rating for the
W.K., he was supplying information about the "I don't know" part.
--
Jim in NC

"Edmond Dantes" wrote in message
...
Ron,
Neither White Knight, nor SpaceShipOne are government-owned. That's
why this was such a big deal. Space is going commercial.
Brad


On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 02:26:25 GMT, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 01:48:58 GMT, "Vaughn"

wrote:

Actually, SpaceShip One takes a glider rating. Don't know about
the space
shuttle.

Government-owned vehicle...no FAA license required.

Ron Wanttaja

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 22:43:22 GMT, Edmond Dantes wrote:


On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 02:26:25 GMT, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 01:48:58 GMT, "Vaughn"
wrote:

Actually, SpaceShip One takes a glider rating. Don't know about the space
shuttle.

Government-owned vehicle...no FAA license required.

Neither White Knight, nor SpaceShipOne are government-owned. That's
why this was such a big deal.

Yup, I understand that...the question was "Don't know about the Space Shuttle."
Shuttle's a government-owned vehicle, hence an FAA license isn't required.

Space is going commercial.

Space has been commercial for at least thirty years. Where ya been? :-)

Ron Wanttaja

Blueskies wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

The weather at Vandenberg is often too cold to launch the
shuttle which may be a major reason why the facility there
was mothballed when the drometer problem was fully
appreciated. That, and there were problems with the
launch pad foundation.


What is too cold? Vandenburg doesn't get too cold...

After the Challenger disaster the minimum acceptable ambient
temperature for launch was raised. I do not recall the spec,
but Vandenberg has typical overnight lows below it for
a substantial part of the year. That was about the time
that the decision was made to mothball the South Vandenberg
shuttle facility. Now that heaters are used on the booster
joints that minimum is back down to where launching from
Vandenberg is feasible.


The primary reason that I heard was that the shuttle could not lift a
large enough payload into the polar orbit that was
the priamry mission for launches from Vandenburg...

Not likely. The shuttle payload has not been reduced since the
construction of the Vandeberg facility. However the types of
payloads permitted have been revised. The Shuttle is not allowed
to carry RPGs or other radioactive materials in any substantial
quantity and the there is now a smaller maximum permissible size
for solid boosters carried in the payload compartment.

Those restrictions probably preclude a number of military payloads.


The whole facility build was a boon to the central coast economy for
many years tho', and is used for delta launches
today...

The cross-track capability during re-entry was a design spec intended
to allow one-orbit shuttle missions to launch from South Vandenberg,
pop out a satellite and then land at Edwards.

--

FF