Talk:Hubble Space Telescope

Orbital inclination?

How about adding the orbital inclination? 82.163.24.100 (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Fully Restored?

I am not an astronomer. I followed the construction and launch and the dawning realization of the massive fowl up by both NASA and Perkin-Elmer. There are several statements that I challenge. They claim that the optics have been fully corrected. Last I heard, this was not the case. A reference is needed. If this claim is based on minimum operating specifications, then the polly annas who wrote this article (pretty good over all) should say so. It is clear that the blunder by both the NASA administration and the Perkine Elmer management cost our space program, and is still costing it. I vote to include those managers names in this article. They deserve the opprobrium of history for the next century or two, anyway. Perhaps after that, I will have forgiven them for their gross incompetence. My main point is I do NOT believe it to be the case that the optics are fully restored. I understood that such a feat was technically impossible. The statements claiming this and later in the article implying this need to be qualified, and references need to be given.69.40.250.215 (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Dave Nalepa

In fact, the optics were fully corrected, not just to the specs, but to what the telescope could have done without the flaw, at least for all the cameras. The reasons are pretty simple. The original design had 3 mirrors in the optical path - the large, concave primary, the convex secondary, and then a small "folding" mirror that bent the optical path to shine on the CCDS. The newer cameras then add a curve to the folding mirror that cancels out the error in the primary. Once this is done, the optical path is as good as it ever would have been with the original design - no more surfaces, same field of view, etc.

Of course there are still tradeoffs - with a flat fold mirror, the exact position of the mirror is not critical. But with a curved mirror, the position counts - it needs to be centered, and (perhaps?) focussed. But once this is done the optical performance is identical to what the original would have been. IT is not like human spectacles, where new optical components are added, which does indeed degrade optical performance. LouScheffer (talk) 05:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Discuss changes made on 13/14 of May

There were a batch of changes, all good faith, which did not seem to fit the structure of the article

• The data transmission stuff at the beginning fits better in the data transmission section, not the overview, so I moved it.

• You can easily support the statement that Spitzer lobbied hard for a space telescope. The idea that the Hubble would not exist without Spitzer seems inherently hard to support.

• 'Data is' versus 'data are' goes both ways. I reverted them as part of these other changes, but just because it was easier, not from any principles.

- Are we speaking strictly in this article? The word "data" is the plural of the singular"datum".

LouScheffer (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

why ESA logo???

I just noticed that the European space agency logo is right next to the NASA name... anyone know why they are on there, what, if anything, they contributed... Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.182.253 (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

They contributed some of the initial funding, the Faint Object Camera, and the original solar arrays. In return they get 15% of the observing time. LouScheffer (talk) 01:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggested inclusion of data

I suggest adding the following data to the sidebar at the top of the article: length = 13.2m, orbit inclination to equator = 28.5° (data from: http://www.spacetelescope.org/about/general/fact_sheet.html) I tried to add it but failed. Could an experienced editor do it? Thanks. Jedwards01 (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)