best of Hubble images

[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
Robert Sneddon
<fred.TakeThisOut@nospam.demon.co.uk>], who wrote in article <ff1wV0HZQbyHFwFH.TakeThisOut@nospam.demon.co.uk>:
> >> A new Hubble
> >> would have a perfect mirror day one resulting in better science day two.
> >> The problems with the solar cells are known and would be fixed in the
> >> new design etc. etc.

> >LOL! Have not you forgot they said it about the Hubble I too?

> They didn't say that about the Hubble which was a very experimental
> satellite in more ways than one.

Yes, they did. [It was less than 40 years ago. Is your memory that
short? ;-]

> The mirror wasn't tested properly, in
> part to save money. This was a Bad Idea. The problems with the solar
> cell panels (the largest ever deployed on a scientific satellite up to
> that time) were actually foreseen, in fact. Sadly for the Hubble
> designers, the people who knew there were going to be problems with the
> panels were the people who had designed similar panels for the American
> Keyhole spy satellites and they had to keep their mouths shut for
> security reasons.

I do not follow: are you implying this won't happen to Hubble II ?!

Yours,
Ilya
 >> Stay informed about: best of Hubble images 

In message <fqclti$1bm6$1@agate.berkeley.edu>, Ilya Zakharevich
<nospam-abuse.RemoveThis@ilyaz.org> writes

><fred.RemoveThis@nospam.demon.co.uk>], who wrote in article <ff1wV0HZQbyHFwFH@nosp
>am.demon.co.uk>:
>> The mirror wasn't tested properly, in
>> part to save money. This was a Bad Idea. The problems with the solar
>> cell panels (the largest ever deployed on a scientific satellite up to
>> that time) were actually foreseen, in fact. Sadly for the Hubble
>> designers, the people who knew there were going to be problems with the
>> panels were the people who had designed similar panels for the American
>> Keyhole spy satellites and they had to keep their mouths shut for
>> security reasons.
>
>I do not follow: are you implying this won't happen to Hubble II ?!

The mirror of a Hubble II *will* be tested properly and the solar cell
panel design will not have the vibration and deployment problems the
Hubble I did. Those are some of the lessons learned from the first
version. Of course it's entirely possible a Hubble II will have other
problems as it's likely to be experimental in other ways.
--
To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon
 >> Stay informed about: best of Hubble images 

[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
Robert Sneddon
<fred DeleteThis @nospam.demon.co.uk>], who wrote in article <08HK9gAQOpyHFwjz DeleteThis @nospam.demon.co.uk>:
> >> The mirror wasn't tested properly, in
> >> part to save money. This was a Bad Idea. The problems with the solar
> >> cell panels (the largest ever deployed on a scientific satellite up to
> >> that time) were actually foreseen, in fact. Sadly for the Hubble
> >> designers, the people who knew there were going to be problems with the
> >> panels were the people who had designed similar panels for the American
> >> Keyhole spy satellites and they had to keep their mouths shut for
> >> security reasons.
> >
> >I do not follow: are you implying this won't happen to Hubble II ?!
>
> The mirror of a Hubble II *will* be tested properly and the solar cell
> panel design will not have the vibration and deployment problems the
> Hubble I did. Those are some of the lessons learned from the first
> version. Of course it's entirely possible a Hubble II will have other
> problems as it's likely to be experimental in other ways.

Of course; this WAS my point. There are 3 factors to consider:

a) lessons learned and accumulated in the published literature;
b) availability of people to chat with who learned the "previous lessons";
c) degree of "experimentality" of the platform.

So if one could launch the exact replica of Hubble I, AND one could
collect all the people on Hubble I team together, it would have been
a perfect mission.

But it is NOT POSSIBLE to collect all these people together; and, IMO,
"b" is much more important than "a"! AFAIK, the space programs are
practically dead now (except for Chinese? - do not know anything about
them). My estimates are that "b" has almost disappeared.

So even the exact replica would have a lot of possibilities to go
havoc. [And, speaking of "a", I've heard a rumor that (what was
available of) blueprints of Saturn V are lost. (AFAIK, some
late-moments additions were never reflected in blueprints, just in
people's memory.)]

Hope this helps,
Ilya
 >> Stay informed about: best of Hubble images