Hubble Space Telescope (Yes, NASA and space again)

As I understand, the majority of flat earthers say that images from Hubble are fake.  Although this may not be a universal belief.

However, cast your minds back to 1990 when the first images were released.  They were only slightly better than what the best telescopes on the ground produced and very far short of the promises of unprecedented views of the universe and all the opportunities for new discoveries and insight. 

The reason was (allegedly) that the primary mirror had been ground very slightly out of shape.  The reason given for that was someone had put a washer where it shouldn’t have been on a piece of test equipment to verify the mirror’s shape.

In short, it seemed a total bust.

That was a major embarrassment for NASA and the companies that (allegedly) built it.  As always, many people were questioning NASA’s budget and this did not help at all. Bare in mind at the time, there was no ISS, climate and earth monitoring wasn’t really on the general public’s radar, and no one was seriously talking about manned missions outside low earth orbit.

Hubble was the most expensive non military satellite ever built (allegedly), and had been presented to the public as game changing.

It took 3.5 years to (allegedly) devise and implement a fix for the optics error and for Hubble to start producing the quality of images (and other data) we were originally promised.

So if Hubble is fake and all the images are fake, why would NASA damage their reputation by inventing a fake optical problem?

PS.  This isn’t the only embarrassing mistake by NASA.  I particularly remember the Mars Climate Orbiter disintegrated in the atmosphere because a piece of software incorrectly outputted data in the wrong units screwing up the trajectory.

As I understand, the majority of flat earthers say that images from Hubble are fake.  Although this may not be a universal belief.

However, cast your minds back to 1990 when the first images were released.  They were only slightly better than what the best telescopes on the ground produced and very far short of the promises of unprecedented views of the universe and all the opportunities for new discoveries and insight. 

The reason was (allegedly) that the primary mirror had been ground very slightly out of shape.  The reason given for that was someone had put a washer where it shouldn’t have been on a piece of test equipment to verify the mirror’s shape.

In short, it seemed a total bust.

That was a major embarrassment for NASA and the companies that (allegedly) built it.  As always, many people were questioning NASA’s budget and this did not help at all. Bare in mind at the time, there was no ISS, climate and earth monitoring wasn’t really on the general public’s radar, and no one was seriously talking about manned missions outside low earth orbit.

Hubble was the most expensive non military satellite ever built (allegedly), and had been presented to the public as game changing.

It took 3.5 years to (allegedly) devise and implement a fix for the optics error and for Hubble to start producing the quality of images (and other data) we were originally promised.

So if Hubble is fake and all the images are fake, why would NASA damage their reputation by inventing a fake optical problem?

PS.  This isn’t the only embarrassing mistake by NASA.  I particularly remember the Mars Climate Orbiter disintegrated in the atmosphere because a piece of software incorrectly outputted data in the wrong units screwing up the trajectory.

Indeed, and why would they make a documentary that focused on their monumental error in grinding and polishing the main mirror to the wrong size? After all that why would they get into even more hot water with the delays and continuing problems surrounding the Webb telescope, the Hubble replacement?
For an organisation that is supposedly hoodwinking the world they appear to be at times pretty inept.

A lot of extra money "spent'' on the fix. No better way to get money than to convince people they'll lose all the original investment.  And no one now blames NASA on the error, they laud them on the repair.

A lot of extra money "spent'' on the fix. No better way to get money than to convince people they'll lose all the original investment.  And no one now blames NASA on the error, they laud them on the repair.

The repair was a pretty neat bit of problem solving that involved a very complex retrofit by the shuttle astronauts. NASA demonstrated they have the skill set to solve complex problems while at the same time haveing the capacity for monumental cock-ups!

A lot of extra money "spent'' on the fix. No better way to get money than to convince people they'll lose all the original investment.  And no one now blames NASA on the error, they laud them on the repair.

Sure, but if everything is a lie, they could invent any problem at any time they like (Say it was struck by a micro meteorite of piece of debris for example) to justify putting more money into it.  Or they could just dream up some new satellites or probe to use more money.

4 years of publishing disappointing images after it was already hugely over budget and over time (they started building it in the 70s) doesn’t seem to get them anything except the world talking about it as an enormous white elephant.

A lot of extra money "spent'' on the fix. No better way to get money than to convince people they'll lose all the original investment.  And no one now blames NASA on the error, they laud them on the repair.

It's amazing that they manage to invent so many people and industry companies to pay this money to and it all survives decades of strict government audit.

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on October 28, 2018, 06:44:11 PM

A lot of extra money "spent'' on the fix. No better way to get money than to convince people they'll lose all the original investment.  And no one now blames NASA on the error, they laud them on the repair.

The repair was a pretty neat bit of problem solving that involved a very complex retrofit by the shuttle astronauts. NASA demonstrated they have the skill set to solve complex problems while at the same time haveing the capacity for monumental cock-ups!

The installation of COSTAR was not complex, but specifically designed to make it as simple as possible for the astronauts. And all this talk of NASA's accomplishments and failures ... it was not NASA, but a contractor who failed and a different contractor who thought of, designed, and did all the work necessary to make the fix a success.

Quote from: Lonegranger on October 29, 2018, 12:48:19 AM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on October 28, 2018, 06:44:11 PM

A lot of extra money "spent'' on the fix. No better way to get money than to convince people they'll lose all the original investment.  And no one now blames NASA on the error, they laud them on the repair.

The repair was a pretty neat bit of problem solving that involved a very complex retrofit by the shuttle astronauts. NASA demonstrated they have the skill set to solve complex problems while at the same time haveing the capacity for monumental cock-ups!

The installation of COSTAR was not complex, but specifically designed to make it as simple as possible for the astronauts. And all this talk of NASA's accomplishments and failures ... it was not NASA, but a contractor who failed and a different contractor who thought of, designed, and did all the work necessary to make the fix a success.

Though the actual error in how the mirror was tested was made by Perkin-Elmer, the main contractor for the mirror, NASA, the customer, should have had procedures in place to avoid such an eventuality. The mistake was a massive embarrassment for NASA and was politically very damaging at the time. COSTAR was indeed the brain child of James Crocker an engineer who worked for Ball Aerospace, which goes to show how NASA relies on so many subcontractors for their manufacturing, which makes the idea of a conspiracy even more incredible. But at the end of the day it’s NASA and it’s management who are ultimately responsible.

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on October 29, 2018, 12:36:49 PM

Quote from: Lonegranger on October 29, 2018, 12:48:19 AM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on October 28, 2018, 06:44:11 PM

A lot of extra money "spent'' on the fix. No better way to get money than to convince people they'll lose all the original investment.  And no one now blames NASA on the error, they laud them on the repair.

The repair was a pretty neat bit of problem solving that involved a very complex retrofit by the shuttle astronauts. NASA demonstrated they have the skill set to solve complex problems while at the same time haveing the capacity for monumental cock-ups!

The installation of COSTAR was not complex, but specifically designed to make it as simple as possible for the astronauts. And all this talk of NASA's accomplishments and failures ... it was not NASA, but a contractor who failed and a different contractor who thought of, designed, and did all the work necessary to make the fix a success.

Though the actual error in how the mirror was tested was made by Perkin-Elmer, the main contractor for the mirror, NASA, the customer, should have had procedures in place to avoid such an eventuality. The mistake was a massive embarrassment for NASA and was politically very damaging at the time. COSTAR was indeed the brain child of James Crocker an engineer who worked for Ball Aerospace, which goes to show how NASA relies on so many subcontractors for their manufacturing, which makes the idea of a conspiracy even more incredible. But at the end of the day it’s NASA and it’s management who are ultimately responsible.

I would give credit for the initial idea to Murk Bottema, while Crocker deserves credit for the innovation of the implementation.

 Everybody say "NASA"!

Everybody say "NASA"!

Trying to summon dutchy?

Sure! but also it would be an easy publicity campaign on NASA's part, i suspect they know way more then they are telling us.   Mwahahaha

Sure! but also it would be an easy publicity campaign on NASA's part, i suspect they know way more then they are telling us.   Mwahahaha

1. Of course they know way more than they are telling us. That happens everywhere.
2. What they are telling us and what they are telling you are very different things.

Quote from: Lonegranger on October 29, 2018, 03:34:22 PM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on October 29, 2018, 12:36:49 PM

Quote from: Lonegranger on October 29, 2018, 12:48:19 AM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on October 28, 2018, 06:44:11 PM

A lot of extra money "spent'' on the fix. No better way to get money than to convince people they'll lose all the original investment.  And no one now blames NASA on the error, they laud them on the repair.

The repair was a pretty neat bit of problem solving that involved a very complex retrofit by the shuttle astronauts. NASA demonstrated they have the skill set to solve complex problems while at the same time haveing the capacity for monumental cock-ups!

The installation of COSTAR was not complex, but specifically designed to make it as simple as possible for the astronauts. And all this talk of NASA's accomplishments and failures ... it was not NASA, but a contractor who failed and a different contractor who thought of, designed, and did all the work necessary to make the fix a success.

Though the actual error in how the mirror was tested was made by Perkin-Elmer, the main contractor for the mirror, NASA, the customer, should have had procedures in place to avoid such an eventuality. The mistake was a massive embarrassment for NASA and was politically very damaging at the time. COSTAR was indeed the brain child of James Crocker an engineer who worked for Ball Aerospace, which goes to show how NASA relies on so many subcontractors for their manufacturing, which makes the idea of a conspiracy even more incredible. But at the end of the day it’s NASA and it’s management who are ultimately responsible.

I would give credit for the initial idea to Murk Bottema, while Crocker deserves credit for the innovation of the implementation.

The story I read had Crocker having a revaltion while in the shower.

Quote from: faded mike on October 29, 2018, 06:59:42 PM

Sure! but also it would be an easy publicity campaign on NASA's part, i suspect they know way more then they are telling us.   Mwahahaha

1. Of course they know way more than they are telling us. That happens everywhere.
2. What they are telling us and what they are telling you are very different things.

What dyou mean?

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on October 29, 2018, 04:37:20 PM

Quote from: Lonegranger on October 29, 2018, 03:34:22 PM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on October 29, 2018, 12:36:49 PM

Quote from: Lonegranger on October 29, 2018, 12:48:19 AM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on October 28, 2018, 06:44:11 PM

A lot of extra money "spent'' on the fix. No better way to get money than to convince people they'll lose all the original investment.  And no one now blames NASA on the error, they laud them on the repair.

The repair was a pretty neat bit of problem solving that involved a very complex retrofit by the shuttle astronauts. NASA demonstrated they have the skill set to solve complex problems while at the same time haveing the capacity for monumental cock-ups!

The installation of COSTAR was not complex, but specifically designed to make it as simple as possible for the astronauts. And all this talk of NASA's accomplishments and failures ... it was not NASA, but a contractor who failed and a different contractor who thought of, designed, and did all the work necessary to make the fix a success.

Though the actual error in how the mirror was tested was made by Perkin-Elmer, the main contractor for the mirror, NASA, the customer, should have had procedures in place to avoid such an eventuality. The mistake was a massive embarrassment for NASA and was politically very damaging at the time. COSTAR was indeed the brain child of James Crocker an engineer who worked for Ball Aerospace, which goes to show how NASA relies on so many subcontractors for their manufacturing, which makes the idea of a conspiracy even more incredible. But at the end of the day it’s NASA and it’s management who are ultimately responsible.

I would give credit for the initial idea to Murk Bottema, while Crocker deserves credit for the innovation of the implementation.

The story I read had Crocker having a revaltion while in the shower.

Murk conceived of the idea of using pairs of small corrector mirrors to redirect light from equivalent places in the focal space and did the initial work to show tha the idea was a viable optical solution. Crocker figured out the folding arm concept of how to get the mirrors where they needed to be.

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on October 29, 2018, 08:53:19 PM

Quote from: faded mike on October 29, 2018, 06:59:42 PM

Sure! but also it would be an easy publicity campaign on NASA's part, i suspect they know way more then they are telling us.   Mwahahaha

1. Of course they know way more than they are telling us. That happens everywhere.
2. What they are telling us and what they are telling you are very different things.

What dyou mean?

1. No organization discloses everything. All organizations know more about their topics of expertise than they disseminate.
2. To you "what they are telling us" is what gets reported in the media. People who have a slighly more nuanced understanding of the situation know where to find real information.