Talk:Hubble Space Telescope/Archive 1

message: If somebody knows, could they add information about how scientists apply for a Hubble observation? Do they have to pay? Is it open to all nations? What do they have to submit and where, how long does the application process last, what are the criteria to decide who gets Hubble time? Thanks, AxelBoldt 11:00, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I found it. AxelBoldt 12:54, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to schedule an observation? 

message: Hello, I propose to include this link in Hubble Space Telescope. It's my article from my site, which was republished on two other sites (Kuro5hin, code0range). My article is about the lack of budget for the fourth servicing mission and it includes an overview of the three past servicing missions, as well as an introduction to the telescope.
If you believe my article is informational, please feel free to use this link or change it as you like:
*The end of Hubble Space Telescope? - article by Wikinerds Portal on the lack of budget for the fourth servicing mission
Thanks, NSK 00:02, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An external link 

message: The article currently states:
:Servicing Mission 4, planned for February 2005, was due to be the last servicing mission...
Unfortunately this doesn't make it clear wheather or not the servicing mission actually went ahead (or has been delayed, or cancelled).  I feel that clarification on this matter (now dated in the past) would benefit the article.
--PJF (talk) 14:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Servicing mission 4. 

message: With apologies to those who have worked on this article, I recently nominated it on WP:FARC and it is now no longer a featured article.  I think there's a lot of excellent content here, but my main worry was comprehensiveness.  I'd love to see this back up to featured status, and I'm thinking about starting to re-write a lot of the article.  I think we would need the following sections:
# Conception, design and aims
#: A huge amount could be said about the lengthy planning stages, which lasted almost two decades, and the development of the specifications to which the telescope was built
# Construction and engineering
#: How the telescope was built to withstand the rigours of the space environent
# Original instrumentation
#: About the original instruments on the telescope when it was launched - probably summaries of relevant main articles
# Flawed mirror
#: This could probably be an article in itself!  How the fault arose, how it was identified and how it was resolved
# Servicing missions and new instruments
#: In particular, the COSTAR optics to correct the mirror defect, and the replacement of old instruments for new at subsequent servicing missions.
::NB COSTAR was just an upgrade for the FOC and spectrographs -- the other instruments do not use COSTAR -- see e.g. http://www.spacetelescope.org/about/general/instruments/costar.html
# Scientific results
#: Summary of some of the most significant discoveries: refining the Hubble constant, Hubble Deep Field, etc; overall impact of the telescope on research.
# Using the telescope
#: Application process for telescope time, oversubscription ratio, director's discretionary time, early dedication of small amount of time to amateur observations
# Archival data
#: Data is propreitory for one year and is then released publicly.
# Outreach activities
#: Hubble Heritage Project, huge amount of publicity each time spectacular image produced, great boon for astronomy.
# The future
#: Debate over whether to run one final servicing mission, proposals to retrieve the telescope for display in a museum, plans for the next generation space telescope.
What does anyone think about this?  Many sections would be adequately filled by current content, but others would need some work.  Would an article along these lines be comprehensive? Worldtraveller 14:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a good idea. Looking at recent Featured Articles shows how this one is not up to that standard. I'd like to help get it back to FA status. (P.S. Newbie here, so be nice. ;-)) Longshot 05:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you should include something about how the priorities of astronomers have changed. When Hubble was proposed in the 1950s and 60s it was assumed that what astronomers would want was an ultra-sensitive visible light telescope. Since the mid 1980s astronomers have been switching from visible light to the infrared (and sub-mm) in increasing numbers, as much more distant (and generally more interesting) sources can be observed in the infra-red, and these are generally not detectable in the visible. This is shown by the biggest current telescope developments -- JWST, Spitzer and ALMA (which cover infrared - submm, and all of which dwarf Hubble in capabilities and scope!). Rnt20 14:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely good thing to include - possibly could fit into section on the future (which would need to mention the NGST of course)? Worldtraveller 00:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed re-write

message: * Looks great -- very impressed Rnt20 15:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on ''"new look"'' article 

message: I checked the article--maybe I just didn't see it--but what's the deal with the Hubble's low earth oribt? It seems so dumb to keep it so low (orbit decay, occult). I'd like to see a clear explanation set aside as to why it's kept there. Keep on wikin'. --Atlastawake 18:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question - I've added a brief answer under 'scheduling observations' - basically it's in that orbit so the Space Shuttle can reach it for servicing missions.  The advantages of being able to repair it outweigh the disadvantages of decay (can boost its orbit at each servicing mission) and occultation (makes scheduling a bit awkward but in the end doesn't reduce the actual efficiency of the telescope at all). Worldtraveller 19:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: NB I think occultation does decrease Hubble's efficiency quite a bit, as Hubble cannot rotate quickly enough to make use of the time when Earth is occulting its primary targets. I understand that this was a driving force for avoiding occultation with later orbiting observatories. Rnt20 08:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low Earth Orbit 

message: I know the Hubble's length is 13,2 metres long and it's said its focal length is nearly 58 metres.
How can this be if the focal length is nearly two times the distance between primary mirror and secondary mirror? Doesn't that give the maximum focal length of 26 metres (ignoring that the secondary mirror isn't at the very front of the telescope)? --83.171.160.254 23:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Cassegrain Reflector layout of its optical system gives it a long effective focal length. The secondary mirror defocuses the light from the primary, which probably has a focal length of around 5 metres. -- JamesHoadley 00:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focal length? 

message: I wonder if the focal length of the mirror was made to be optically suitable for observing earth?  If PE was also making mirrors for spy satellites, that could explain why they had optical devices that were wrong for the Hubble and why no one caught the error--they were used to expecting mirrors to be like that.
I realize that an investigation found that a particular mechanical problem with a particular optical instrument, combined with management malfeasance caused the flaw.  However, suppose you imagine that the mirror was correctly made for observing the earth, perhaps at a single wavelength.  Would that make sense?  
(Optics is not my field, so this is a naieve question.)
:This is an old conspiracy theory, and not really plausible.  The mirror was incorrectly ground because of a mechanical fault in the machinery used.  It would have been no better for observing the earth than it was for observing the sky.  In any case, optically speaking a few hundred miles is more or less infinity anyway, so in any case I don't think you'd need a differently figured mirror to observe the earth as opposed to the stars.  Worldtraveller 18:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, for a 2.4m telescope a few hundred miles would be just about in the far field, with only a tiny change in the mirror shape for optimum focussing, much less than the big aberration that Hubble had. Rnt20 14:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was the flawed mirror good for observing earth? 

message: Apparently, since no one is talking about doing so, bringing the HST back to earth to be refurbished or to salvage the mirror is not the right thing to do.  It seems like this would be a relatively simple robotic mission.
Could someone with knowledge of why this is not an option add that information to the article?
Thanks.  I'll be watching for the answer. (apparently Jan 14 07:05 User:Rocky143)
: Dude, first you've got to sign you comments with ~~~~!
: I think the HST only has historical importance now. The mirror is precise, and probably still the most precise optical mirror in existence, but it doesn't have any particular use on Earth because it would sag under gravity. And to bring it back to earth would not be that simple, because it would have to survive reentry, so it would have to go inside a big reentry vehicle. In fact there was a plan IIRC to bring it back with the Space Shuttle, to be put in a museum, but there are any number of reasons why this won't happen now (it's basically a waste of money, and for shuttle safety reasons). So there are no real reasons to bring it back, except for sentimental ones. Personally I think it should be put into a ~5000km parking orbit, for future retrieval, rather than just trashing it. It would be more expensive and dangerous than de-orbit, but only slightly more so on both accounts. --JamesHoadley 05:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed -- there is nothing of value on Hubble except as museum pieces (actually there are plenty of mirrors which are more accuarate than Hubble's mirror). Rnt20 07:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not bring the HST back to earth? 

message: When it was conceived, the unique feature of Hubble was expected to be its resolution. With the development of new detector technologies and new imaging techniques, certain types of ground-based imaging already had higher resolution than Hubble before it was launched, and the sensitivity of conventional ground-based had reached the limits of atmospheric airglow, so the really unique feature of Hubble ended up being its visible-light sensitivity and not its resolution. Rnt20 08:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irony 

message: It seems that NASA under Michael Griffen are planning a Hubble servicing mission with one of the few flights left pre retirement in 2010. Info about the rest of the 2006 FY budget here: http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/NASA_Postpones_Or_Kills_Several_Major_Projects.html
The relevant paragraph being:
"NASA affirmed its budget includes full funding for a space shuttle servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope, probably in late 2008 or early 2009 - although that still depends on whether the agency can solve the existing problems with the orbiter and certify it ready for safe return to flight. I suspect that the main article should be modified to acknowedge this"
:I've updated the article. JamesHoadley 14:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  servicing mission 

message: The text:
Hubble's spacecraft overall size, shape and design is believed to be very similar to (if not directly borrowed from) the large American spy satellites, specifically the KH-11 Kennan or KH-12 Crystal series   . was removed by Worldtraveller at 23:59, 15 February 2006. Now I don't know any relevant written sources offhand, but this is a very commonly discussed point in the astronomy and aerospace communities. The non-conspiracy theory explanation for this is that when the Hubble team put out bids for all the components (mirrors, spacecraft bus etc) the cheapest options were always those which were already being mass-produced for the KeyHole (KH) satellites, so that Hubble ended up being almost identical to a KeyHole satellite, but not by design. Rnt20 07:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the text because the links really didn't support the claim.  They just pointed out that the two satellites look similar, and you'd have to say there are loads of satellites that look similar without being built by the same people or based on each other.  If there is a reputable source that suggests this, that would be great, but I don't think it's very good to just repeat speculation. Worldtraveller 09:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it not be worth adding a comment that they all have (or are thought to have) a primary mirror of a similar size, and it is rumoured that their overall size, shape and design is believed to be quite similar (they are, after all, all 2.3/2.4 metre space telescopes, so they all ought to be pretty similar). KH-11 currently says "NASA's Hubble Space Telescope is rumored to be a derivative of the KH-11, though with different instrumentation, sensitivity levels, and a vastly different focal range. The two were supposedly transported in the same shipping container, lending credence to the speculation."  and KH-12 says "Like the KH-11 (Crystal), the KH-12 is believed to use a large mirror to capture light, and probably resembles the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) in size and shape."  (although it also says that the primary could be up to 4m, which seems rather unlikely to me). At the very least, we ought to mention rumours that they are all similar. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: So the question is, is this because of convergent evolution, or was there some kind of technological hand-off, possibly with the caveat that "serial numbers be filed off"? Urhixidur 03:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The Hubble Wars destroys this spy satellite comparison.  It was written by a scientist on the team who writes all about the conflicts between the science and engineering groups.  He specifically bemoans the CIA/NSA not sharing their knowledge with the engineers, one of the worst flaws being Hubble's thick solar wing structures, which expand a lot more when moving into daylight than the spy satellites' solar wings, which are much thinner.  The thicker wings cause a lot of vibration which destroys Hubble's ability to take photos for a while each time it passes into light.  Tempshill 06:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison with [[KH-11|KH-11 ''Kennan'']] or [[KH-12|KH-12 ''Crystal'']] satellites

message: Someone is Vanilizing alot and I suspect the IP adress is chaning becose 
Edits on one IP start where other stops
     
 
 
 
E-Bod 01:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandal 

message: Why do Hubble's gyros suck so much? This seems to be the major reason for the constant repair missions. Other spacecraft built during the same time have had thier gyros working for decades. If Hubble's are so crappy why don't they just replace them with something like the ring laser gyros on Cassini that don't have any moving parts?--Deglr6328 19:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's simple. Hubble's are more actively used than any other mission in existance. Gyros are used to re-position, to which Hubble does constantly. Other missions simple point themselves at earth, and only move a very little bit to keep pointing that way. Tuvas 22:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure? I believe you are referring to the reaction wheels while I am talking merely about the attitude rate change sensors (gyros). All the gyros have to do is sit and spin at a constant rate and use thier internal sensors to "feel" a squish in a particular direction as a result of gyroscopic forces when hubble turns. My question is why do the keep replacing them with the same crap mechanical gyros when others like Cassini use extremely robust hemispherical resonator laser-gyros ?--Deglr6328 23:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I always mix up reaction wheels and gyros... Grrr. Anyways, the enviroment of Hubble is really alot harsher than Cassini, there's the rotational factor arount the Earth, as well as the night/day factors, which dramatically change the heat of the spacecraft. LEO is a scary place really. I'm sure they have the best gyros that they can have, but for Hubble, they have to be extremely precise. Do you think NASA would spend billions on such a mission, and become a cheap skate at some small factor as the gyros? Also, it's remotely possible that Hubble pre-dates laser gyros, it was build in the late 80's and early 90's. Whatever the reason, it just doesn't. If you really want to know, you might study about the lifetime of these laser gyros, and wha their affects are. Tuvas 16:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why so sucky?

message: I removed the :Template:Current spaceflight as there is nothing particularly unusual happening with Hubble at the moment, according to news searches. Rnt20 08:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Spaceflight 

message: how do you work out the closest the telescope can 'see' on the moon?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ge0rg10 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: help

message: The article says: Launch date April 24, 1990. However, Nasa says: April 25, 1990, at 12:33:51 UTC . The article should specify timezone, and UTC is the best one in this case, is it not? - Kricke 13:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just realised that they say April 24 for STS-31  which carried Hubble into space... Hm... anyway, it should specify timezone. - Kricke 13:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Launch date 

message: Link --Jack Zhang 02:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hooray!  This is excellent news for the astronomical and scientific communities! -- DiegoTehMexican 16:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Hubble servicing mission to be decided 

message: The sidebar says that the "angular momentum" of the HST is 5.28×10^10 m²/s.  Those aren't even units of angular momentum, which would have SI units of kg * m^2/s.  I've removed this obviously incorrect value from the main article.  Maybe someone could clarify what they really meant.  --Eliasen 22:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angular Momentum? 

message: I added a "citation needed" tag to the following claim:
 While Kodak had ground a back-up mirror for Hubble,
 it would have been impossible to ... bring the telescope
 temporarily back to Earth for a refit.
This tag was removed by 128.40.1.175 whose log read:
 vast expense of two shuttle missions, technical difficulty
 of replacing mirror, all covered in existing refs so no
 need for a cite tag
I put the tag back, but I hit "enter" by accident and my log message was truncated.  What I meant to say was that "difficult" and "expensive" do not equal "impossible."  The HST was designed to be returned to earth by shuttle; see STS-144.  I would agree that it is now impossible to return HST to earth by shuttle, because only Columbia was able to do so.  But someone should either explain why it was impossible back then, or re-word the sentence to say "too expensive" or whatever.  -- Coneslayer 18:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impossible to return HST for mirror replacement 

message: We seem to have a problem with the <ref> tags starting on , 11 January 2007, with the middle of GMHenninger's three changes. He started to use the cite_web template, (maybe the first for this article?) and not all of the referenes list anymore. I am still investigating. -- 199.33.32.40 00:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, he used >> rather than two close-curly-brackets. The "cite" template does not get closed properly but the <ref> tag somehow preserves the text, but the refs do not list in the  section. Fixed, but we should all learn to recognize that symptom. -- 199.33.32.40 01:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical formatting problem 

message: I'm not much more than a layperson on science stuff so I'm just reading the article as the intended audience would.  The 'Future' section of the article states that the power system of the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS) failed, rendering the instrument inoperable. The electronics had originally been fully redundant, but the first set of electronics failed in May 2001. It seems unlikely that any science functionality can be salvaged without a servicing mission. and then it never says if it was fixed or not.  Certainly Hubble isn't up there with no juice, so could someone who knows a WHOLE lot more than me put something in there that doesn't imply that it's dead? JohnCub 00:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I don't have a source, what I've heard is that the Spectrograph is still down. Each instrument (again, as far as I've heard) has it's own power system, so one instrument can fail, without taking out the whole telescope. --Falcorian (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From the article Future section 

message: Someone has written a chapter on the Swedish Wikipedia article about Hubble that the telescope has not been worth the costs compared to other methods of observation. Even if a lot of important scientific discoveries has been made with Hubble, so much costs has been associated with it, that the same money used on ground based telescopes would have given more results. Today is possible to create many of the images made by Hubble using ground based telescopes with techniques like adaptive optics and "speckle" techniques. Would you agree with these statements  ? -- 217.208.215.203 18:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you notice that the cost-effectiveness is discussed in the article?  Hubble_Space_Telescope#Impact_on_astronomy.  Worldtraveller 18:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Although I am not prepared to do a full cost-benefit analysis of HST, especially when the benefits (and possibly the cost, too) are such a subjective matter.  However, I will say that I disagree with those statements.  Even if ground-based telescopes using adaptive optics can now "re-create" the images taken from Hubble, which is arguable, it isn't fair to compare the telescopes of today with a telescope that has been in service for nearly 20 years.  Furthermore, no amount of money put into ground-based telescopes would have been able to produce the ultraviolet astronomy results that HST has achieved.  Much of the "bread and butter" work of large ground-based telescopes, i.e. the high-redshift universe, needs to have accompanying rest-frame ultraviolet studies of the local universe in order to be placed in the proper context. AmberRobot 15:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The trouble with scientific research is that one cannot describe the benefit in financial terms. The HST has done more to increase our understanding of the universe than any other single scientific instrument in history. Being in space will always give you access to fainter objects (viewed in visible or IR) than anything ground-based due to atmospheric absorption. HST can obsereve in the UV, which cannot be done on the ground (one of my pet annoyances about the James Webb Telescope is that it own't observe in the UV, so that capacility will be lost to science). Finally, the HST produces more good PR for NASA than anything else - the public love the pictures showing the wonders of the universe. Tompw (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worth the costs ? 

message: The Hubble has become such a significant feature of the social landscape that it has been referenced in various works of fiction (books and movies). I think that we should consider listing these references in a "media references" section. I can think of at least three off the top of my head. Dfmclean 15:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media References? 

message: The lead section is getting a bit hefty. I will give it a few days to see if somebody else would like first crack at reducing its size, maybe in half?--SallyForth123 00:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hefty lead section 

message: Parts of the main mirror and its support structure would probably survive, leaving the potential for damage or even human fatalities (estimated at up to a 1 in 700 chance of human fatality for a completely uncontrolled re-entry).
Anyone have another source for the "1 in 700" figure? That just seems improbably high. 217.155.20.163 21:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orbital decay 

message: Under "Outreach Activities", the first sentence reads: "It has always been important for the Space Telescope to capture the public's imagination, given the considerable contribution of taxpayers to its construction and operational costs, although this view seems circular; the telescope exists to justify its existence." Maybe it's just me, but it sounds a bit editorializing/philosophizing/going off on tangent (all of which are not appropriate for an encyclopedia). I think it might be better if the sentence is just cut down to "It has always been important for the Space Telescope to capture the public's imagination, given the considerable contribution of taxpayers to its construction and operational costs." My reasons for the change is: 
# I suppose one might see a hint of circularity in formulating the sentence as "HST receives considerable public funding <=> public interest in HST is great". But what the sentence is actually saying is "HST receives considerable public finding => it is important that public interest in HST is great". It's no more circular than an elected official trying to do a good job so that he'll be re-elected.
# This is nothing particular to Hubble---any public-funded research/project has to prove its worth, either by providing practical benefits, or in case of basic science (like Hubble), at least providing stuffs that are worth talking about.
# The philosophic tone doesn't really belong on an encyclopedia about a scientific instrument.
Given the attention (I assume) this page receives, I'll wait a while before going ahead and making the change. novakyu 04:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorial tone in "Outreach Activities"? 

message: 'Data are' is technically correct, since data is the plural of datum.  But in common usage, 'data are' sounds very pedantic.  I reverted this to the grammatically correct 'data are', but this sounds stilted to me.  What do others think??  Is there a standard policy for this?  LouScheffer 05:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Data are' versus 'Data is' 

message: I was looking through the edit history and noticed that 10k of the article was lost to vandalism from a school ip during the last week. (diff here). I restored the lost content by pasting it back in (to keep the good edits made since), but if anyone out there could do a check, to make sure I got it all - to be sure to be sure? :O). FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism revert: double check? 

message: The top of the page, the first couple paragraphs, are v. difficult to read. I'm going to indent them and see if that helps. Any reason for me not to? The rest of the article appears to have indents. ---edit- okay, it's not all indented. alright, i'm going to leave as is, then , if only for uniformity. 24.74.141.22 (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Indentation?

message: In the archived discussion, there is a link to an older (no longer operational) version of the exposure time calculator for ACS. The newest version of the HST ETCs can be found at:
http://etc.stsci.edu/webetc/index.jsp
Dfmclean (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exposure Time Calculator Update 

message: breakthrough and mike griffin need disambig Randomblue (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  disambig 

message: If possible, add that they are used to point the telescope  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.205.229.220 (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Momentum Wheels

message: Much of the article is written in past tense ("Anyone could have applied for time", "Calls for proposals were issued roughly annually"...), but surely the telescope is still operational? Jpatokal (talk) 06:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The change of tense was just stupid vandalism that no-one picked up on .  This is a chronic failing of Wikipedia.  It just needs on act of vandalism to go unnoticed and the article is seriously undermined.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.117.167.25 (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tense? 

message: Just so nobody misses it, please see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hubble Space Telescope. Currently expressed concerns are the length of the lead, referencing (format?), and "a few short paragraphs".  -- Rick Block (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the lead is too long, and has too much detailed info (and the info is repeated later).  I will try a re-write of this section. LouScheffer (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article review 

message: There were 5 references that are referred to multiple times, are available on-line, and form the basis for most of the information in the article.  Also, there is so much on the web about the Hubble that it's fairly hard to figure out where to start if you are looking for information.  So I took these 5 references (Spitzer's article, the Marshall history, the Allen failure report, the detailed repair document, and the Operations Primer) and moved them explicitly to the top of the references, with a short description of each.   Then the references to these documents are of the form Dunar, p. 508 which makes editing much easier.
I think this is more helpful, but if your opinion differs please let me know, LouScheffer (talk) 06:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consolidated references 

message: Quote: "However, following the 2003 Columbia Space Shuttle disaster, the fifth servicing mission, initially planned for 2004, was canceled on safety grounds. After spirited public discussion, NASA reconsidered this position."  My question is, what position?  I think there was something in there before the "discussion" bit, but got deleted.  So, just revisit this and flesh it out.  I would, but I have no idea what used to be here, or what it should say.  ;)  Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 16:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I tried to make this more clear - that the position was that a Hubble service flight was too dangerous. Is this what you meant, or did you want more detail?  (If so, another problem was that the lead paragraphs were too long, so that's why 'spirited public discussion' points to longer discussion of the issues). LouScheffer (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well see, its my understanding that NASA was interested in cancelling the service missions altogether.  If so, this "position" that is mentioned it not mentioned previously... so therefore its just an awkward sentence.  So that was my issue, but then again, I could be entirely wrong.  Now see, if that was the case, then that missing bit would describe that position NASA was reconsidering... especially if there was public discussion.  The way it reads now is that they cancelled the 5th mission because of safety, still leaving open the option for others in the future.  Anywhoo... I hope this is understood.  If not, perhaps I can reword it.  Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 22:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was only one more mission, anyway.   They are several years apart, and the Shuttle is to be retired in 2010.  So there is no difference in practice between approving one more, and approving them in general, or cancelling them all, or just cancelling the last one.   There is only time for one more servicing mission anyway. LouScheffer (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is only one more PLANNED, but one of the pieces being installed will make docking/capture by non-shuttle vehicles easier and there is some discussion of yet another servicing mission. There's no way of knowing what will actually happen. Dfmclean (talk) 11:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Regardless of the intricacies (thanks for teaching me, though), my issue was of the awknardness of the sentence, which is now very well written and explained!  Yay!  Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 12:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awkward Intro Bits... 

message: On both Firefox and IE, the lead section had a large blank space at the bottom right, below the infobox and next to the table of contents.  This looked like a great place to put the exploded view of the Hubble, where you could make it big enough to read the labels without taking any more room.  So I moved the diagram here.  It works well on Firefox, but IE now moves the table of contents down to match the image, negating most of the space savings.  Any suggestions for how to add the image so that this does not happen are appreciated.  Thanks, LouScheffer (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, a different image placement seems to work OK on both IE and Firefox.  If there are problems with other browsers, please let me know.  Thanks, LouScheffer (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is a problem if one clicks the Hide on the Table of Contents. Then the exploded diagram intrudes into "Proposals and precursors", infact it sandwiches the text between itself and the Lyman Spitzer photo on displays of 1200 pixels wide. With 1000 pixel wide displays it almost cuts the text above the photo off. This happens on both Firefox and Opera. With 1300 pixel wide displays on Firefox odd things happen such as "Spitzer devoted much of his " being completely covered by his own picture. But Opera shows Ok. Maybe this is a known mediawiki bug ? I'm on Vista with latest Firefox and Opera browsers. -84.223.115.201 (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout of lead section 

message: Does the HST sometimes use Gravitational lensing? --CyclePat (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Gravitational lensing]]?  

message: I was going to add angular_resolution to the infobox, but it's unclear from the article what that is, or if it's different for different experiments. -- Beland (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By the standard measures ("Dawes limit") of optical astronomy, the "diffraction limit" for telescopes (radio, optical, or whatever) is around (5000 angstroms/wavelength)*(12.5 cm/diameter)*(1 arcsec), which comes to around 0.04-0.05 arcsec for Hubble in the visual band. Wwheaton (talk) 07:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angular resolution 

message: From: http://www.ghostnasa.com/
STOP the Hubble Servicing Mission 4 now!!! It's TOO dangerous!!! There's NO "ISS safe haven" near the Hubble!!! Do you want TWO Shuttles and 11 astronauts LOST in space???
It could be THE END of the Shuttle program and (perhaps) THE END of ALL manned Space programs for a LONG LONG time!!!
There are SEVERAL (much safer!!!) ways to upgrade the Hubble, WITHOUT risk to lose 11 astronauts lives and make 11 widow(er)s and 20+ orphans!!!
Please consider, that, MANY (new and upgraded) Earth-based Telescopes will give us soon the SAME or better scientific results than an upgraded Hubble!!!
So, the "advantages" of the SM4 are nearly ZERO!!! In other words, they'll risk their lives for NOTHING!!!
http://www.ghostnasa.com/hubbledeathtrap.jpg
posted by gaetano marano  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.104.171 (talk) 12:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are going to discuss the risk/benefit of a rescue or upgrade mission, I would hope you'd use as a reference something more credible than the silly JPEG to which you hyperlinked. Raryel (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  STOP the Hubble Servicing Mission 4 now!!! It's TOO dangerous!!! 

message: * http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/sep/HQ_M08-187_HST_Telecon.html
* http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/science/AP-Shuttle-Hubble.html
* http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/science/space/W30hubb.html
* http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jICfbuGENr5-2mQGNAnAEVCla8yQD93GINPO0
Sorry don't have time to edit myself. Conrad T. Pino (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Control Unit/Science Data Formatter Side A Fails 29-Sep-2008 

message: Last sentence of second paragraph of "Equipment failure" section: "Estimates of the failure rate of the gyros indicate that Hubble may be down to one gyro by 2008, in which event continued science observations would not be possible." It is now 2009, so perhaps someone in the know could update this sentence? Have any more gyros failed?Captain Chaos (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated.   LouScheffer (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many gyros? 

message: Many of the other space telescopes have a mention of size... Cant find any dimensions in this. Do you think there should be a mention of them ? Especially as it is one of the largest telescopes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kernel geek (talk • contribs) 18:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dimensions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  why ESA logo??? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Suggested inclusion of data 

message: Currently the article includes the following statement:
: While it had been hypothesized in the early 1960s that black holes would be found at the centers of some galaxies, and work in the 1980s identified a number of good black hole candidates, it fell to work conducted with the Hubble to show that black holes are probably common to the centers of all galaxies.
I'm not sure this goes quite far enough. Didn't the HST provide the evidence needed to conclusively confirm that supermassive black holes exist?—RJH (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Existence of supermassive black holes 

message: I recall hearing (somewhere...) HST "discovered" 2 new galaxies. True? If so, which 2?  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  04:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Where's J-L Picard when you really need him?

message: I failed to find some information in the given sources.
*Section Proposals and precursors: "In 1962 a report by the United States National Academy of Sciences recommended the development of a space telescope as part of the space program". The source should be the web page Lyman Spitzer, Jr.", but it is not there.
*Section Quest for funding: "In 1970 NASA established two committees, one to plan the engineering side of the space telescope project, and the other to determine the scientific goals of the mission". Given source: ^ Spitzer, History of the Space Telescope, pp. 33–34. There is nothing about two committees founded in 1970, there is just a paragraph, saying "The end of this decade saw increasing support for the LST scientists in general and from the astronomical community in particular, with strong endorsement by a variety of committees, including: the NASA Astronomy Mission Board in 1969, the Woods Hole Study on Priorities in Space Scince and Earth Observations, organized in 1970 by the Space Science Board, NAS; and the NAS Astronomy Survey Committee, chaired by J. L. Greenstein, in 1972."
Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I recall hearing (somewhere...) gravity at interstellar/intergalactic distances might differ from that at local (measured) distances, which might also explain the change. Can anybody confirm? (Or is that Uneven Expansion of Space?)  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  02:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Prisoner of gravity

message: The statement that the accelerated expansion of the universe is commonly attributed to "dark energy" is well supported.  From Science,  
Discovered less than a decade ago, a mysterious antigravity force suffuses the universe. Physicists are now trying to figure out the properties of this "dark energy"--the blackest mystery in the shadiest realms of cosmology."
  Dark Energy Tiptoes Toward the Spotlight, 20 June 2003: Vol. 300. no. 5627, pp. 1896 - 1897 DOI: 10.1126/science.300.5627.1896 by Charles Seife.
Also note that google scholar shows 22K+ hits for "dark energy", three times more than "accelerated expansion" and hundreds of times more than any other explanation I could think of.  (Though if you have more references for alternatives, it would be good to see them.)
Since this is a HST page, not a dark energy page, the "commonly attributed" seems right - it allows that it is not a done deal, but surely it is the common name. LouScheffer (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't question dark energy is the leading candidate; my problem is, it's being treated as if it's the only one.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  04:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dark Energy

message: NASA-Audio (Wednesday, June 3, 2015@1pm/edt/usa) - Panel of experts to discuss latest "surprising" findings by the Hubble Space Telescope of the Moons of Pluto. - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://www.nasa.gov/newsaudio NASA-Audio] (06/03/2015@1pm/edt/usa) - [[Moons of Pluto]] - "Surprising" Finds 

message: The article has a slight pro-astronomy bias and very little mention of the extensive criticism this program has received.  For example, the "Servicing Mission 4" section reads like an "us vs. them" piece with much coverage of astronomer's POV and none for those trying to end the program. It's not clear if the bias in this article was an accident or by design.
The talk archives includes Talk:Hubble_Space_Telescope/Archive_2#The_Hubble_Wars. The Hubble Wars by Eric Chaisson looks like a decent source for criticism.
I looked through the talk archives to see if the subject of criticism had been brought up and found this talk thread which mentions the lack of criticism and also reminded me of some of the controversy surrounding SM4. The image posted with that talk comment also reminded me of the proposal to send two shuttles at the same time to the HST with the plan being that if one of the shuttles was heavily damaged during ascent it would be abandoned and everyone would return to Earth in the remaining shuttle. That plan does not get mentioned in the SM4 section. A similar plan had the second shuttle on the ground, ready to launch, as a rescue mission. That does not get mention either. Unfortunately,it seems that digging up and WP:RS the SM4 controversy will be a bit of a pain. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article seems biased and needs more criticism 

message: I remember back in the day the news media reported that the problem with the fuzzy mirror was that the specification did not correctly anticipate the change in the mirror shape due to the difference between Earth's gravity and the lack of same in orbit. Is that not the case? 
:No, that part of the manufacturing worked fine.   There was a special support for the mirror that simulated zero g.  LouScheffer (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The article mostly summarizes the independent investigator's report on the error.  LouScheffer (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: But in the interest of WP:NPOV shouldn't Perkin-Elmer's side also be presented? __209.179.0.121 (talk) 03:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple of points on the bad mirror 

message: Not sure if this was ever posted on the Hubble telescope wiki, but before NASA could send up a replacement they still wanted to make the best use of Hubble.
So they developed image processing software to remove blur and declutter images of stars.
When looking at the initial images and the processed images, there was a similarity of the initial image to microcalcification in mammogram images. Microcalcification is a very good predictor for breast cancer.
Eventually the researchers enthusiastically teamed up and a grant was obtained to investigate if there was any potential use of NASA's image processing technique. This led to the technique being used in helping identify early stages of breast cancer.
If you guys think this is noteworthy enough to add to the Hubble wiki page, I'll compose a serious entry rather than a talk entry.
Old Source: http://ipp.nasa.gov/innovation/Innovation41/HubbleFights.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interkin (talk • contribs) 13:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hubble's cancer contribution 

message: 43.5 feet (13.2 meters) long, weighs 24,500 pounds (11,110 kilograms).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.166.224.2 (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  size of the voyager 

message: SM4 tested the Relative Navigation Sensor System FLIGHT RESULTS FROM THE HST SM4 RELATIVE NAVIGATION SENSOR SYSTEM for the cancelled HRSDM - HRSDM ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could mention the cancelled Hubble Space Telescope Robotic Servicing and De-orbit Mission (HRSDM)