Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Camera That Changed the Universe

Posted by samzenpus on from the all-the-better-to-see-it-with dept.

StartsWithABang writes As the Hubble Space Telescope gets set to celebrate the 25th anniversary of opening its eyes to the Universe, it's important to realize that the first four years of operations were kind of a disaster. It wasn't until they corrected the flawed primary mirror and installed an upgraded camera — the Wide Field Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2) — that the Universe truly came into focus. From 1993 to 2009, this workhorse camera literally changed our view of the Universe, and we're pushing even past those limits today.

76 comments

  1. Like Schrodinger's cat by jfdavis668 · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Universe's state was only determined when we observed it.

    1. Re:Like Schrodinger's cat by PPH · · Score: 2

      So, who do you think you are?

      I haven't looked at it yet. So the options are still open.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Like Schrodinger's cat by sabbede · · Score: 1

      Ah, if only the waveform had collapsed into the universe populated with loads of sexy, triple-breasted space babes.

    3. Re:Like Schrodinger's cat by spiritplumber · · Score: 1

      https://twitter.com/jasminetri... Since you asked... (Warning: Florida)

      --
      Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
  2. FTFY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, it should read "...until they installed additional optics to account for Hubble's flawed primary mirror..."

    1. Re:FTFY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, well do I remember all the problems they had. I had my doubts they'd ever get it fixed. I even had a name for it: the Trouble Space Telescope. I was glad that when they finally fitted it with its "glasses" it started giving useful results--and made it so the phrase "Trouble Space Telescope" would never be taken up as a common complaint.

      Then, when they installed the new camera, it turned glorious. Happy birthday, Hubble.

  3. It was the press coverage that was the disaster by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Despite the slight change in the curvature of the main mirror, Hubble's images were pretty amazing. It was the press and the politicians that called it a disaster. Fortunately, that didn't prevent NASA from sending a crew to install corrective optics and a better camera.

    --
    Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
    1. Re:It was the press coverage that was the disaster by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Informative

      I recall reading about the mirror when it was being made, the precision with which it was polished was mind bogglingly accurate, if it was the size of Australia the largest deviation from perfectly smooth would be less than a millimetre. The problem was the shape (which changes slightly when put in zero-g), an extra shim in the framework that held the glass while it was cut was found to be the cause of the problem.

      Cannot fathom why your post id marked redundant, OT maybe, but redundant?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    2. Re:It was the press coverage that was the disaster by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      A similar thing happened to another ground-based telescope, I believe it was the Discovery Channel Telescope. They grounded and polished an extremely precise reflective surface...around the wrong axis. ;-) So they just adjusted the mount.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:It was the press coverage that was the disaster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You keep using that word 'socialism'. I don't think it means what you think it means.

    4. Re:It was the press coverage that was the disaster by necro81 · · Score: 1

      Despite the slight change in the curvature of the main mirror, Hubble's images were pretty amazing

      Amazing maybe, but far below what was promised. There isn't any way to gloss over the fact that the project managed to screw up the single most important component in the telescope. The mirror ended flawed and in orbit not because it was too technically challenging, but because of arrogance, sloppiness, and poor oversight. The taxpayers have a right - even today - to be pretty steamed about it.

      Imagine if someone sold you a sportscar, promising it would handle like a dream and hit 200 mph on the straightaway. When you finally receive it and test it out, it shimmies like a banshee and can only manage 100 mph. When you call to complain about it, you find out that during construction, the technicians got drunk one night, ground the cam shaft wrong, and left out one piston. The company sold it to you anyway, not because they were trying to cover anything up, but that they simply didn't know anything was wrong, because they'd never bothered to test drive it before shipping it. Your argument is that we should still have been happy to have it because it's better than the Honda Civic we were used to driving. And, given the etymology of the word , "disaster" is a good choice.

    5. Re:It was the press coverage that was the disaster by necro81 · · Score: 1

      I recall reading about the mirror when it was being made, the precision with which it was polished was mind bogglingly accurate

      Be careful how you use the terms "precision" and "accuracy," because they have very specific meanings to engineers and metrologists. Yes, the precision was mind-boggling. The accuracy, on the other hand, well...

    6. Re:It was the press coverage that was the disaster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sad fact is that the flaw was no accident, the NSA sabotaged the mirror and then had "their man" in congress prevent NASA form running the tests that would have detected the anomaly.

    7. Re:It was the press coverage that was the disaster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for letting the world know that you haven't the slightest clue as to what socialism means.

    8. Re:It was the press coverage that was the disaster by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      Not to mention good old politics in the bid-award process. A certain other corporation based in a certain town in upstate NY had build plenty of telescopes, same size, for orbit-based use, but because Security dammit!! and some cronyism on the side Hughes Optical got the contract. And screwed it up in an attempt to save cost.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    9. Re:It was the press coverage that was the disaster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good job they don't have to do that today . Your nations no longer up to the task.

    10. Re:It was the press coverage that was the disaster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why he used the term precisely correctly.

      Be careful how *you* use the term "carefully".

      If you come across as a pedant implying someone doesn't understand what words mean, people might do the same to you.

  4. Discovery by ArcadeMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Hubble Space Telescope made us realize that space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    1. Re:Discovery by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Informative

      An attribution to Douglas Adams would be good ;)

    2. Re:Discovery by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 2

      Hubble ultra deep field
      Yeah, it's big

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    3. Re:Discovery by jfdavis668 · · Score: 2

      What is the penalty for plagiarism on /.?

    4. Re:Discovery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the penalty for plagiarism on /.?

      Getting your story posted. Much of the blurb is plagiarized from Ethan Siegel's article, but credited to StartsWithABang.

    5. Re:Discovery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some quotes really don't need attribution as it can be assumed the source is known. It's just one small logical leap for man, one giant logical leap for mankind.

    6. Re:Discovery by neoritter · · Score: 1

      StartsWithABang is writing a summary. Where then are they plagiarizing? It's assumed they're paraphrasing the article(s).

    7. Re:Discovery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This IS Slashdot. If you don't recognize that quote then you should just leave.

  5. One of many by quenda · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is a little sad that while at least seventeen of these giant telescopes have been launched by the US alone, only one has ever looked up.

    1. Re:One of many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Always wondered about that,...
      source for the number 17?

    2. Re:One of many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. The NRO gives NASA two unused Hubble Class, visual spectrum telescopes, and NASA has yet to deploy them. WTF?

    3. Re:One of many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No budget to operate them? As much as I hate to say it, better to operate 1 telescope really well than to futz around with 3 and not really get anything useful from any of them. I assume the other 2 telescopes are currently being used for an in-depth navel gazing application.

    4. Re:One of many by geniice · · Score: 1

      It turns out that in this day and age 2-3 m class telescopes aren't that expensive compared to launching and running the things. They also really really want to get the James Webb Space Telescope up there before spending money anything else.

    5. Re:One of many by mrsquid0 · · Score: 3, Informative

      NASA does not have the funds to build instruments, or to run them once they have been launched. One of the telescopes is being used for the WFIRST mission (http://wfirst.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/). The other is waiting for money.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    6. Re:One of many by sbrown7792 · · Score: 2

      But first, let me take a #selfie!

    7. Re:One of many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Hubble was just a spare KH-11 type design, that the NRO gave to NASA to repurpose.

      And there's a lot more than 17 up there!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NRO_Launches

    8. Re:One of many by jandrese · · Score: 2

      It's also possible they don't have some of the features you would need to make them any better than the Hubble. They may be set up to track things on the surface of the Earth and not have hardware necessary for long tracking shots of deep space objects. They may also be malfunctioning in some way and not useful unless they get serviced, which isn't going to happen now that the Shuttle program is over.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
  6. This is ridiculous.... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I get the quantum mechanics principle, the mere act of observing changes the observed, that you can't measure the momentum or the position without affecting the other. But, just put a telescope in the orbit and it changed the universe? ... come on guys, there should be some limits even on hyperbole.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:This is ridiculous.... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I get the quantum mechanics principle, the mere act of observing changes the observed, that you can't measure the momentum or the position without affecting the other. But, just put a telescope in the orbit and it changed the universe? ... come on guys, there should be some limits even on hyperbole.

      I change the universe all the time. Of course, most of it will never be affected by those changes, but changes they are.

    2. Re:This is ridiculous.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It changed the universe -as we know it-. As in, we didn't know nearly as much about it before, therefore from our perspective it is now different. C'mon, this isn't astrophysics.

    3. Re:This is ridiculous.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. looking through the telescope only gets you to apparent wave fuunction collapse. To "get" it you need to start using words like decoherence. Then of course you need a little faith. You can't just pick the parts of your religion you want to believe in. If you wanna do that then you should just become a US Catholic. I hear the pope is talking up global warming and Islam! So at least you'll have each other. And slashdot beta. And systemd.

    4. Re:This is ridiculous.... by BlackPignouf · · Score: 2

      Actually, everything was fine until you made an observation about the observation.
      The universe is doomed now.
      What have you done????

    5. Re:This is ridiculous.... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Your observation about my observation of the telescope's observation stopped the doomsday clock! Hallelujah!! Hope no body follows up to this comment, lest it doom the universe again.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    6. Re:This is ridiculous.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a very hyperbolic mirror.

  7. Changed the Universe? by Etherwalk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The camera only changed the universe if we are in a simulation with lazy evaluation (things are extrapolated and created to be as they should exist when we look at them) or or if something like quantum superposition applies on a macro-level (the observed matter's state is changed based on our observation of it).

    The camera didn't change the universe, it changed the *known* universe--made us a little less ignorant. For millenia mankind expanded its knowledge of places by travelling to them. That has now become prohibitive for almost every place in the known universe.

    The easiest stuff is done. We still need to explore the oceans and the solar system, where travel is quite inefficient but not utterly prohibitive.

    We also need to develop defense against world-killers. Biological, nuclear, and simple kinetic energy.

    And the big hump after that should be interstellar exploration. Multigenerational, multicentury.

    We'll need to figure out relatively stable world government and economy before that happens, so give us another four to twelve centuries, I'd say.

    1. Re:Changed the Universe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just read the article and you might feel a little less cynical for 5 minutes since it's not about what you think it's about.

    2. Re:Changed the Universe? by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      You are complaining about the headline, but didn't even read the summary?

      For fuck's sake, please just tell your ISP that you are too stupid to afford their services.

      Headlines are atrocious here, and summaries slightly less so. But the summary does not suck as much donkey cock as your reply does. I hope you are a hermaphrodite, because you really need to go fuck yourself.

    3. Re:Changed the Universe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The camera only changed the universe if we are in a simulation with lazy evaluation

      Pendantic much?

    4. Re:Changed the Universe? by Etherwalk · · Score: 2

      I read it. It's pretty, exploratory, well worth a read.

    5. Re:Changed the Universe? by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

      > The camera only changed the universe if we are in a simulation with lazy evaluation

      Pendantic much?

      News for Nerds. Nerds like editing stuff.

    6. Re:Changed the Universe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't think there's anything interesting to see under the earth's crust? I do. I think there's a possibility petroleum doesn't come from what we think it comes from.

    7. Re:Changed the Universe? by __aanbvm4272 · · Score: 1

      You mean petroleum comes from ...like methane meteors? That's what I think too.

  8. StartsWithABang by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shameful behaviour StartsWithABang:
    http://www.scilogs.com/the-dark-matter-crisis/2013/03/08/the-dark-matter-crisis-continues-on-the-difficulties-of-communicating-controversial-science/

    1. Re: StartsWithABang by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

      Thanks for the posting that.

      Sadly, Dogma is just as much present in Scientists as it is with Priests.

    2. Re: StartsWithABang by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "just as much"

      The linked article is about how an institution was presented with evidence and reversed its decision. I don't think that's "just as much".

    3. Re: StartsWithABang by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      Sadly, Dogma is just as much present in Scientists as it is with Priests.

      That's really sad. Not the implication of your statement, but that you might believe it in the slightest.
      In an attempt to head off further comments in this subthread: you might as well be Hitler.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    4. Re: StartsWithABang by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Science, at least we're not as dogmatic as religion, since 1660.

    5. Re: StartsWithABang by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Gee, why did Feynman call it "Cargo Cult Science"

      Or Max Planck say "Science advances one funeral at a time."

      I'm not delusional about:

      "You can take the People out of Politics,
      But you can't take the Politics out of People      "

      But then you if had read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" you wouldn't have this fallacy that the progress of science is linear.

    6. Re: StartsWithABang by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're being pretty darn dogmatic in your argument on how dogmatic others are.

      you wouldn't have this fallacy that the progress of science is linear.
      Nobody made that claim in this subthread, nor can it be derived from your original claim. In other words, it's a strawman.

  9. The NRO is not NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Though, they did give NASA their two 'spare' Hubble they had on the shelf.
    I guess the NRO sats are a few generations beyond that now.

    1. Re:The NRO is not NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hubble was launched 25 years ago, and construction started over 35 years ago. It should not be surprising there would be several generations newer.

      dom

    2. Re:The NRO is not NASA by neoritter · · Score: 1

      Besides, if you have one, why not just keep the other two mothballed for back up.

  10. The only thing missing by meglon · · Score: 1

    Is a good clean view and commentary on Abell 1689, the place where any comments on gravitational lenses should end up.

    http://hubblesite.org/gallery/...

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  11. Re:I thought the 'lazy evaluation' was clever by shoor · · Score: 1

    I see most replies are critical that you didn't read the original article. (Maybe they don't get the 'lazy evaluation' part if they've never dabbled in functional programming.) Maybe they don't know about the actually rather serious philosophical speculations that our universe may be a simulation. Anyway, I for one thought it was clever.

    --
    In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
  12. Great article title... by jfp51 · · Score: 0

    This article is about everything EXCEPT the camera itself. Apart from a crappy diagram in the middle, I learnt absolutely nothing about that piece of equipment.

  13. Disappointing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was hoping it would change the observer. Alas, the hatred lives on... and we won't even spend a mere penny to build a replacement, or go the moon and build a really big one. Nope. We have to spend our money on the latest poo polishing and flinging technology.

  14. Re:I thought the 'lazy evaluation' was clever by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    Maybe they don't get the 'lazy evaluation' part if they've never dabbled in functional programming

    "Lazy evaluation" is an optimization technique for evaluating Boolean expressions, I've never heard of a programming language that doesn't use it by default

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  15. Re: It was the press coverage that was the disaste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is truly scary is that you actually believe that you racist pile of dung.
    Obama isn't socialist. He is demonstratively more conservative than half of the presidents in the last 150 years!

  16. Great book of the story behind the repair mission by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Informative

    A photographer was given broad access across all of NASA years before the mission launched to fix the Hubble, and he put together an book of amazing photos and stories behind the mission:

    Infinie Worlds by Michael Soluri. They have a hardcover and a Kindle version, not sure how the pictures would come out in the Kindle version but the hardcover is pretty large and the photos look great.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  17. P.S. Do Not Buy Kindle version.. by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    After I posted, read the only negative review of the book - it was from someone who had bought the Kindle version, which apparently was horribly with many formatting errors and text being cut off/overlaid by images...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  18. God's Expressive Influence by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    My all-time favorite Hubble pic: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap03...

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  19. Eye Spy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All cameras change the universe through observation. If not for the observers everything would just be a bunch of waves instead of particles.

  20. Dear Hubble, by sabbede · · Score: 1

    Thank you for making Elite: Dangerous possible.

  21. are u sure? by sameersan · · Score: 1

    im not sure ,what about u http://allthatwebstuff.blogspo...

  22. Re: It was the press coverage that was the disaste by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

    I don't think you know what conservative means. (And yes the previous guy sounds racist; and yes there will be a black,brown,yellow, red or green presidents within the next 50 yrs - if not 20).

    Conservatives - whether you like them or not - have been opposed to increasing Federal power (as opposed to the States). This doesn't mean that people, such as myself, who are opposed to Imperial Washington are Conservative. But to say that Obama is Conservative is ridiculous.

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  23. Re:One of many service vehicles by __aanbvm4272 · · Score: 1

    Surely you read about the army's mini shuttle that has been in space, orbiting for almost 2 years? "After twenty-two months in orbit, on its second space mission, the Air Force plans to bring the X-37B back to Earth" Now you know what is servicing the spy scopes since the shuttle has been grounded AND they are getting serviced by robotics. We won't hear how great it is on the paid-for newscasts, only here. 17 Hubble sized spy telescopes sounds about right, to cover enough of the Earth we fear most. Who knows what other great things we'll come up with because of our fear of the unknown. Way to go Hubble I'm humbled by your wonderment you brought us. Without scaring us into submission. Also a big thanks to the astronauts that saved it from being a fiasco. That new camera the article spoke of was the ticket 10,000 galaxies looking through an orifice the size of a straw! Now multiply that across the skies.