5 ms·

Question that pops to mind: Was the Hubble telescope ever hit by one such tiny corpuscles?

johnwalkr 4y ago
Yes! The solar panels were made by ESA and replaced twice. The old ones are hanging on a wall at ESA in the Netherlands and you can see micrometeorite damage with the naked eye!
- andyjohnson0 4y ago
  There's a picture at [1] but its hard to know what the scale is [1] https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2009/05/ESA_built-solar_cells_retrieved_from_the_Hubble_Space_Telescope_in_2002 https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2009/05/ESA_built-...
  - gtsnexp 4y ago
    That looks brutal!
    - sillysaurusx 4y ago
      Echoing this. That’s a level of damage that seems hard to prepare for. Even the smaller one towards the lower center seems like it would cause havoc for camera equipment.
  - johnwalkr 4y ago
    The long edge of one cell is probably 4-8cm long. It’s in that ballpark anyway.
  - irthomasthomas 4y ago
    Another photo says the hole is 2.5mm https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2005/03/Hubble_solar_panel_damage https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2005/03/Hubble_sol...
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    That looks like it got hit from the back.
  - paulkrush 4y ago
    Holy cow! I thought hail damage was bad!
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    That brings to mind a (very non-realistic) animation I'd seen of a meteor impact on the Moon, seen from the perspective of two astronauts there. The meteor impacts and a cloud of dust billows out. My first thought: "dust doesn't billow in space". Instead, there'd simply be ejecta, moving with a distribution of initial velocities (speed & direction), which would move in independent parabolic arcs. Billowing requires an atmosphere. The Apollo 12 mission landed about 600 feet (200m) from an earlier mission, the unmmaned Surveyor 3 probe. Ejecta from the descent was blasted out at > 2,400 m/s (5,400 mph), and the side of the Surveyor craft facing the landing site was sandblasted by the resulting particle spray. The concept of sub-grade landing pads on the Moon might actually have a great deal of validity, as otherwise the ejecta flows would tend to degrade structures and terrain for tremendous distances. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna23130776 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna23130776 https://www.space.com/4956-lunar-landers-sandblasted-moon.html https://www.space.com/4956-lunar-landers-sandblasted-moon.ht...
- eythian 4y ago
  Huh, so I could perhaps hop on a train and take a look one day. What on earth is the ESA doing in Noordwijk though.
yborg 4y ago
Hubble's optics are contained within the spacecraft structure and would only have been damaged by a likely catastrophic strike that would have disabled the entire spacecraft. Webb's mirrors are completely exposed.

Yes! The solar panels were made by ESA and replaced twice. The old ones are hanging on a wall at ESA in the Netherlands and you can see micrometeorite damage with the naked eye!

andyjohnson0 4y ago
There's a picture at [1] but its hard to know what the scale is [1] https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2009/05/ESA_built-solar_cells_retrieved_from_the_Hubble_Space_Telescope_in_2002 https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2009/05/ESA_built-...
- gtsnexp 4y ago
  That looks brutal!
  - sillysaurusx 4y ago
    Echoing this. That’s a level of damage that seems hard to prepare for. Even the smaller one towards the lower center seems like it would cause havoc for camera equipment.
- johnwalkr 4y ago
  The long edge of one cell is probably 4-8cm long. It’s in that ballpark anyway.
- irthomasthomas 4y ago
  Another photo says the hole is 2.5mm https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2005/03/Hubble_solar_panel_damage https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2005/03/Hubble_sol...
- jacquesm 4y ago
  That looks like it got hit from the back.
- paulkrush 4y ago
  Holy cow! I thought hail damage was bad!
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  That brings to mind a (very non-realistic) animation I'd seen of a meteor impact on the Moon, seen from the perspective of two astronauts there. The meteor impacts and a cloud of dust billows out. My first thought: "dust doesn't billow in space". Instead, there'd simply be ejecta, moving with a distribution of initial velocities (speed & direction), which would move in independent parabolic arcs. Billowing requires an atmosphere. The Apollo 12 mission landed about 600 feet (200m) from an earlier mission, the unmmaned Surveyor 3 probe. Ejecta from the descent was blasted out at > 2,400 m/s (5,400 mph), and the side of the Surveyor craft facing the landing site was sandblasted by the resulting particle spray. The concept of sub-grade landing pads on the Moon might actually have a great deal of validity, as otherwise the ejecta flows would tend to degrade structures and terrain for tremendous distances. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna23130776 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna23130776 https://www.space.com/4956-lunar-landers-sandblasted-moon.html https://www.space.com/4956-lunar-landers-sandblasted-moon.ht...
eythian 4y ago
Huh, so I could perhaps hop on a train and take a look one day. What on earth is the ESA doing in Noordwijk though.

yborg 4y ago

Hubble's optics are contained within the spacecraft structure and would only have been damaged by a likely catastrophic strike that would have disabled the entire spacecraft. Webb's mirrors are completely exposed.