3 ms·
> Pointing a telescope at something bright and nearby is easier than something very distant and dim, so the precision requirements are obviously in the opposite
by MichaelCollins 4y ago
> Pointing a telescope at something bright and nearby is easier than something very distant and dim, so the precision requirements are obviously in the opposite direction.
You're wrong. Between 1979 and 1998 the MMT Observatory used six repurposed spy satellite mirrors that had been donated by the NRO, manufactured for the cancelled KH-10. Furthermore in 2012 the NRO donated two unflown spy satellites to NASA, the mirrors from which may be used for the upcoming Roman Space Telescope. Spy satellite mirrors make great telescope mirrors.
> "manufactured parts from intelligence programs [...]"
As I point out above, the NRO has donated at least eight primary mirrors that were specifically manufactured for cancelled or unused spy satellites. The Hubble mirror may be another example of such, or it may have merely been fabricated by the same people.
> that were the rejects from those production lines".
That's the only dodgy part of his claim, but it's not that strange of a claim when you recall that Hubble's primary mirror infamously had a spherical aberration. I presume NASA didn't know about the aberration before they launched HST, otherwise they should have corrected for it on the ground instead of having astronauts correct it in space. But it doesn't seem completely outlandish that the NRO gave NASA mirrors they had previously deemed unsuitable for their own use.
- SiempreViernes 4y agoThat people accept mirrors gifted for free is not strong evidence of their superior quality, when you get something for free you can make do with something that's not really what you want. As an example, the MMT observatory was so happy with the "cobble six telescopes together" design foisted upon them by the donation of the mirrors that within 8 years of completion they were officially[1] reporting they hoped to replace them with a single mirror by 1993. Honestly I think the MMT is the only telescope I've heard of where the main mirror was so bad they opted to replace it with a completely different design within 20 years. Anyway, the Hubble mirror has a different focal length than the KH-11 so can't have been used as is, it would have to be reground and polished for the new curvature and so it would have been essentially just a mirror blank. [1] https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1988BAAS...20..366 https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1988BAAS...20..366.