Friday, 12 January 2007

Teleskop Luar Angkasa Hubble III

Conception, design and aims 

Proposals and precursors 

In 1923, Hermann Oberth—considered along with Robert H. Goddard and Konstantin Tsiolkovsky fathers of modern rocketry—publishedDie Rakete zu den Planetenräumen ("The Rocket into Planetary Space"), which mentioned how a telescope could be propelled into Earth orbit by a rocket.

Lyman Spitzer, "father" of the Space Telescope
The history of the Hubble Space Telescope can be traced back as far as 1946, when the astronomerLyman Spitzer wrote the paper "Astronomical advantages of an extraterrestrial observatory". In it, he discussed the two main advantages that a space-based observatory would have over ground-based telescopes. First, the angular resolution (smallest separation at which objects can be clearly distinguished) would be limited only by diffraction, rather than by the turbulence in the atmosphere, which causes stars to twinkle and is known to astronomers as seeing. At that time ground-based telescopes were limited to resolutions of 0.5–1.0 arcseconds, compared to a theoretical diffraction-limited resolution of about 0.05 arcsec for a telescope with a mirror 2.5 m in diameter. Second, a space-based telescope could observe infrared and ultraviolet light, which are strongly absorbed by the atmosphere.
Spitzer devoted much of his career to pushing for a space telescope to be developed. 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, and in 1965 Spitzer was appointed as head of a committee given the task of defining the scientific objectives for a large space telescope.
Space-based astronomy had begun on a very small scale following World War II, as scientists made use of developments that had taken place in rocket technology. The first ultraviolet spectrum of the Sun was obtained in 1946, and NASA launched the Orbiting Solar Observatory to obtain UV, X-ray, and gamma-ray spectra in 1962. An orbiting solar telescope was launched in 1962 by the United Kingdom as part of the Ariel space program, and in 1966 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) launched the first Orbiting Astronomical Observatory (OAO) mission. OAO-1's battery failed after three days, terminating the mission. It was followed by OAO-2, which carried out ultraviolet observations of stars and galaxies from its launch in 1968 until 1972, well beyond its original planned lifetime of one year.
The OSO and OAO missions demonstrated the important role space-based observations could play in astronomy, and 1968 saw the development by NASA of firm plans for a space-based reflecting telescope with a mirror 3 m in diameter, known provisionally as the Large Orbiting Telescope or Large Space Telescope (LST), with a launch slated for 1979. These plans emphasized the need for manned maintenance missions to the telescope to ensure such a costly program had a lengthy working life, and the concurrent development of plans for the reusable space shuttle indicated that the technology to allow this was soon to become available.

Quest for funding

The continuing success of the OAO program encouraged increasingly strong consensus within the astronomical community that the LST should be a major goal. 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. Once these had been established, the next hurdle for NASA was to obtain funding for the instrument, which would be far more costly than any Earth-based telescope.

The US Congress questioned many aspects of the proposed budget for the telescope and forced cuts in the budget for the planning stages, which at the time consisted of very detailed studies of potential instruments and hardware for the telescope. In 1974, public spending cuts instigated byGerald Ford led to Congress cutting all funding for the telescope project.
In response to this, a nationwide lobbying effort was coordinated among astronomers. Many astronomers met congressmen andsenators in person, and large scale letter-writing campaigns were organized. The National Academy of Sciences published a report emphasizing the need for a space telescope, and eventually the Senate agreed to half of the budget that had originally been approved by Congress.
The funding issues led to something of a reduction in the scale of the project, with the proposed mirror diameter reduced from 3 m to 2.4 m, both to cut costs  and to allow a more compact and effective configuration for the telescope hardware. A proposed precursor 1.5 m space telescope to test the systems to be used on the main satellite was dropped, and budgetary concerns also prompted collaboration with the European Space Agency.

ESA agreed to provide funding and supply one of the first generation instruments for the telescope, as well as the solar cells that would power it, and staff to work on the telescope in the United States, in return for European astronomers being guaranteed at least 15% of the observing time on the telescope. Congress eventually approved funding of US$36,000,000 for 1978, and the design of the LST began in earnest, aiming for a launch date of 1983. In 1983 the telescope was named after Edwin Hubble, who made one of the greatest scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century when he discovered that theuniverse is expanding.

Construction and engineering

Polishing of Hubble's primary mirror begins at Perkin-Elmer corporation, Danbury,Connecticut, March 1979. The engineer pictured is Dr. Martin Yellin, an optical engineer working for Perkin-Elmer on the project.
Once the Space Telescope project had been given the go-ahead, work on the program was divided among many institutions. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) was given responsibility for the design, development, and construction of the telescope, while theGoddard Space Flight Center was given overall control of the scientific instruments and ground-control center for the mission. MSFC commissioned the optics company Perkin-Elmer to design and build the Optical Telescope Assembly (OTA) and Fine Guidance Sensors for the space telescope. Lockheed was commissioned to construct and integrate the spacecraft in which the telescope would be housed.

Optical Telescope Assembly (OTA)

Optically, the HST is a Cassegrain reflector of Ritchey-Chrétien design, as are most large professional telescopes. This design, with two hyperbolic mirrors, is known for good imaging performance over a wide field of view, with the disadvantage that the mirrors have shapes that are hard to fabricate and test. The mirror and optical systems of the telescope determine the final performance, and they were designed to exacting specifications. Optical telescopes typically have mirrors polished to an accuracy of about a tenth of the wavelength of visible light, but the Space Telescope was to be used for observations from the visible through the ultraviolet (shorter wavelengths) and was specified to be diffraction limited to take full advantage of the space environment. Therefore its mirror needed to be polished to an accuracy of 10 nanometres, or about 1/65 of the wavelength of red light. On the long wavelength end, the OTA was not designed with optimum IR performance in mind — for example, the mirrors are kept at stable (and warm, about 15 °C) temperatures by heaters. This limits Hubble's performance as an infrared telescope.
Perkin-Elmer intended to use custom-built and extremely sophisticated computer-controlled polishing machines to grind the mirror to the required shape. However, in case their cutting-edge technology ran into difficulties, NASA demanded that PE sub-contract toKodak to construct a back-up mirror using traditional mirror-polishing techniques. (The team of Kodak and Itek also bid on the original mirror polishing work. Their bid called for the two companies to double-check each other's work, which would have almost certainly caught the polishing error that later caused such problems.) The Kodak mirror is now on permanent display at the Smithsonian Institution. An Itek mirror built as part of the effort is now used in the 2.4 m telescope at the Magdalena Ridge Observatory.
Construction of the Perkin-Elmer mirror began in 1979, starting with a blank manufactured by Corning from their ultra-low expansionglass. To keep the mirror's weight to a minimum it consisted of inch-thick top and bottom plates sandwiching a honeycomb lattice. Perkin-Elmer simulated microgravity by supporting the mirror on both sides with 138 rods that exerted varying amounts of force.

This ensured that the mirror's final shape would be correct and to specification when finally deployed. Mirror polishing continued until May 1981. NASA reports at the time questioned Perkin-Elmer's managerial structure, and the polishing began to slip behind schedule and over budget. To save money, NASA halted work on the back-up mirror and put the launch date of the telescope back to October 1984.

The mirror was completed by the end of 1981; it was washed using 2,400 gallons (9,100 L) of hot, deionized water and then received a reflective coating of aluminium 65 nm-thick and a protective coating of magnesium fluoride 25 nm-thick.

Construction of Hubble. The optical metering truss and secondary baffle are visible.

Doubts continued to be expressed about Perkin-Elmer's competence on a project of this importance, as their budget and timescale for producing the rest of the OTA continued to inflate.

In response to a schedule described as "unsettled and changing daily", NASA postponed the launch date of the telescope until April 1985.

Perkin-Elmer's schedules continued to slip at a rate of about one month per quarter, and at times delays reached one day for each day of work. NASA was forced to postpone the launch date until first March and then September 1986.

By this time the total project budget had risen to US$1.175 billion.



  1. ^ STSCi newsletter, v. 20, issue 2, Spring 2003
  2. ^ Benn C.R., Sánchez S.F. (2001), Scientific Impact of Large Telescopes, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, v. 113, p.385
  3. ^ Wilson, R. W., Baldwin, J. E., Buscher, D. F., Warner, P. J. (1992), High-resolution imaging of Betelgeuse and Mira,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, vol. 257, no. 3, Aug 1, 1992, p. 369–376
  4. ^ Hubble Space Telescope Call for Proposals for Cycle 14, (2004), eds. Neill Reid and Jim Younger
  5. ^ HST Primer for Cycle 14, (2004), eds Diane Karakla, Editor and Susan Rose, Technical Editor
  6. ^ O'Meara S. (1997), The Demise of the HST Amateur Program, Sky and Telescope, June 1997, p.97.
  7. ^ Sembach, K. R., et al. 2004, HST Two-Gyro Handbook, Version 1.0, (Baltimore: STScI)
  8. ^ Whitehouse, Dr. David. "NASA optimistic about Hubble fate", BBC News, 2004-04-23. Retrieved on 2007-01-10.
  9. ^ Advanced Camera for Surveys Update. STScI (2006-06-30).
  10. ^ STScI, Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys Resumes Exploring the Universe, 12 July 2006 [2]
  11. ^ Hubble ACS Status Report #3. Space Telescope Science Institute. Retrieved on 2007-01-10.
  12. ^ Dominiquez, Alex. "Hubble's primary camera shuts down", Associated Press/Yahoo! News, 2007-01-29. Retrieved on 2007-01-29.
  13. ^ Engineers Investigate Issue on One of Hubble's Science Instruments. NASA. Retrieved on 2007-05-08.
  14. ^ ACS Status: February 21, 2007. Space Telescope Science Institute. Retrieved on 2007-05-08.
  15. ^ Whitehouse, Dr. David. "Why Hubble is being dropped", BBC News, 2004-01-17. Retrieved on 2007-01-10.
  16. ^ Cowing, Keith. "NASA Considering Deletion of Hubble Deorbit Module", SpaceRef, 2005-07-22. Retrieved on 2007-01-10.
  17. ^ Gugliotta, Guy. "Nominee Backs a Review Of NASA's Hubble Decision", Washington Post, 2005-04-12. Retrieved on 2007-01-10.
  18. ^ Klotz, Irene. "Astronauts reunite for Hubble flight", BBC News, 2006-11-01. Retrieved on 2007-01-10.

No comments: