| TIP: Click on subject to list as thread! | ANSI |
| echo: | |
|---|---|
| to: | |
| from: | |
| date: | |
| subject: | Re: ATM Fw: to parabolize or not......II |
To: atm{at}shore.net
From: Jim Burrows
Reply-To: Jim Burrows
At 18:08 2003-04-26 -0400, Dave McCarter wrote:
>Not so. Perkin Elmer did not use any form of Foucault test on the Hubble
>mirror, as
>they were using a much more sensitive interferometric test that gave them
>absolutely
>total confidence in the surface they prepared. Unfortunately they were
>using the same
>set up they had developed for the KH11 Keyhole Spy satellites, which use not
>parabolic mirrors, but slightly elliptical mirrors. After the error was
>discovered by
>star testing, another test most good ATMs use before coating and certainly
>before
>"flying" their scopes, PE put out the story that a small
washer misplaced the
>reference element in their test set up, hence the error. NOT! Don't
>believe it for a
>second!
>
>Had they done a Foucault test they would indeed have noticed the error.
>But they had
>misplaced confidence in their high tech solution. As someone on this list
>is fond of
>saying, always question "conventional wisdom", for therein
lies folly and
>error.
This from Bob Goff:
>>The Hubble was figured using a botched null test. A beginning amateur with
>>a wood Foucault test rig could have seen the spherical aberration if too
>>many optical experts weren't standing around giggling.
>
>
>Actually, the opticians working on the Space telescope had noticed that
>there was a great discrepancy between the test results with the catadioptric
>null tester and the Offner type null tester and the Foucault device. The
>offner and Foucault agreedexactly, showing gross undercorrection.
>Management made an executive decision without having any experience that the
>Catidioptric null tester was the best that could be had and didn't
>understand the evidence. The MAN said go with the Perfect one; the Cat.
>WRONG.
>Basically, all of the people who were reall qualified and really understood
>the project had retired due to the various delaying tactics of Congress.
>The Large Space Telescope was to have been 120" o.d.
>That's another story.
-- Jim Burrows
-- mailto://burrjaw{at}earthlink.net
-- http://home.earthlink.net/~burrjaw
-- Seattle N47.4723 W122.3662 (WGS84)
--- BBBS/NT v4.00 MP
* Origin: Email Gate (1:379/1.100)SEEN-BY: 633/267 270 @PATH: 379/1 633/267 |
|
| SOURCE: echomail via fidonet.ozzmosis.com | |
Email questions or comments to sysop@ipingthereforeiam.com
All parts of this website painstakingly hand-crafted in the U.S.A.!
IPTIA BBS/MUD/Terminal/Game Server List, © 2025 IPTIA Consulting™.