Categories
Just Shelley

Eye into the Universe

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Hubble Space StationNamed after the American astronomer Edwin Hubble, the Hubble telescope was conceived as a way to put a telescope into space outside of the vision-impairing atmosphere that surrounds our planet. By doing this, we can see more and learn more about the universe that surrounds us.

Hubble was not the first astronomical effort in space: that honor belongs to two Orbital Astronomical Observatories launched into space in 1968 and 1972. Because of these earlier efforts, support for a space-based telescope grew and NASA, in 1975, began the design of what was to become known as the Hubble Space Telescope.

Several groups and companies were involved with the building of Hubble, including NASA, the European Space Agency, the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama — home of Space Camp — as well as the companies that actually built Hubble: Perkin-Elmer Corporation and Lockheed Missile and Space Company. Perkin-Elmer built the optical and guidance systems, while Lockheed built the outer shell of the telescope. The European Space Agency furnished the solar arrays and one of the scientific instruments; the other instruments were furnished by major universities.

Shuttle Discovery

According to NASA’s History of Hubble, it was launched into space on April 24, 1990, via the Shuttle, Discovery.

Hubble was designed to be “modular”, with different bay areas holding different scientific instruments. With this approach, Hubble could be maintained by crews from shuttles, basically creating the first assembly line in space. Or would that more likely be, the first erector toy in space? Whatever we call it, it is the modularity of Hubble that assisted in the first real challenge to the telescope. You see, Hubble was born near-sighted.

Off to a Rocky Start

Nebula

Like most of us, Hubble wasn’t born perfect. Hubble’s primary mirror was incorrectly shaped, ground a little too flat to the edge. How flat? The mirror’s edge was off by about the same width of 1/50th of a human hair.

Because the primary mirror was ground a bit too flat, instead of focusing all light into the center of the mirror, the light ended up being spread over a larger area, creating a blurry effect of images — hence the concept of Hubble being near-sighted.

NASA knew that maintenance of Hubble would be by shuttle, but probably wasn’t expecting that maintenance would have to occur so quickly. The challenge was to find a way to fixing the near-sighted effect without having to replace the mirror, a task that was impossible.

spiral galaxy

What NASA came up with was, basically, a pair of glasses for Hubble. Except, in this case, the glasses were the Corrective Optics Space Telescope Axial Replacement (COSTAR), and the Wide Field/Planetary Camera (WF/PC-II). Both of these instruments would provide corrective optics that would compensate for the primary mirror, thereby canceling the blurry effect and providing clear images. These new optics would then be installed by shuttle using slots within Hubble’s instrument array.

On December 2, 1993, the shuttle Endeavour was launched on a unique mission: install the corrective optics and fix Hubble. NASA was making a house call.

Did the fixes work? You only have to look at many of the hundreds of images produced by Hubble to know that the corrective optics — in addition to the excellent work of the Endeavour astronauts who installed the optics — was a success.

How it works

For this section and the next, I turned to STSI’s Hubble Primer.

hubble

According to the primer, Hubble is as long as a school bus, and as tall as a 5 story building. Definitely bigger than that backyard telescope you might be familiar with. Hubble’s shape resembles a long foil wrapped tube with wings, the wings being the solar arrays necessary to provide power for the telescope.

Hubble is controlled from earth, and moves through the use of gyros or reaction wheels. These maintain Hubble’s stable position regardless of factors such as solar radiation and gravitation from other objects. In addition, when Hubble is being positioned to record information from a specific planet, galaxy, or star, a pair of star guides near to the object are located by Hubble. The telescope uses these star guides to maintain a steady fix on the target object. In fact, one of the first activities performed when reviewing a proposal to use some of Hubble’s time and resources is to see whether guide stars have been identified near the object that is the focus of the proposal (as outlined in Observing with Hubble).

Light enters the telescope and hits the primary mirror. This mirror, in turn, focuses this light on a secondary mirror, which in turn reflects the light back to a specific point on the primary mirror. This light is then recorded and analyzed, and data gleamed from the observation process is stored in onboard computers. Scientists then tap into this stored data for the data they need.

star

What are some of the instruments used to record information? Well, the most widely known is the Wide Field and Planetary Camera, responsible for the images you see at the Hubble site and in this article. Others that are currently operating are the Near-Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer (NICMOS), for infrared and spectroscopic imaging; the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS); the Corrective Optics Space Telescope Axial Replacement (COSTAR), discussed earlier, which provides for correction of the primary mirror; and the Faint Object Camera (FOS), which operates over a wide wavelength range and which contains an image intensifier to enhance image light. You can read a more detailed overview of the instruments in the General Overview of the Hubble Space Telescope

What we have learned

star

Personally, just to see neighboring galaxies and see the birth of stars sounds like more than enough justification for Hubble, but others may want more. Okay, then how about the fact that with Hubble we now have a better understanding of how the Universe works and our place in it. We have now have physical evidence of black holes to provide support for our theoretical understanding of these “sinkholes” in space.

Additionally, we know more about the age of the universe, have seen Pluto for the first time, recorded evidence of the elusive Brown Dwarfs of space, and, yes, we have even seen the birth of a star.

Into the Future

So, what do the folks at STSI, NASA, and friends have in store for us next? What else but the Next Generation Space Telescope, or NGST.

Nebula

The NGST project is currently underway and hope is that it will launch into space in the year 2007. Its purpose is to search for origins: of planets, or stars, galaxies, even the universe.

I’m fascinated by the thought of how much we have learned from Hubble and the promise of how much more we will learn from NGST. Who knows? Maybe someday while we are looking outward, we’ll actually spot someone looking inward…at us.

Update:

The next generation space telescope, named the James Webb Space Telescope, was launched into space, December 25, 2021. A bit late, but better late than never.

Categories
Photography Political

From a distance

While not as large as many of the other demonstrations today, the St. Louis anti-war rally did bring 2000 people out of their warm homes into the cold, icy rain and snow. More people attended than the church could hold and we spilled out into the street, listening to the speeches on the loud speakers. People held up signs that said:

 

Honk if you’re against the war!!!

At one point the noise of the car horns was so loud, the speakers inside were drowned out by the sound.

Pictures from the anti-rally. Sorry for size differences, as the original photos were lost.

antiwar1.jpg
protest2.jpg
protest4.jpg
antiwar1.jpg
protest5.jpg
protest7.jpg
protest8.jpg

Categories
Writing

Rah

In case it got lost in the discussion about politics in the last post, I finished the book.

Rah.

Categories
History

Against Images of the War to Be

Archived with comments at the Wayback Machine

Today and tomorrow, people from throughout the world are gathering in protest of a single action: war in Iraq. Why is that we never seem to unite as a people, crossing boundaries of religion and country, except when we unite around the issue of war?

The warbloggers, both those for and against, staged a debate this week about war in Iraq. NZ Bear had included me in his mailing list when he mailed out the questions for the anti-war folks to answer earlier in the week and I responded with questions about the questions because I have no answers to questions about the war. I am not some pundit. I’m only a writer who looks out at a gray and dark day, wondering how we reached the eve of this war.

I went back through the online archives of various publications, trying to find the seed of this upcoming war. I found this in the New York Times excellent archive system. We are reminded that Bush had Iraq in mind long before the Twin Towers fell. It’s not surprising that after we went into Afghanistan and removed the Taliban from power, that the President would turn his sights from Osama Bin Laden to Saddam Hussein even though there has never been anything more than the vaguest circumstantial evidence linking the two.

That latter point is one that puzzles me in particular, in this my morning reflecting on how we got from the collapse of the towers in New York to this new war in Iraq. Saddam Hussein is not a religious man and has never been known to be devoutly Muslim. If anything, his regime is probably one of the more secular in the region. Consider this: the person believed to be largely responsible for Iraq’s bio-warfare research is a woman. This would never happen under the Taliban. This would be absolutely repugnant to an organization such as Al Queda. I looked through the New York Times archives for associations between Al Queda and Iraq, but none showed until the allegations levied by the Bush Administration.

In fact, looking over old news sources, I had a hard time finding any that connected Saddam Hussein strongly to any terrorist organizations that we haven’t directly or indirectly supported ourselves, such as those against Iran. No, since 1990, the criticism about Saddam is about his strong desire to conquer most, if not all, of the Middle East. He’s a megalomaniac, but not an especially devout megalomaniac.

Saddam Hussein is a ruthless, vicious, deadly man with a destiny, and if this means obtaining technology from others — such as France, the UK, and the US — to build weapons that give him the power to meet his destiny, he’ll do so. But in line with a terrorist organization such as Al Queda? Not a chance.

(Of course, I believe there are a lot of Iraqis that are very devout and when we bomb the hell out of Iraq, they’re not necessarily going to care or even believe we did so just to eliminate one man from power. Why will they feel this way? Because it seems incredible that a country like the US would feel so threatened by Saddam Hussein and Iraq, not when other countries practically rub our noses in how much more dangerous they are to us.)

But back to the issue of war. Why we’re going to war. Is oil the issue? I don’t know that it is; this has never felt right to me. It may be the reason some people want this war, but I don’t think all people. I’m beginning to believe this isn’t why Bush wants to go to war. But why are we going to war, especially now? Do any of us feel that Iraq is going to attack us in the next year? Even indirectly? I can’t see how this is so because even in the most government inspired attempts to generate fear, such as ‘duct and cover’ this week, most people I know found this to be both a joke and an embarrassment.

People aren’t acting afraid. Some are buying the duct tape and the plastic, but most go about normally. We’re not acting as if we truly believe we will be attacked, either directly or indirectly, from Iraq in the next year. Next two years. However, we do feel this upcoming war, as we watch our economy degrade and hear of more families disrupted as members are called into battle.

There isn’t the fear of war, but there is the shadow of war. There is a malaise in the land that darkens even in the brightest light.

Why are we going to war? I don’t have the answers, only beliefs. I do not believe we’re going to war to ensure freedom and democracy in the world, contrary to Dave Winer’s piece this morning where he writes:

Then in the last few pargraphs the author explained that the Germans and French and other European countries with long histories of starting brutal hypocritical wars over things like oil, sometimes even proclaiming themselves the master race, might not understand a country like the US where we’re more likely to go to war to save the free world. Stupid ole US, no good deed goes unpunished. Of course. We knew that.

In a debate against those who say that Europeans don’t want war because too many wars have been fought on their own lands in the last one hundred years, Dave posts:

A common response from across the ocean. Unlike the US, France and Germany know what war is like. There’s the disconnect. Click here. Clue: That’s not Germany or France.

Such a deliberate provocation when, with all due apologies to Ben for again bringing World War II into this debate, one only has to search for photographs of the firebombing of Dresden, the air attacks against London, the bombing of Nazi strongholds in France, the tears on the faces of the French as the Nazis marched into their home. The price paid by many people, during and after the war. Our own losses in these places so far away. And this was just one war. Just one. We don’t really know the devastation of war.

It is within these photographs that I find the core of my own strong beliefs against this war. I grew up surrounded by war. My father fought in World War II and was in Vietnam, and I was a small child learning to live with the threat of nuclear war and watching the constant stream of living marching off only to be replaced by the dead being carried home from South Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf, Kosovo, Afghanistan.

Most of all, I grew up surrounded by the images of war. In the midst of all the political rhetoric about the reasons for and against war, that’s the only truth that feels real to me — the awful beauty of the photographs capturing the horror and the devastation that is war.

The government says that the issues about this war are complex and that I should trust it to do right; but all I see is my simple perceived truths: We’re going to war because both Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush see themselves as men of destiny; and I’m not fighting against the war as much as I’m fighting against the images of war yet to be.

Image of Japanese interment camp from http://www.archives.gov/research_room/research_topics/world_war_2_photos/world_war_2_photos.html

Categories
Writing

Draft if finished, world didn’t end

In between covering our windows with plastic and applying duct tape around any cracks and crevices, I finally finished the first draft of Practical RDF tonight. I need to do some clean up and re-numbering and then will repost the chapters one more time for one final review. In a few weeks, if we survive imminent biological and chemical devastation, and if O’Reilly’s publication process isn’t co-opted for the upcoming non-UN sanctioned war against Iraq, the book will finally head towards the printers. Lots of work to get to this point.

Despite the long hours this week on the book, I still managed to keep up with the duct tape defense. I’ll have you know I treat the Homeland Security recommendations as seriously as I treat the Department of Homeland Security.

After all, terrorists took down the Twin Towers with box cutters; why can’t we defend ourselves against weapons of mass destruction with duct tape?