Talk:Hubble Space Telescope

Discuss changes made on 13/14 of May 2010

There were a batch of changes, all good faith, which did not seem to fit the structure of the article

• The data transmission stuff at the beginning fits better in the data transmission section, not the overview, so I moved it.

• You can easily support the statement that Spitzer lobbied hard for a space telescope. The idea that the Hubble would not exist without Spitzer seems inherently hard to support.

• 'Data is' versus 'data are' goes both ways. I reverted them as part of these other changes, but just because it was easier, not from any principles.

LouScheffer (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Are we speaking strictly in this article? The word "data" is the plural of the singular"datum". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.224.214 (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

See Data#Usage in English for a long discussion of this point. "Data are" is certainly traditional, but "data is", treating data as a collective noun, is common in informal usage, and making its way into formal publications. Some linguistically conservative organizations, such as the IEEE and the New York Times, now specifically allow "data is". I personally think "The data is" is better since it does not call attention to the grammar, but instead lets the sentence flow more naturally to the point it is trying to make. LouScheffer (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

With English usage, if what is 'wrong' is not corrected for long enough, it becomes accepted and 'right'. I don't think we're quite at that stage with using 'data' as a singular yet. 'Data is' still sounds horrible to me.--Cavrdg (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the previous comment. There are two types of changes to linguistic norm: a) optimizations (elimination of asystematic rules and exceptions) and b) acceptance of common mistakes as a new rule. The former makes the language cleaner, the latter.. well, gives us more work to do under item a. We all know that "data is" stems from simple ignorance (not of the participants of this discussion, of course) and we should not give up on correct spelling. It is not a matter of linguistic conservatism, quite the opposite. Let's direct our reformist energy to making good, necessary ans systematic changes to the language that will make it cleaner. LouScheffer, can you please give your position another consideration now that you find yourself in minority on this topic (three users vs. one)? Thank you! Nyq (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid this analysis is far too cut and dried, so I'm voting the opposite way - now, there's democracy at work. The issue of preference is a factor; it isn't merely rule based. But consider: "Minister, a number of people is waiting to see you, and a lot of them is very angry." A NUMBER IS (so that's correct), and A LOT IS (that's correct too), as both reflect strictly logical rule adherence, literally, and as both are preceded by the singular "a". But both, in common usage, serve as 'collective' singularities, and the more common usage of "are" is thus justified in that regard. Data too is a collective singularity [of datum] but the same usage sense applies. "Is" is the 3rd person singular present indicative of "be", but these singularities imply their plurality too. So what is literally correct nonetheless looks risible in the examples I have given; indeed, only the present 'PC' pedantry insists on the spurious rule.

The reverse case to number and lot is data. Some insist that data, likewise, in the literal sense of a plurality that is, in usage, handled as a singularity, has to be treated invariably as a plurality when the hearer conceptualises data as a singular entity. The usage and its understood meaning matters more than the theoretical rule. The cases of sloppy misuse, (e.g. you're/your and loose/lose), are indisputable examples of erroneous misuse, but the singularizing of data is surely not such a case.Trevor H. (UK) 19:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Future of HST

I wonder if anyone has looked into adding an ion/electric drive to HST, and sending it out to L2, where astronauts could service it ten years from now?

The recent ascendancy of Sun/Earth L2 and the HLV in our space planning, seem to make such ideas more real, and HST is a serviceable, upgradeable facility observatory, with (I trust) no predetermined limit on its lifetime. This JWST alas is not, due to its lack of provision for on-orbit servicing. Thus it remains in danger of catastrophic failure on deployment, the inevitable rapid obsolescence of its instrumentation, and the eventual degradation and death of critical components. (There is some movement towards ameliorating the JWST issues lately, but it is difficult and very expensive so late in the project.)

Communications and getting HST through the Van Allen belts would probably be the main problems. The ion drive could move it into a space station orbit (around v=3.1 km/s needed) for further work preparatory to the move to L2. A small Centaur stage with ~5000 kg of LH2/LOX, firing for 1000 sec (0.3 g acceleration, another 3 km/s), could get it through the belts quickly, and probably even to L2. Away from Earth, the thermal control issues would be different, but it would not have to move every orbit to avoid looking at the planet, and more of the sky would be observable, more of the time. I think it would continue to be very useful out there, likely for many decades to come.

This seems to me a far better fate for a noble observatory than consigning it to the Air & Space Museum, or (more probably) just dumping it into the Pacific. (Bring it home for the museum in 2100 or so!) Wwheaton (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Why was Hubble still kept alive for so long? Or any manned space program, for that matter. Chaisson's book had a clear quotation from Sen. Barbara Mikulskl (D-MD) why: "It't not about ... science, its about ... Jobs" E.g. its about socialist policies keeping the U.S. space program going, regardless of the value. --74.107.74.39 (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Nationality of Edwin Hubble

It's a constant battle to keep the lede paragraph short and to the point. There is all sorts of stuff that is perfectly true, interesting to some folks, and could be added. However, the lede should contain *only* the points that are most important.

When a reader comes to the Hubble Space Telescope page, what would they want to know about Edwin Hubble, the guy it was named for? Surely, for this page, it is why was the Hubble named after him. This was because of his achievements as an astronomer (discovering the expansion of the universe), not because he was American. (Lots of USA space missions are named after non-Americans). So 'American' is not even the most important fact about Edwin Hubble, much less in the context of the Hubble Telescope. Furthermore, if you want to know the nationality of Hubble, why not check his article? It's just a click away.

Other opinions are of course welcome, LouScheffer (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

One word isn't going to adversely affect the opening paragraph. Naming the telescope after an astronomer from the country where the telescope was developed and operated seems appropriate, especially since it takes only 1 word to make this connection. The source of the name is very appropriate bit of info to include here as long as it's brief, which seems to be the case here.--RadioFan (talk) 02:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The hubble telescope is named after an astronomer named Edwin Hubble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.220.194 (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

However, the lede should contain *only* the points that are most important.

Totally agree. When you arrive at this page, most will know what "space" is and what a "telescope" is, but fewer will know why this one is called "Hubble." And frankly will be more interested in the answer to that question than information on the number of service missions that have been flown to it (which precedes the solution to the naming question, which doesn't even arise in the contents.)

In frustration, since the most important item was "who was this named after," another Google search solved this for me.

Suggest in fact the issue about what to say about Edwin Hubble be solved at the same time by saying nothing, but giving a link:

The Hubble Space Telescope (HST), named for astronomer Edwin Hubble, is a space telescope that was carried into orbit by a Space Shuttle in 1990.

Hamish.MacEwan (talk) 06:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Which shuttle

It's a constant battle to keep the lede paragraph short and to the point. There is all sorts of stuff that is perfectly true, interesting to some folks, and could be added. However, the lede should contain *only* the points that are most important to the topic at hand, which is the Hubble space telescope.

Exactly which shuttle carried the Hubble into orbit is not particularly relevant to the telescope. A good test is "What would have changed had it been a different shuttle?" Very little, as far as I know. So it's perfectly fine to put in the article, but not in the lead paragraphs and particularly not in the first sentence.

As always, other opinions are welcome. LouScheffer (talk) 12:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat similar rationale applies here as does Edwin Hubble's nationality in the previous talk section. Which Orbiter is not critical to summarizing what the HST is in the Lead. But it does not matter too much to me. -fnlayson (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not a big deal in the article - indeed, one of the main charms of Wikipedia is that fanatics of all stripes add all sorts of interesting detail to topics you never heard of. However, the lead paragraph in particular should be a concise overview of the topic. From The Elements of Style#The Third Edition (1979) LouScheffer (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

“

Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts.

”

I find it a bit ridiculous, IMO, to war over a single word that in no way dtracts from the article, but if you are going to remove the name of the shuttle, it is more precise (and concise) to change the sentence to a space shuttle rather than the space shuttle. The common phrase "The space shuttle" is a holdover from when the Columbia was the only space shuttle. Since there are multiple space shuttles, it is not appropriate to use wording implying there is only one. One would not say the cargo was brought over on the ship, they would either include the name of the ship, or change the sentence to the cago was brought over on a ship. Just my two bits ... LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. That's how it used to read, and how it reads now. Thanks, LouScheffer (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's a crude calculation of what an extra word costs. This page is viewed about 70K times per month (see stats). Assuming everyone reads the first sentence, and they read about 200 words per minute, that's about 2 work-weeks of wasted time per year, or perhaps $1000 US of wasted time. This calculation is rather inexact, requiring many dubious assumptions, but point remains - we should be concise, especially in the lead... LouScheffer (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I would never argue against having a concise leadin for many reasons (ranging from consensus and policy to aesthetics). Bringing up the economic argument might equally play into the reason it should be there: when people read the leadin, they expect something like that to be there, and now need to go look for it. I personally think it belongs, but if I was asked to defend it with policy or guideline, I would be hard pressed to find something. There are other things in the leadin that I would take out as not being necessary for a fundamental understanding of what the HST is, rather than the name of the shuttle that carried it into orbit ... but I must acknowledge that as an opinion, and nothing more than that. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Spurious stat - the time all the world's 6.8 billion people take over their daily dump accrues to centuries a day... but so what, it doesn't for EACH! We might as well all try to breathe a few times less each minute, "because it takes time we could be using for something else." Like, erm, taking a dump perhaps? Trevor H. (UK) 19:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevor H. (talk • contribs)

In a speed reading comprehension test, you just know that if the shuttle is named, it will be asked, making it the slowest word in the sentence. In other contexts, a boring specificity is barely observed. The first time I read LoTR as a 12 year old (this was before Star Wars) I made it through all three volumes in short order without being firm in my mind that Sauron and Saruman were two different characters. No, I wasn't reading Arabic shorn of the vowel markings, but I might as well have been in my rush to find out what happens. In this instance, as for which shuttle, that's the kind of thing a military aircraft buff simply can't live without, while the rest of us barely perceive the significance. People read by metaphor far more than they realize: if you say "delivered by the Reading Railroad" you don't have to specify the locomotive. The Space Shuttle was, after all, a kind of abstract rail line. I think the real reason everyone stuck to the "the" shuttle is that the stairway to heaven was single occupancy. For the same reason we refer to "the tennis ball" as if those conspicuous auxiliary bulges in the tennis tights are anatomical. The cute ball girl hands the tennis stud "a ball" and then he pounds "the ball" over the net. When does it change? Badminton does not have shuttle girls, so I guess it's best as changed. — MaxEnt 12:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Data is vs. Data are

I will have to disagree that 'data are' is acceptable to the context of the sentence. If you were speaking about 'volumes of data' or some other pluralizing modifier to the word 'data', 'are' would be entirely acceptable. However, in the sentence, "All Hubble data is eventually made available via the archives...", 'data' is mentioned as a singular volume, encompassing all that is, rather than all that are. --Xession (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed on this page before several times, including higher on this discussion page. To me the most convincing argument is that you would never say "please send me the datis" even though this would be correct Latin for the dative case. Why don't we say this? Because we are speaking English, not Latin, and hence not bound by Latin endings. This case is made much more rigorously in Data is a singular noun. From a more practical view, rather authoritative sources such as the IEEE and New York Times allow either, so we should use the form that's easiest on the reader. LouScheffer (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The previous debate and the article Data, both fail to address the difference between technical writing usage and general usage. In a technical writing, it is important to impart the difference between the singular datum, and multiple data. However, in general usage, such formalities are not necessary and are not followed by the majority of the population. It is similar to the difference between Legal English and general English. The majority of Wikipedia is certainly not a stage for technical writing, and would be counter the benefit of the general public who reads the encyclopaedia. --Xession (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Even in technical writing, you'll often see sentences such as "The data is consistent with the second hypothesis, with the exception of one outlying data point", where "data point" or "measurement" is used in place of "datum". LouScheffer (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I know that all too well. I really wish technical papers would be written with a lot more care and precision than they tend to be. Even a lot of older NASA reports, read as if written by uninterested personnel, with few formalities and a bit loose on grammatical rules. The point I was intending to suggest, was that such formalities are usually only intended for technical writing, rather than for articles intended for the general public. I would be a little shocked if even a significant portion of America has heard or would even know how the word "datum" is defined. --Xession (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hubble "lessons learned"

There is probably a lot that could be written here. I will start off. Something that Hubble mission should have considered was an INDEPENDENT evaluation of the mirror and assembly. I mean FULLY independent, including new instrumentation to measure the optical quality of both the mirrors and the subsequent assembly. I do not subscribe to the argument that such requirements are untestable. I invite the readership to comment. --96.244.248.77 (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

While true, Congress denied NASA the money to make it possible. The failure to test was an effort to cut costs, & it bit them. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Kodak and Itek proposed that each would make a mirror set, then each would test the other's mirrors. Their bid was more expensive, and rejected. This is covered in the article. LouScheffer (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the bid was much less expensive then the money PE got after all cost overruns they did. Further I read somewhere that the US Air Force offered NASA an end to end test of the complete telescope for free. NASA declined the offer. Some suspect that the mirror error was known but kept secret to give the shuttle a PR stunt. Want a nightmare lesson? Orion needs a mission and could reach JWST at L2 to repair it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.172.177.13 (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Needing glasses?

To head off an edit war, let me say: I maintain "optical" isn't limited to "visible spectrum", so even if the main observational areas are outside it, HST still qualifies as "optical", since it's not a radiotelescope (or a dedicated X-ray 'scope). Disagree? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

So you say it's optical just because it's not a radio-telescope or an x-ray telescope? Not sure that's good reasoning...

A very common term in the astronomy community for telescopes like Hubble is "UVOIR" (UV-Optical-InfraRed), you'll find plenty of references to this in google. That kind of implies Optical in this sense refers just to the visible part of the spectrum. However you are right that sometimes Optical refers to all these three ranges, IIRC because of the similar detection methods. As a result of this varying in usage I think if Optical is to be used, the sense in which it is being used - to cover UV, visible, and infrared - should be stated clearly. ChiZeroOne (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Then maybe you'd like to look at the infobox where it does say "optical"? Nor am I saying the IR/UV should be deleted. Also, unless my grasp of the etymology is really bad, "optical" means "dealing with light", with no specification on frequency or wavelength... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the point you are trying to make is that Hubble is a more or less 'traditional' telescope, a close relative to the ones you see in movies with the astronomer looking through the eyepiece. This captures the difference between Hubble and (for example) a radio or X-ray telescope, and I certainly have some sympathy for this view. However, I think putting 'optical' in the lead is wrong for several reasons. First, as you yourself point out, it's very ambiguous. If you ask 10 different astronomers what wavelengths an 'optical' telescope can see, you'll get (at least) 10 different answers. 'Visible light' is much better defined, but insufficient in this case. The 'near-IR, visible, near-UV' is correct, and already in the very same sentence. Second, it's redundant - the wavelength coverage is specified, more precisely, in the very same sentence. This may seem like a trivial point, but it's crucial to be concise, especially in the lead sentences. (Here's a rough calculation of what an extra word costs, from an earlier discussion. This page is viewed about 70K times per month (see stats). Assuming everyone reads the first paragraph, and they read about 200 words per minute, that's about 2 work-weeks of wasted time per year, or perhaps $1000 US of wasted time per year, per extra word. This calculation is rather inexact, requiring many dubious assumptions, but point remains - we should be concise, especially in the lead...) LouScheffer (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Nobel Prizes in Physics

How many Nobel Prize in Physics has the Hubble's data been used to directly produce? The 2006 and 2011 awards seem like they were to me. Any others? Please consider mentioning them in this article. --Ashawley (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Lyman spitzer c1.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Lyman spitzer c1.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Root cause of gyro failures identified

Bad claim.

Engineers are confident that they have identified the root causes of the gyro failures, and the new models should be much more reliable.

I was curious, so I checked out the William Harwood citation, which actually states that engineers are confident that they have resolved the root cause of failures of the CU/SDF-A (control unit and science data formatter) and that they are confident the telescope can continue operating with not so many gyros as they would like.

I Googled for "Hubble improved gyros" and all I found was "An improved zero gyro safemode". — MaxEnt 11:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)