PDA

View Full Version : Hubble telescope conspiracy questions



Ben Benoy
2002-Apr-23, 11:29 PM
Yes, the title was Hubble conspiracy questions. I was involved in a discussion yesterday afternoon, that I thought you all here could help me solve, having been so useful in the past. (That's your cue to thin "He lies us, he really lies us. Just so you now.)

(Damnit, I'm on the computer without a ' ' ey. You now, the letter after j? Sorry...)

So, the question is, was the Hubble the first satellite of that design in orbit, or did the military secretly (well, sort of secretly apparently) put up an earlier Hubble and use it to spy on people?

I thought this sounded silly, because why would you tae a telescope used for pointing into the middle of nowhere (which doesn't tae heap big good pictures of the surface of the Earth, being as its too bright) and use it for pointing at the surface of the Earth, where it doesn't... Yeah, you get the point.

Now, this guy insists that he read about this somehwere, but I couldn't find a lin. Did I not google long enough? I said that it would mae way more sense to use a spy satellite designed specifically for this type of thing, but he says that the Hubble wors if you "turn down the volume" on the light intae. My impression is that this would be lie wearing night vision goggles at noon and just squinting.

So, friends, what is the Straight Do... er... the Good Astronomy on this matter? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Ben Benoy

Ben Benoy
2002-Apr-23, 11:36 PM
Hah! So I found some stuff, including right here. Oops. About the eyhole satellites and how they are lie Hubble, but pointing down. So the question now is, in what way are they lie Hubble? And if they can loo at the ground, why can't the big H?

Thans.

Wiley
2002-Apr-23, 11:50 PM
My initial impression is if they already had Hubble-like (I gotta "k", neener-neener...) satellites, why did they screw up the optics first time around? Practice makes perfect, and all.

Of course, it could be a clever ploy to throw off suspicion. Yeah, I'm sure they forgot to test the mirror. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Chip
2002-Apr-24, 12:03 AM
Hi Ben,

The BA has a whole chapter in his book about the Hubble Space Telescope and misconceptions people have about it. You should read it. ***The BA isn't paying me to say this. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

There are also references to the HST on this website here (http://www.google.com/custom?q=hubble+space+telescope&sa=Google+Search&cof=LW%3A500%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.badastronomy.c om%2Fpix%2Fbalogo500x100_2.jpg%3BLH%3A100%3BAH%3Al eft%3BAWFID%3A335a96841179147e%3B&domains=www.badastronomy.com&sitesearch=www.badastronomy.com). I hope the link works.

You asked:
"Was the Hubble the first satellite of that design in orbit, or did the military secretly...put up an earlier Hubble and use it to spy on people?"

I think the answer is no. Although the military does have very good spy satellites, they don't operate along the same principles as the Hubble. In short, the Hubble is not designed to "see" extreme specific details close up on the Earth's surface of even on the moon. My guess is: the military satellites probably use several advanced imaging technologies, some of which may be related to Hubble (which is now an older design,) but keep in mind that the two are designed to fulfill very different purposes.
Remember: Deep space is not the ground. The objectives are different.

Chip

mallen
2002-Apr-24, 12:20 AM
I would have to say that your friend has his facts wrong, but maybe he should be paranoid...

The Hubble is optimized for observing objects in space. It is just not designed for observing the Earth, and doesn't carry appropriate instruments, optics, stabilization mechanisms, etc. It would be a colossal waste of money to point the Hubble toward the Earth to spy on your friend.

A much better choice would be to use one of the satellites already in orbit that are designed specifically for that job. (Although they are usually pointed towards Iraq, China, and any other country the US doesn't trust.)

I recommend a quick trip over to http://www.spaceimaging.com. They are a commerical entity which specializes in satellite imagery. The pictures on their site have 1m resolution. (ie You can see cars in the pictures).

That's the commerical (non-military, unclassified, etc.) technology. The good stuff is generally kept a secret by the military. I would guess that the military satellites are about 10x better (ie, You can see people in the pictures).

Before you panic and start wearing a tinfoil hat to keep them from reading your brainwaves, you should realize that:
1. The satellites can't see everywhere at once (the better the resolution, the smaller the field of view).
2. The pictures they produce are not realtime. They have to be processed and downloaded, which takes time.
3. The top of your head looks pretty much like everyone else's.

- Mike

P.S. Space Imaging really has some cool pictures on their site. It's worth a look.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: mallen on 2002-04-23 20:29 ]</font>

Kaptain K
2002-Apr-24, 11:30 AM
The KH series (Keyhole) spy satelites are very closely related to the Hubble.

ToSeek
2002-Apr-24, 06:21 PM
On 2002-04-24 07:30, Kaptain K wrote:
The KH series (Keyhole) spy satelites are very closely related to the Hubble.


After Hubble was launched, they found that there were steadiness problems because the solar arrays would expand and contract as Hubble went in and out of the Sun (as it did every 90 minutes), shaking the satellite slightly. They pointed out the problem to the folks who worked with the KH satellites, and they said, "Well, yes, we know about that." It wasn't a problem with the KH satellites because they took such short exposures - for Hubble it was a real issue and one of the reasons the arrays were replaced early on.

Russ
2002-Apr-25, 12:12 AM
While I have no first hand knowledge of this, having been a tool of the spooks way back when, I think I can give you some informed speculation.

Technological "leakage" from the military is actually more prolific than you'd think. The Intel 8080 prcessor was being used in Viet Nam in 74' (first hand knowledge) yet it's in the early commercial PC's by 80'.

It would seem that the builders of the HST would be stupid to try to re-invent the optics, imager, guidence, data compression, data transmission and image processing that was developed for the Key Hole series of spy satalite. I agree the spooks would have kept this collaberation quiet but they probably would do it just to "kick the bear" (irritate the Russians).

I would expect that the only thing they'd really have to change is the size and how they ground the optics. HST would be looking at nothing closer than 300K klicks away and the KH's nothing further away than 300 klicks.

I had a little personal history story about resolution and timeliness of some KH photos all typed in, but have decided to keep my mouth shut. No sense in kicking the eagle.

ToSeek
2002-Apr-25, 08:12 PM
http://pds.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/welcome/thumb/hst04.gif
Just thought I'd mention that Hubble was first deployed 12 years ago today.

Azpod
2002-Apr-25, 09:27 PM
On 2002-04-25 16:12, ToSeek wrote:
Just thought I'd mention that Hubble was first deployed 12 years ago today.



Cool... happy b-day Hubble! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

pvtpylot
2002-Apr-28, 05:56 AM
Before you panic and start wearing a tinfoil hat to keep them from reading your brainwaves, you should realize that:
1. The satellites can't see everywhere at once (the better the resolution, the smaller the field of view).
2. The pictures they produce are not realtime. They have to be processed and downloaded, which takes time.
3. The top of your head looks pretty much like everyone else's.

- Mike


In fact, because of the small fields of view these satellites always take images of places, with images of people at those places being an often beneficial, though totally accidental, bonus. The government would have to know where you were going to be beforehand in order to get an image of you. Of course, at that point it'd probably be cheaper just to have the agent who's following you take the pictures rather than the satellite. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

JayUtah
2002-Apr-28, 06:10 AM
Because Lockheed builds the Keyhole satellites and also built the HST, it is commonly believed that they share design elements. This is plausible. We know they are roughly the same size.

However, some of the problems encountered on the HST were due to the prohibition against Keyhole design expertise being used on the HST; the Keyhole technology is a secret while the HST is public.

Obviously the tracking systems would have to differ. The HST must retain a space-fixed orientation, while a KH-11 must maintain LVLH. Both, however, would require precise stationkeeping, probably both using gyrodynes. Both would probably be built around a large optical array of similar design. They would likely have similar power systems, communication systems, thermal control systems, and structural systems.

They are likely to differ in the type and sensitivity of the instruments at the receiving end of the optics. We can only guess at what wavelengths the Keyhole satellites receive and in what magnitudes.

Phobos
2002-Apr-28, 09:34 AM
I just couldn't reseist asking you to perform this following exercise on your keyboard;

1. With one finger on one hand hold down the ALT key.

2. Whilst still holding down the ALT key type in 107 on the keypad.

3. Let go of the ALT key.

You should find the result interesting, but here is another trick;

4. Move the cursor to just before what you have just typed.

5. Hold down the shift key, and press the right arrow key until what you typed was highlighted.

6. With the correct part of the screen hightlighted and still pressing shift press the Delete key.

7. Now whenever you want this special character just press Shift and Insert at the same time.

Phobos

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2002-04-28 05:36 ]</font>

ToSeek
2002-Apr-29, 01:39 PM
On 2002-04-28 05:34, Phobos wrote:
I just couldn't reseist asking you to perform this following exercise on your keyboard;


I either get a lowercase "k" or nothing. Not very exciting.

Conrad
2002-Apr-29, 01:52 PM
On 2002-04-29 09:39, ToSeek wrote:


On 2002-04-28 05:34, Phobos wrote:
I just couldn't reseist asking you to perform this following exercise on your keyboard;


I either get a lowercase "k" or nothing. Not very exciting.


That's strange, I get "THE ILLUMINATI LIZARD- KINGS ARE CONTROLLING YOUR MINDS WITH CHEMTRAILS".
What are the chances of that happening, eh?

Ben Benoy
2002-May-21, 08:11 PM
Is 107 the code for k? I didn't want to try. When I have no k's, it's because I'm at this crummy little terminal that's open to the public, and it's been spilt on a half dozen times at least. It's pretty ratty, but a nice break from working. Ok, actually, when I'm near it I'm usually taking a coffee break. So a nice break from my busy break schedule. Man, life is hard. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Also, thanks for all the info. I went and talked to they guy again, and he basically said "No no, the Hubble is an exact copy of the gov't satellite, they just don't want you to know." He's kinda a little batty sometimes. Anyhow.

Ben