• teft@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    Hubble is essentially a Keyhole satellite so I assume if they flipped it around we’d have really clear photos of earth similar to the one trump got in trouble for showing on live tv.

    • QuinceDaPence@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Those spy satellites are focused at the distance of earth. Hubble is focused at infinity or near-infinity.

      You’d just get some really blurry images.

      • them@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Is focus to infinity that different for these types of scopes compared to a conventional camera which focuses to infinity after a couple hundred metres? I would have thought the draw back would be the focal lengths giving you a very small area in frame.

        • QuinceDaPence@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Focal length and aperture both affect how much focus matters.

          Also with most regular cameras, from what I’ve heard they actually have their max focus slightly past infinity to account for thermal expansion so the general advice for doing astrophotography is to focus on the subject, not just whacking it to infinity.

    • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Not really. Hubble is set up to image objects light years away and moving relatively slowly.

      Keyhole stats as set up to image the earth’s surface that is only hundreds/thousands km away and moving quite fast.

      Two different missions would lead to two different designs.

      • teft@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        That would lead to different focal lengths not different designs completely. Both optical systems for HST and KH were designed by Perkin Elmer so I’ll stick with my first thought that they would be very similar in capabilities.

        • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          Did you watch the video?

          The tracking problems Hubble would have imaging the earth surface are a direct guide to what differences the design would be.

              • mkwt@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                11 months ago

                And the angular momentum is conserved.

                Your choices are basically RCS thrusters or reaction wheels. Thrusters burn limited fuel. Reaction wheels are flywheels inside the satellite that you spin in the operator opposite direction to where you want to rotate. They are limited by the mass and size of flywheel, and the maximum speed you can spin it up to.

                • yetiftw@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  electromagnets also work as the earth has a magnetic field. a pair of reaction wheels can be rotated (which yes, adds complexity) opposite directions along an axis perpendicular to the axles once they have reached saturation, effectively resetting the reaction wheels

          • teft@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            Did you finish the video where they essentially say what I said in my first comment? Hubble and spy satellites share a lot of the same technologies. I wasn’t aware of the speed issue but other than that they are similar like I said.