Celestia Forums

Jestr,

A photograph of the HST's primary mirror is on an ESA Web page at
http://www.spacetelescope.org/about/history/timeline.html
showing the central perforation as an almost white circle. It should be possible to measure its size from that.

The ESA also has an interactive Flash model of the HST at
http://www.spacetelescope.org/goodies/interactive_hubble/index.html
Many of the physical details are missing, though.
For example, the internal light baffles are not drawn.

An artistic cross section is at http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/html/instruments.html
It seems to include a reasonably good representation of the mechanical parts of the optical assembly, including some of the light baffles.

I have just uploaded newer versions of Big Hubble addon,with the tube at the front darker and a little more realistic I hope.I tried editing the CMOD text file to get it a bit shinier but it didnt work.The links posted above have been changed so you can click on those or on these
CMOD version-
http://celestiamotherlode.net/creators/jestr/BigHubbleCMOD_V3.zip
3DS version-
http://celestiamotherlode.net/creators/jestr/BigHubble3DS_V3.zip
Thanks again for everyones help on this,Jestr

jestr wrote:I have just uploaded newer versions of Big Hubble addon,with the tube at the front darker and a little more realistic I hope.I tried editing the CMOD text file to get it a bit shinier but it didnt work.
Jestr

Hello Jestr, very nice indeed.
You are going towards perfection.
Three little things: the "aperture door", i.e. the door that closes the tube, opens to 107deg, not 90 as in the model.
Moreover, actually it's visible the hole in the mirror, but it really is covered by the secondary mirror cage, at least when our eye is in axis with the tube.
And the spyder arms that restrain the secondary mirror cage are still missing.
So the front view should be close to this:



The shades of black are exaggerated in my drawing.
Hope I have been clear, beg your pardon for my bad English.
By

Andrea

Great stuff going here...fantastic work...a real team effort!

Regards...bh.

Andrea,how about this one does it look closer to the real thing?

How dark should the mirror cage be black or dark grey?Cheers Jestr

jestr wrote:I have just uploaded newer versions of Big Hubble addon,with the tube at the front darker and a little more realistic I hope.I tried editing the CMOD text file to get it a bit shinier but it didnt work.

Jestr,

I love ya man, but 36 MB for a CMOD version of the Hubble telescope?
Why is this particular model so cumbersome? I have also compared it
to Terrier's version of the HST on my limited machine, and I must say that
I prefer Terrier's version. Nothing personal in what I say, it's just that I
can't fathom the reasoning behind this massive CMODel. Remember, I'm
Brain-Dead too, so I probably just don't understand.

Take care, Bob

Brain dead boy, this model is huge just because of the HUGE level of details. If you look closely at the new model, in Celestia, you'll see that all the small bits and parts contains A LOT of details. Maybe too much, actually, as the other version is already very satisfying.

jestr wrote:Andrea,how about this one does it look closer to the real thing. How dark should the mirror cage be black or dark grey?Cheers Jestr

Hello Jestr, you are a lightning!
The cage should be black, slightly lighter than the other stuff, so to make it visible. The same for the spyder 4 arms, that are too thick, in the real thing they are very thin, about 8-10 mm, but obviously you should make them a little thicker, in order to make them visible.
Regarding Bob's post, I can agree with him, but we are so lucky to have two different version of the HST, one "light" and one "heavy", and this means that the owners of ALL the graphic cards can enjoy it as for their possibilities.
So, why limit this for more powerful cards?
In my show of the Earh, I use the "light" HST, but when showing the "Space conquest" I'll love to use the "heavy" one, with the bluemarble32kdds in the background.
Why have I to limit my possibilities, if nice people like Jestr use their free time to allow the use of such a wonderful model?
Am I wrong?
By

Andrea

I tryed both, the CMOD and the 3ds and it takes years to Celestia to load the models... I dont know if its my video card or my RAM memory...

jestr wrote:Andrea,how about this one does it look closer to the real thing?

Looks fine, what a great work! Can't wait for the final release
Ah: seems to me that the 2 antennae aren't oriented in the same direction, on many picts of HST whe can see, yes? Cheers, Jeam

ElPelado,

All of the above.

And don't forget to include your CPU and disk in your list of things that must be upgraded!

Cham wrote:Brain dead boy, this model is huge just because of the HUGE level of details.

Thanks for the explanation, but just a few words in reply...

First, I ain't a "boy." If you'd care to look at my website, you'll see that
I'm a rather aged, old geezer.

Second, I do understand about the detail, but I've never even seen a
model this large before. Terrier's model is 576 KB on my machine, and I
was just rather dumbfounded to see that Jestr's model is 36 MegaBytes.

When I compare the two models on my machine, the slowness and inability
of my system to keep rendering the large model, as opposed to the smaller
model, is just not worth the trouble. Sorry.

I believe that Mr. Jestr's models are the Best in the Business, but if I can't
really SEE the extra detail on my under-powered machine, then it's really
not worth all of the trouble is it?

Thanks, Bob

I understand your point, and you are right. The new model is really huge. On my system, it's really painfully slow too. Maybe the size and slowness of that model are too much, for the added details compared to the other one. But it's an alternative for people which are having a very good system (I mean a fast one).

Yeah Jeam I noticed this,also the solar panels,but I kinda thought both of these would move around as Hubble orbits-is this correct?or should they be in fixed position .on the original model the HGAntennae were stowed away on the sides of the tube,and the aperture door was closed(hence no detail on the mirrors-it is a big model but I have made it a little bit smaller than it started out.About the mirrors,should we be able to see the primary mirror also or is it all enclosed from the secondary mirror down-it is difficult to tell from the sketches?All the best Jestr

jestr wrote:Yeah Jeam I noticed this,also the solar panels,but I kinda thought both of these would move around as Hubble orbits-is this correct?or should they be in fixed position .on the original model the HGAntennae were stowed away on the sides of the tube,and the aperture door was closed(hence no detail on the mirrors-it is a big model but I have made it a little bit smaller than it started out.About the mirrors,should we be able to see the primary mirror also or is it all enclosed from the secondary mirror down-it is difficult to tell from the sketches?All the best Jestr

Honestly, I don't know all the details of the up to date orientation of the antennae, but as they relay informations towards TDRS sats, it seems natural to me to show the 2 opposite orientations to summarize the possible orientations. Displacements of the panels, like the movements of aperture door, depend on more exceptional circumstances, IIRC: There positions for a static model, as those which Terrier's or your HirRes one are perfectly credible, are not they?Jeam

jestr wrote:About the mirrors,should we be able to see the primary mirror also or is it all enclosed from the secondary mirror down-it is difficult to tell from the sketches?All the best Jestr

Hello Jestr, here a drawing that I hope will make things more clear:



If your eye (-A) is on line with the optical axis, you can see:
the secondary mirror cage (-C)
the main mirror (-D)
If your eye (-B) is sufficiently off-line with the optical axis, you can see:
the secondary mirror cage (-C)
the main mirror (-D)
the main mirror baffle (-E)
but YOU CANNOT see the hole in the main mirror.
This because the baffles make stray light NEVER reach the instrument's focus, whatever be its angle respect to the optical axis.
The baffles are "barriers" to unwilled light, while allow to all the light reaching the main mirror to be reflected to the secondary mirror and from there to the focus in the instrument bay.
Hope to have been clear, sorry for my English, and for my horrible drawing of the eyes.
By

Andrea

Are we trying to render detail that is just not possible without a (excuse my language) f**k off machine?...It's too big for mine although I've an upgrade coming soon. Bob...from one old geezer to another...yay!

Regards...bh.

I'm an old geezer too, but I vote in favor of the higher detailed models, even if my system slows to 1 frame every 6 seconds (which it does with the new Hubble) If I need the speed again I simply move the new hubble out of the extras directory and put the old one back in...a good reason we could use a feature built into the program to select/deselect models or systems. For my "normal" viewing though I have to stick with lower res and less detailed models/planets, but I do enjoy seeing what IS possible. Faster pc's are not that expensive these days. Keep the details coming! I hope they get so good we'll be able to see every nut, bolt and screw

It runs slowly on my system, too, but I also vote for details, including the internal ones that you supposedly can't see. You can see them if you place your viewpoint inside the model. For visibility of the parts of the model, I'd also vote for the optical baffles not being completely black, although that's a little unrealistic. Ambient Light needs a little something to work with

selden wrote:And don't forget to include your CPU and disk in your list of things that must be upgraded!

Why? My disk is ok for now, 40GB. CPU, ok maybe, but its nor urgent. I have a Pentium IV 1.5GHz