Author Topic: KH-7 & 8 the GAMBIT Family  (Read 16255 times)

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10992
  • Liked: 2460
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: KH-7 & 8 the GAMBIT Family
« Reply #20 on: 03/04/2014 02:08 PM »
I thought the original MMT mirrors where 72" not 70", so that would not be a perfect match.



Wikipedia, which is never wrong, says that the MMT mirrors were 1.8 meters. Google, which is never wrong, says that 1.8 meters is 70.8661 inches.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8526
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1028
  • Likes Given: 235
Re: KH-7 & 8 the GAMBIT Family
« Reply #21 on: 03/04/2014 02:23 PM »
Multiple old articles say MMT used pre-metric 72" mirrors, while the current article in S&T said this new telescope has a 70" mirror.

For instance:
https://www.mmto.org/node/6
http://siarchives.si.edu/research/videohistory_catalog9542.html
http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/groundup/lesson/scopes/mmt/

That is a 2" difference and why I am saying the KH-10 DORIAN/MOL is not a perfect fit.

I will give you a small possible out, it was mentioned this mirror has chip on the edge, was a 72" mirror masked down to 70" and everyone is reporting the masked size?
« Last Edit: 03/04/2014 02:25 PM by kevin-rf »
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2152
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 1017
  • Likes Given: 793
Re: KH-7 & 8 the GAMBIT Family
« Reply #22 on: 03/04/2014 03:07 PM »
I got the April issue of S&T in my hands an it says "70-inch (1.8-meter)" in the text.

1.8 meters is actually 70.866 inches. The author should have rounded up to 71 inch.

The MMT website says "1.8-m (72-inches)." Since the mirrors were made in the 1970s in the US, they probably really are 72 inches. Converting 72 inch to meters gives you 1.8288 meters. You would round that off to 1.8 meters.

http://www.mmto.org/node/6

In the quotes from Mike Clememts, the builder of the telescope, he never says the size.

So it looks like 70 inch or 72 inch issue is merely rounding error, including rounding down when the author should have rounded up.

I wish my fellow Americans would drop this US Customary Units foolishness and go SI metric like the rest of the civilized world. The math is simpler and no conversion factors are needed if you use MKS. For some strange reason, astronomers still use CGS. I mean really, ergs? Of course, I never complained to my professors and happily used CGS in class.

Another pet peeve of mine is when people say the US uses Imperial units. No it's, US Customary Units. There is a difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10992
  • Liked: 2460
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: KH-7 & 8 the GAMBIT Family
« Reply #23 on: 03/04/2014 06:08 PM »
I wish my fellow Americans would drop this US Customary Units foolishness and go SI metric like the rest of the civilized world.

Don't kid yourself, it's not that civilized.

« Last Edit: 03/04/2014 07:19 PM by Blackstar »

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8526
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1028
  • Likes Given: 235
Re: KH-7 & 8 the GAMBIT Family
« Reply #24 on: 03/04/2014 07:02 PM »
Hey, what's 2" between friends...
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Melt Run

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: KH-7 & 8 the GAMBIT Family
« Reply #25 on: 03/05/2014 04:10 PM »
I got the April issue of S&T in my hands an it says "70-inch (1.8-meter)" in the text.

1.8 meters is actually 70.866 inches. The author should have rounded up to 71 inch.

The MMT website says "1.8-m (72-inches)." Since the mirrors were made in the 1970s in the US, they probably really are 72 inches. Converting 72 inch to meters gives you 1.8288 meters. You would round that off to 1.8 meters.

http://www.mmto.org/node/6

In the quotes from Mike Clememts, the builder of the telescope, he never says the size.

So it looks like 70 inch or 72 inch issue is merely rounding error, including rounding down when the author should have rounded up.

I wish my fellow Americans would drop this US Customary Units foolishness and go SI metric like the rest of the civilized world. The math is simpler and no conversion factors are needed if you use MKS. For some strange reason, astronomers still use CGS. I mean really, ergs? Of course, I never complained to my professors and happily used CGS in class.

Another pet peeve of mine is when people say the US uses Imperial units. No it's, US Customary Units. There is a difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units
This is a classic case of picking nits.
The glass runs out to 72 inches, the bevel and figure roll off have a CA of 70.866 (more or less). With the chip it could be less. It is what it is, which is a post MOL left over.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8526
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1028
  • Likes Given: 235
Re: KH-7 & 8 the GAMBIT Family
« Reply #26 on: 03/05/2014 05:00 PM »
So, any chance the 70", f6.1, 10,700 mm focal length, slightly over corrected parabola is the original figure?

(Yes I used a comma instead of a dot as a bow to the uncivilized world ;) )
 
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline archipeppe68

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Italy
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: KH-7 & 8 the GAMBIT Family
« Reply #27 on: 03/06/2014 07:20 AM »
A small teaser of the ongoing job....

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8526
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1028
  • Likes Given: 235
Re: KH-7 & 8 the GAMBIT Family
« Reply #28 on: 03/06/2014 03:49 PM »
The human does nothing for me, how about one from baywatch ;)

Thanks for the cutaway view.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10992
  • Liked: 2460
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: KH-7 & 8 the GAMBIT Family
« Reply #29 on: 03/06/2014 04:14 PM »
The human does nothing for me, how about one from baywatch ;)


Or one reading his phone...

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8526
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1028
  • Likes Given: 235
Re: KH-7 & 8 the GAMBIT Family
« Reply #30 on: 03/06/2014 06:27 PM »
Given the period, that should be a "reading his slide rule"!
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline archipeppe68

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Italy
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: KH-7 & 8 the GAMBIT Family
« Reply #31 on: 03/10/2014 12:04 PM »
Another spoiler, this time I worked (hard) around the Agena engine and the optics....

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8526
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1028
  • Likes Given: 235
Re: KH-7 & 8 the GAMBIT Family
« Reply #32 on: 03/10/2014 01:25 PM »
Very, Very nice, thankyou for sharing.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline archipeppe68

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Italy
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: KH-7 & 8 the GAMBIT Family
« Reply #33 on: 03/10/2014 02:00 PM »
Very, Very nice, thankyou for sharing.

Many thanks kevin for your appreciation, currently I'm trying to make my way across the various camera system (C, C-Prime, C-Triple Prime and Mural)....

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8277
  • UK
  • Liked: 1341
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: KH-7 & 8 the GAMBIT Family
« Reply #34 on: 03/10/2014 02:56 PM »
Thanks for your work on these illustrations.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10992
  • Liked: 2460
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: KH-7 & 8 the GAMBIT Family
« Reply #35 on: 04/27/2014 02:35 AM »
I have had a hard time figuring out how the camera system in the Samos E-6 worked. There were two cameras, one forward, one aft. They were 36-inch focal length.

Looking at this cutaway image of the camera, I can sorta figure out the lens barrel. But at the upper right of the schematic is the film system. There must be a film platen in there. This was a panoramic camera, so it must have exposed a strip of film. But how?


Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8526
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1028
  • Likes Given: 235
Re: KH-7 & 8 the GAMBIT Family
« Reply #36 on: 04/27/2014 02:55 AM »
Newtonian?
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8526
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1028
  • Likes Given: 235
Re: KH-7 & 8 the GAMBIT Family
« Reply #37 on: 04/27/2014 03:17 AM »
Blackstar, this is a Wild <Censored> Guess (WAG). I could be completely off base. Do you have a better scan?

Edit: Second thought, this is completely wrong. I think the Newtonian is correct, (with maybe the "lens/corrector" in front of the diagonal ) feeding into a all optical equivalent of twister.

I see two small folding mirrors. It is possible to steer a beam with those two mirrors and take the rotation out without the KH-9 twister and air bars.

btw. I have finally had time to dig into "Meeting the Challenge", I am loving every page of it. 
« Last Edit: 04/27/2014 03:40 AM by kevin-rf »
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8526
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1028
  • Likes Given: 235
Re: KH-7 & 8 the GAMBIT Family
« Reply #38 on: 04/27/2014 03:55 AM »
WAG 2.0
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10992
  • Liked: 2460
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: KH-7 & 8 the GAMBIT Family
« Reply #39 on: 04/27/2014 04:05 AM »
Thanks. I'm going to have to forward that to Phil and see what he thinks.

The available images of the Samos variants are really disappointing. We have no photos of the actual E-1 camera, or the E-4, 5 or 6. We have drawings of the E-1, E-2 and E-5, and E-6, but the E-6 drawing is very confusing. I have no idea why there are no photos of the cameras themselves. Either that was an Air Force security thing, or they exist but have not been released because they're buried somewhere. It is possible that Kodak has them somewhere. I hope.

Tags: