[HN Gopher] 2.7-meters Telescope mirror shot 7 times (1970)
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       2.7-meters Telescope mirror shot 7 times (1970)
        
       Author : jeanlucas
       Score  : 191 points
       Date   : 2024-09-05 18:19 UTC (4 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu)
        
       | jeanlucas wrote:
       | This is no news by any metric, but I found curious that:
       | 
       | 1. It only reduced the telescope efficiency by 1%
       | 
       | 2. The original report from 1970 is still up!
       | 
       | This is the video that made me aware of the incident:
       | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59cw_bDbEqA
        
         | worstspotgain wrote:
         | To be fair, it's Texas. Even the state motto is 1% riddled with
         | bullet holes.
        
           | pmb wrote:
           | The state motto of Texas is "Friendship".
           | 
           | (this is true)
        
             | worstspotgain wrote:
             | If it was Friendship before the Alamo I'd say that works
             | out about right.
        
             | lb1lf wrote:
             | ...whereas that of New Hampshire is 'Live free or die'
             | 
             | Incidentally, NH licence plates are stamped out by prison
             | inmates.
             | 
             | Now THAT is cruel and unusual punishment, right there!
             | 
             | Edit: For those not well versed in NH plates, the state
             | motto is embossed on each and every number plate. (This may
             | be the case for every US state, for all I know)
        
               | tialaramex wrote:
               | > This may be the case for every US state, for all I know
               | 
               | Nope. What the jurisdictions choose to write on plates
               | varies, often for a fee you can have something different,
               | either of your choice (within limits) or from some
               | limited selection.
               | 
               | Famously DC has plates quipping about the "Taxation
               | Without Representation" which was notionally the reason
               | the United States wanted independence. The District of
               | Columbia of course does pay federal taxes but does not
               | receive proper democratic representation in exchange,
               | exactly the situation the colonists complained of and
               | with exactly the same retort offered in response+.
               | 
               | [This is a very small hypocrisy compared to say declaring
               | that "All men shall be free" and continuing to literally
               | enslave some of them for example]
               | 
               | + The Congress insists, just like the Westminster
               | Parliament, that these tax payers _are_ represented, but
               | virtually, with the entire institution actually somehow
               | representing their interests. If this strikes you as
               | poppycock for Westminster, it should feel no different
               | closer to home.
        
               | eadmund wrote:
               | It seems to me that it makes a great deal of sense for
               | the seat of the federal government to be located in a
               | federal district independent of any state's control. It
               | also would not make sense for that federal district to be
               | represented as a state -- that would end up being a
               | circular dependency, since the federal government is
               | created _by_ the states, and it doesn't make sense for
               | the federal district to participate in creating and
               | sustaining itself.
               | 
               | Those who choose to live within the federal district have
               | a privilege others in the United States do not have:
               | direct physical interaction with and influence over the
               | individuals composing the federal government. It makes
               | sense to me that the privilege is balanced with a lack of
               | representation in the Senate and House. Note that they
               | _do_ have representation in the Electoral College.
               | 
               | It also makes sense to me to retrocede the majority of
               | the current federal district back to the state of
               | Maryland.
        
               | mhb wrote:
               | And, incidentally, you can choose to cover or remove the
               | motto on your plate:
               | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41488122
        
               | dmoy wrote:
               | On the subject of bullet holes in 1% of the thing, NH
               | also has way laxer gun laws than Texas. (Or at least had
               | laxer laws 5 years ago, I suppose Texas probably has
               | loosened gun laws in recent years)
               | 
               | No permit for carrying, no duty to inform, no "no guns"
               | signs for buildings that carry any legal weight beyond
               | trespass. NH allows guns in bars, Texas does not. NH you
               | can still protest with guns, which is rare in most states
               | after the 1960s era civil rights protests with guns.
               | Texas nominally prohibits carrying guns for 5 yrs after a
               | violent offense, NH does not. Etc etc.
        
               | lazide wrote:
               | Yeah, Texas has been all hat no cattle for a long time
               | re: guns. Still looser restrictions than California
               | though.
               | 
               | If you want real 'wild west' living, the closest you'll
               | come is Nevada (except for Clark County), Wyoming (except
               | for Jackson), and Alaska (except for Anchorage). A few
               | other places too.
        
           | 404mm wrote:
           | You know the news is from 1970 because back then there was a
           | mental institution for people like him. And it's not like we
           | have fewer issues now.
        
             | dghughes wrote:
             | Yeah that stood out. There's basically zero mental health
             | resources now after Reagan gutted it. Now the shooter would
             | himself be shot or thrown in jail only to come out worse.
             | Repeat.
        
             | WarOnPrivacy wrote:
             | Between genealogy and caring for a MI spouse, I learned it
             | went down like this.
             | 
             | Late 18th to early 19th c. people with compassion and
             | insight opened sanitariums to provide care for folks with
             | brain disorders. Much of the care was truly revolutionary
             | and helpful. Some of it was other things. The public was
             | impressed and inspired.
             | 
             | The founders died off and institutions continued on without
             | their vision. The public lost interest; funds waned but
             | need did not.
             | 
             | By the 1980s institutions were no longer safe or caring.
             | The public had moved on. Few in power knew or cared.
             | 
             | Politicians saw funding streams they could grab w/o risking
             | reelection and forced our MI population into homelessness.
             | 
             | We're still there. My 5 state institutions are dangerous
             | hellholes. Homeless are everywhere here.
             | 
             | source: w/o long-term inpatient care, wife left the family
             | to become homeless
        
               | TremendousJudge wrote:
               | I completely agree that mental institutions are important
               | and need more funding/attention. However, your comment
               | implies that all homeless people have mental problems
               | that need treatment. Many are just very poor and most of
               | their problems (mental or otherwise) are
               | caused/exacerbated by homelessness itself. I consider
               | myself sane but if I didn't have a permanent shelter and
               | had to face the streets every night I'd go crazy too
        
               | samatman wrote:
               | It implies nothing of the sort. What it _states_ ,
               | without making implications, is that the very mentally
               | ill who would otherwise be in institutions, are instead
               | homeless. Which is the case.
        
               | TremendousJudge wrote:
               | This sentence:
               | 
               | >We're still there. My 5 state institutions are dangerous
               | hellholes. Homeless are everywhere here.
               | 
               | Implies that "Homeless are everywhere here" wouldn't be
               | the case if the institutions were good. I disagree. I
               | believe that if the institutions were good there would
               | still be homeless people, unless somebody declares to be
               | living on the streets to be a mental condition that
               | warrants forced institutionalization.
        
               | sangnoir wrote:
               | A->B =/= B->A.
               | 
               | OPs view is that lack of MI (A) results in homelessness
               | (B). You're taking that further and making the argument
               | that the existence of homelessness (B) implies lack of
               | good institutions (A) - an argument OP didn't make.
        
             | SoftTalker wrote:
             | A mental institution in Texas in 1970 was likely quite
             | undifferentiated from a prison, and one that you could be
             | sent to without having been convicted of anything. Just
             | needed a state-employed doctor to declare you insane.
        
         | tjpnz wrote:
         | Watched this last night and had a chuckle at how his initial
         | attempt to damage it failed - hammer flew right off the
         | surface. Also how seemingly nonchalant they were about the
         | event.
        
         | eternauta3k wrote:
         | 7 10 cm diameter circles have 1% of the area of a 2.7m diameter
         | circle.
        
       | avidiax wrote:
       | Reminds me of the article from Lensrentals about how much front
       | element scratches affect photo quality. Apparently not very much.
       | 
       | Wait, did they say scratches? They meant a completely cracked
       | front element.
       | 
       | https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/10/front-element-scrat...
        
         | Zobat wrote:
         | "tis but a scratch".
        
         | krackers wrote:
         | Given that, why are specs of dust on glasses so noticeable?
        
           | consp wrote:
           | Never notice them, only big stains. Maybe it depends on the
           | strength and type?
        
           | qq66 wrote:
           | Your eyes are a "wide angle lens." Scratches on wide angle
           | lenses are also very noticeable
        
             | imhoguy wrote:
             | Or damn eye floaters.
        
               | left-struck wrote:
               | Like with scratches on lenses, those floaters are only
               | visible when your eyes have a small aperture, like when
               | you're outside in broad daylight
        
               | wkat4242 wrote:
               | Floaters are a bit different because they are behind the
               | lens. It's more comparable with dust on the sensor in an
               | SLR (or dust in the sensor cavity)
               | 
               | That is also more noticeable with lower aperture but for
               | a different reason. With a low aperture the light comes
               | more from a single direction so the shadow from the dust
               | particles is more defined. The same happens with the
               | floaters. The reason you only see them when looking at
               | the sky is because they're pretty transparent and you
               | need a bright detailless surface to see the low contrast
               | they provide.
               | 
               | But it's very different from scratches on a lens surface
               | because those are in front of the optics.
        
               | philjohn wrote:
               | I'd love to get rid of mine ... and there is a procedure,
               | but I looked up photos of it and ... nope. Think I'll
               | just stick to using dark mode when using my computer
               | instead.
        
               | ridgeguy wrote:
               | Can you share a link to that procedure? I have floaters
               | bad enough to make me consider drastic steps.
        
               | throwanem wrote:
               | Talking to an optometrist isn't usually that drastic.
        
               | pasc1878 wrote:
               | All the ones I talk to say there is no way to fix
               | floaters.
               | 
               | Thus a link to the process would be useful - even if
               | searching for reviews of that process would show it does
               | not work.
        
               | xattt wrote:
               | Vitrectomy would be what you are looking for. It's fairly
               | drastic as you are pulling vitreous humour from the eye
               | in order to get rid of the floaters.
        
               | jcims wrote:
               | There's also laser vitreolysis that's substantially less
               | invasive.
               | 
               | I'm sure there are more authoritative links but i picked
               | this one because i thought it said 'burningeye.com' at
               | first:
               | 
               | https://www.brueningeye.com/laser-floater-removal
        
               | throwanem wrote:
               | During my last eye exam my optometrist advised me to call
               | the office in case of a sudden increase in floaters,
               | which might warn of a condition common in the myopic and
               | potentially progressing to retinal detachment, but which
               | can be easily treated during an office visit by a process
               | I understood to involve lasers.
               | 
               | I didn't name the procedure because, not yet having
               | needed to study it, I don't know what it is called. (I
               | don't recall the proper name of the floater-producing,
               | dangerous but ameliorable condition, either.) But I
               | understood its intent to be preventing any risk of
               | progressive loss of vision, rather than removing the
               | floaters directly. Maybe we're talking about two
               | different things, though.
        
           | seszett wrote:
           | But they aren't, only dust on the sensor is noticeable, dust
           | anywhere else just softens the image somewhat (unless maybe
           | stopped all the way down with some lenses, but it would be
           | unusual).
           | 
           |  _Edit_ heh, I was thinking about  "lens glasses". I don't
           | find dust on eyeglasses very noticeable unless light catches
           | it in some particular way.
        
             | Ylpertnodi wrote:
             | Working with a few US, it took me a while to appreciate
             | "eye-glasses", as a thing (noun). TIL "lens glasses", is
             | also a thing. I was rather hoping context would imply what
             | the subject matter is.
        
               | throwway120385 wrote:
               | Also distinguished from "opera glasses" or "field
               | glasses."
        
             | gattr wrote:
             | Similarly, you normally don't see any imperfections/dust
             | specks on your cornea - but you will if you look into a
             | very narrow (0.1-0.2 mm) beam of light (e.g., when using a
             | telescope pushed to a very high magnification = very small
             | exit pupil [1]).
             | 
             | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit_pupil
        
           | looofooo0 wrote:
           | It is in the Fourier domain or just non sharp where the dust
           | is.
        
         | 7373737373 wrote:
         | if only there was a lens that could ignore dust this way...
        
         | porphyra wrote:
         | they also have a blog post about a big house fly that somehow
         | got inside the lens but did not affect image quality
        
         | exitb wrote:
         | I was once with a group at a small local observatory, trying to
         | take a look at Venus, low over the horizon. As the rotating
         | roof rolled into the correct position, it turned out that a
         | Yagi-style antenna mounted outside sat right in middle of the
         | view. It seemed like something that'd ruin your day (or night),
         | but it turned out that it really made no noticeable difference.
        
           | ajb wrote:
           | I guess it's just down to the percentage of the aperture that
           | is blocked?
           | 
           | There's an amusing picture where a large owl has blocked a
           | substantial portion of the view:
           | 
           | https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap030401.html
        
             | exitb wrote:
             | Yes. Given enough distance, the obstructing object will
             | start to come into focus, but if it's close, it just
             | darkens the image. After all reflecting telescopes have a
             | secondary mirror (along with its mount) permanently
             | obstructing part of the primary mirror.
        
               | DoctorOetker wrote:
               | This was not a telescope, it was an all sky camera, the
               | caption explicitly states the owl scratched the optics
               | with its claws.
        
           | magicalhippo wrote:
           | Guess if you were imaging a bright star you'd might get some
           | interesting diffraction spikes[1] though.
           | 
           | [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction_spike
        
             | madaxe_again wrote:
             | You have to block a significant chunk of aperture to get
             | them.
             | 
             | This is useful, however, for focussing using a bahtinov
             | mask.
             | 
             | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahtinov_mask
        
         | skhr0680 wrote:
         | Cracks, scratches, dust, fungus, and haze are all invisible
         | until you shoot a photo with strong light in it. It's mentioned
         | and shown in the article.
        
           | SoftTalker wrote:
           | It's like driving at night with a dirty windshield. You don't
           | really notice until you meet an oncoming car with bright
           | headlights. Or similar in the daytime, when you're driving
           | into the sun.
        
         | globalise83 wrote:
         | Cool. I first learnt about this property when I took my first
         | proper camera with zoom lens to a zoo and was able to take
         | really nice pictures of a squirrel behind some kind of mesh
         | enclosure. the mesh totally disappeared.
        
       | WarOnPrivacy wrote:
       | A 1970 historical image:
       | https://historicimages.com/cdn/shop/products/nex48799_1200x....
        
       | Leo_Verto wrote:
       | Besides the report on mirror damage this telegram also appears to
       | contain observations of "periodic comet Curmumov-Gerasimenko",
       | which had been discovered a year earlier, and happens to be the
       | one ESA's Rosetta mission visited in 2016.
        
       | Mistletoe wrote:
       | https://astroanecdotes.com/2015/03/26/the-mcdonald-gun-shoot...
       | 
       | If you would like to see the bullet holes. Bigger than I imagined
       | based on the telegram.
        
         | dwighttk wrote:
         | As a Cub Scout we went on a tour of the observatory and I think
         | we were able to see the pictured view, but I may just be
         | remembering the story and imagining the image.
         | 
         | They definitely told us the story and all the kids were like
         | "coool!"
        
         | lexicality wrote:
         | > When the sheriff arrived, the employee was arrested and later
         | committed to a mental health institution. In the report
         | following the incident, the sheriff, clearly being unfamiliar
         | with telescope designs, stated that the mirror had indeed been
         | destroyed as it had a big, circular hole, right in the middle!
         | 
         | "no sir, that bigger hole was there before the incident... yes
         | sir, it is supposed to be there"
        
       | mnky9800n wrote:
       | I wish there was more information about why the guy shot the
       | telescope. But so far I find nothing.
        
         | bovermyer wrote:
         | You could try contacting the university to see who worked there
         | at the time. Dr. Smith, mentioned in the article, died in 1991.
         | His obituary is here:
         | https://quasar.as.utexas.edu/BillInfo/HJSmithObits.html
         | 
         | Alternatively, you could try contacting the sheriff's office in
         | Austin to see if their records include a mention of the
         | incident, but that information is probably protected.
        
         | throwanem wrote:
         | Once ages ago I heard a story like this, itself not young at
         | time of telling, from a professor of physics. That story might
         | have been set in Texas and did involve a handgun being fired
         | into a telescope mirror which was not meaningfully damaged by
         | the experience, but had it as a revolver wielded by a
         | revivalist-type preacher who smuggled the weapon in during a
         | tour to redress what he saw as a violation of God's domain.
         | 
         | It's been ages since I was in touch with the fellow who told
         | the story, so I can't immediately confirm whether these were
         | the same events. But the similarities are striking.
        
       | helsinkiandrew wrote:
       | New York Times:
       | https://www.nytimes.com/1970/02/07/archives/texas-man-fires-...
       | 
       | > An employe of the Mc Donald Observatory, described as drunk by
       | the sheriff and as mentally depressed by his superiors
       | 
       | > Sheriff W. B. Medley said that the shots "completely de stroyed
       | the telescope -- it was ruined." University of Texas astronomers
       | in Austin said the damage was minor.
        
         | WarOnPrivacy wrote:
         | > Sheriff: Drunk suspect destroyed telescope
         | 
         | > People who know better: Depressed employee did some minor
         | damage
         | 
         | Modern LEO techniques seem to have history.
        
       | gcanyon wrote:
       | The telescope is still in use today, and Wikipedia says that the
       | damage effectively reduced the telescope from a 107 inch mirror
       | to a 106 inch mirror.
       | 
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlan_J._Smith_Telescope
        
         | alt227 wrote:
         | The article itself says:
         | 
         | "The damage is limited to small craters about 3 to 5cm in
         | radius, which reduce the light collecting efficiency by about 1
         | percent"
        
       | mrb wrote:
       | Here is a pic showing the bullet holes in the mirror:
       | https://starhopper.org/2020/11/19/a-telescope-with-bullet-ho...
        
         | Rinzler89 wrote:
         | How did the mirror not just shatter though?
        
           | dredmorbius wrote:
           | The mirror (third largest in the world at the time) is
           | composed of fused silica. Apparently manufactured in
           | segments, then joined. The cooling process itself took two
           | years. That's described in one of the linked YouTube videos
           | in this thread:
           | <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41459171>
           | 
           | The result is a glass that's remarkably immune to shattering.
           | Possibly similar to a Prince Rupert's Drop, though that's my
           | own speculation.
           | 
           | <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fused_quartz>
        
             | adolph wrote:
             | Given years long cooling process (aka annealing), the
             | mirror would be the opposite of a Prince Rupert's Drop,
             | which is created by quenching the glass very quickly,
             | similar to the process known as tempering.
             | 
             | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annealing_(glass)
             | 
             | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempered_glass
        
               | dredmorbius wrote:
               | "Possibly" is doing some heavy lifting in my comment.
               | 
               | The similarity is in the end result, not, obviously, the
               | fabrication process.
               | 
               | The strength of the Prince Rupert's Drop comes from the
               | differential tensions and stresses in the head-end of the
               | drop. The tail, of course, is remarkably fragile and will
               | lead to the explosive failure of the entire drop. The
               | head can withstand hammer and even bullet impacts, as
               | Destin Sandlin has demonstrated multiple times on his
               | "Smarter Every Day" YouTube channel. I'd suspect a
               | similar tensile arrangement in fused silica, though of
               | course I may be wrong on that.
        
               | alwa wrote:
               | Isn't the original cooling process you're describing
               | "annealing," by which glasses are cooled slowly so as to
               | allow internal tensions to equalize? A task requiring
               | exponentially more time as the size of the slab of glass
               | increases?
               | 
               | I seem to remember glassmakers using a device called a
               | polariscope to actually see those internal stresses [0].
               | Which makes me wonder if there are optical considerations
               | as well as physical ones--although I guess if the whole
               | thing is getting silvered, probably not.
               | 
               | My understanding, which could be flawed, was that
               | perfectly annealed glass resists cracking because there
               | isn't a clear fault line to cleave across, something akin
               | to the way hot water in a perfectly smooth glass has
               | trouble boiling if deprived of a nucleation site. While a
               | Rupert's drop achieves its stability by something more
               | akin to the trope of a "Mexican standoff," [1], where
               | countervailing tensions are so densely frozen in place
               | that a little extra tension from the outside makes little
               | difference (but when one crack forms, all bets are off
               | and the tensions resolve explosively).
               | 
               | I'm also reminded of one of my very favorite moments of
               | video: the silvering pass during the manufacture of the
               | Rubin Observatory's 23.5-ton, 8.4-meter-diameter mirror;
               | which took from 2008 until 2019 to manufacture:
               | 
               | https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ftKsP3do4nM&t=38
               | 
               | [0]
               | https://www.public.asu.edu/~aomdw/GSI/Glass_Strain.html
               | 
               | [1] https://www.backstage.com/magazine/article/how-to-do-
               | a-mexic...
        
               | dredmorbius wrote:
               | I'm well out of my depth, so, at this point, I don't
               | know.
        
           | klyrs wrote:
           | According to TFA, they're craters, not proper holes. The
           | force of the bullet wasn't enough to puncture the glass, just
           | puverize the points of impact
        
           | hooper wrote:
           | Part of this that hasn't been mentioned is that the mirror is
           | thicker than you might expect. The observatory's website says
           | 12.5 inches (though it will vary somewhat across the curved
           | surface).
        
       | MeteorMarc wrote:
       | Proven to be vandalproof!
        
       | moffkalast wrote:
       | > McDonald Observatory, University of Texas
       | 
       | And all right in the world.
        
       | geocrasher wrote:
       | Last year I built a Hadley telescope, which is a 3d printed
       | structure with some inexpensive optics from China.
       | 
       | https://www.printables.com/model/224383-astronomical-telesco...
       | 
       | One of the things that surprised me, being new to telescopes (and
       | certainly never having built one) was that it was deemed better
       | to leave dust on the optics than to potentially damage them by
       | trying to clean them. The dust just doesn't affect image quality.
       | 
       | I had no ide athat would scale up to gunshots however! Very
       | impressive.
        
       | verandaguy wrote:
       | I say this having read the mailing list and specifically the part
       | that mentions the mirror is made of fused silica:
       | 
       | What the _hell_ is that mirror made of?
       | 
       | Is this kind of behaviour a well-documented/practical property of
       | silica? I would assume that it'd shatter after _any_ amount of
       | shots and a hammer blow.
        
         | throwway120385 wrote:
         | Fused silica is very pure quartz.
        
           | verandaguy wrote:
           | Wouldn't that be quite brittle, though?
        
             | lazide wrote:
             | It Depends(tm). Usually on the grain alignment/lack
             | thereof. As long as the grains are suitably randomized, it
             | can be very durable.
             | [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartzite]
        
       | dredmorbius wrote:
       | The McDonald Observatory is open to the public (a consequence, as
       | I understand, of it being on the highest-elevation public highway
       | (6,814 ft, 2,077m) in Texas, and hence having right of public
       | access), with both guided and self-guided tours of several of the
       | telescopes / domes, including the 2.7m Smith scope. The damage is
       | visible from the public gallery as I recall.
       | 
       | The scope is primarily used for spectroscopic studies, though it
       | can also be used for direct visual imaging, which might account
       | for why it's even less susceptible to mirror damage than might
       | otherwise be the case.
       | 
       | The region is _quite_ rural, with the nearest settlements being
       | Fort Davis to the southeast and Fort Stockton to the northeast.
       | Among other local attractions are Alpine ( "AL-peen"), home to a
       | federal courthouse, and Marfa, a remarkably liberal artist
       | colony.
       | 
       | Remarkably beautiful following a freezing frost in winter time,
       | as well.
        
       | willguest wrote:
       | When all you've got is a hammer, but then remember that you're
       | carrying a 9mm...
        
       | dekhn wrote:
       | you can always tell a reflector scope person because they'll just
       | say "all it did was reduce contrast"
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-09-09 23:02 UTC)