Talk:Hubble Space Telescope

What languages used to program the computers on-board

Article talks about the hardware and OS (for spacecraft and instruments) - but what programming language(s) used ? C ? - Rod57 (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

FAR

Article has a lot of issues, unsourced statements and potential OR. Without improvements, it would be soon sent into FAR. 2001:4455:1A9:E100:CC56:726C:B9BE:7DA8 (talk) 12:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

That is a serious charge to be made and without specifics. There a few cite needed tags in article now that do need attention. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP and Fnlayson, I'm following up on this FAR after a note on my talk page. I took a quick skim, and I'm going to note some concerns below. Are either one of you interested in addressing these concerns?

• I believe the citation needed tags are valid. I am particularly concerned that the "List of Hubble instruments" does not have any citations. I think some of these paragraphs are verified by the citation in the subsequent paragraph, but this will need to be checked.
• The article suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION, with lots of one-paragraph sections that can be merged. Some of these might be warranted, others might not be. For example, "Servicing Mission 3A" and "3B" might be merged together, with multiple hatnotes at the top of the section, "Policy" and "Proposals" might be merged in the "Public use" section, and some of the shorter sections in "Important discoveries" might be merged into a miscellaneous section or grouped together in another way. Thoughts?
• "Logsdon, John M.; Snyder, Amy Paige; Launius, Roger D.; Garber, Stephen J.; Newport, Regan Anne, eds. (2001)." is listed in the bibliography but is not used as an inline citation. Should this be used as a source or should it be removed?
• "HUBBLE INSTRUMENTS REMAIN IN SAFE MODE, NASA TEAM INVESTIGATING". Per MOS:ALLCAPS this should be converted to lowercase and this citation should be properly formatted.

Those are my thoughts after a skim. Please ping me if you have any questions or if the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Article needs to be also updated/expanded either way when the issues above were resolved. I've left notice at the 3 wikiprojects on this highly visible article, so they'll know. 2001:4455:30B:6C00:45B7:D10F:374A:178A (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/ finds tons of weblinks that need to be checked. I took care of references 1 to 70. hubblesite.org in particular is bad, it made redirects to the main page and removed all the referenced articles. web.archive.org doesn't have these pages because it thinks the 301 redirect is sufficient. Everything from Space Telescope Science Institute is likely dead or needs at least a new URL. --mfb (talk) 07:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! It looks like it'll be a bit of a slog, but manageable. The news releases from hubblesite.org seem to still be there, just in different places; other content of theirs is harder to track down. XOR'easter (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I think between XOR and myself we've found the dodgy links and either replaced or fixed them; I just went through from 200-end. Primefac (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@XOR'easter, Primefac, and Mfb: Thanks for your work in improving the article. I am sorry that I did not respond to this sooner. If you think the article meets the FA criteria, can you mark it as "Satisfactory" at WP:URFA/2020A? If there are still concerns, can you outline them below? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Clean Up First paragraph

I would like to remove this part of the first paragraph

"along with the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory (1991–2000), the Chandra X-ray Observatory (1999–present), and the Spitzer Space Telescope (2003–2020).[8]"

It seems redundant information because there is a link in the paragraph that takes readers to the page on NASA's Great Observatories. Any thoughts? KittyHawkFlyer (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The reader should not have to click on a link to understand the context. Maybe move the Great Observatories mention to the last paragraph in the Lead instead. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Would suggest keeping all of the other telescopes. Not every reader has a working knowledge of the space astronomy field and giving them three similar-quality instruments to read about or study potentially enhances their sought-after understanding of Hubble. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Good point that having these other telescopes listed here is more helpful to the readers and can help their understanding of Hubble. It looks like the paragraph was reverted. I appreciate the help and input on this. I'll look and see how moving this list to the last paragraph might work out. KittyHawkFlyer (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks like this list was moved. KittyHawkFlyer (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion

Can someone add that the telescope has been having a gyroscopic issue since november 23? Sebbers1010292929 (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

We would need a source to indicate it, and possibly wait until the issue has either been fixed or demonstrated to be an irreparable failure before adding. Primefac (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)