What were the initial reactions to the Hubble Space Telescope's first images?

Submitted by DisastrousDLC t3_xto34b in space

Given the launch of the James Webb telescope a couple months ago, and the incredible images that have come out of that, it has had me wondering about its predecessor. Obviously when the telescope was launched in 1990 we were well aware of other celestial bodies, but did we have prior knowledge of the sheer scope and beauty of the cosmos? Were there cameras powerful enough before Hubble to see our cosmic backyard in great detail? And was there any major public response, of admiration or wonder or anything else for that matter?

I know personally, when I look at those photos, so many complex emotions run through me; it's extremely difficult to describe, although maybe a sense of whimsicality, amazement, a sense of being, and even dread. I understand that many people feel similar to me too, and so was this a major phenomena in the early 90's, or were other events forcing it to the side-line?

9

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

undeterred_turtle t1_iqqtain wrote

I think the reaction to Hubble's first "image" was something like: "oh God, we f****d up." Because one of the mirrors was slightly off. Hubble had to be fixed before we got any of those beautiful images

21

rainotenk t1_iqqtuqa wrote

At first, all did try to clean there glasses, to get rid of the fuzz...

6

alalaladede t1_iqqv4rb wrote

When Hubble was deployed I was in University studying physics, and I can say for sure that we were all highly impressed by the first images, even if they weren't perfect because of the faulty mirror problem. The public hype was not quite as big as it was with the JWST, AFAIR, but never the less it was a major news event.

This is not to say however, that there hadn't been similarily impressive images of astronomic objects before Hubble. After all there had been extremely powerful ground based instruments for decades before its launch, and quite a number of publications that showed off their results.

A good example would be Timothy Ferris' book GALAXIES from 1988. Just google it and you will find the best examples of what was doable with ground based telescopes and analog photography. I am sure you will be impressed both by those pre Hubble images and also by the improvements Hubble brought us.

4

CTDKZOO t1_iqqxvtj wrote

I can only speak as a "regular" person (no background in astronomy, etc.).

It was a LOT like how people reacted to the new images. It was a major advance forward and sparked imagination and wonder. In me at least.

What's really nice is that one day we are going to upgrade beyond Webb and you'll be just as delighted. More, in this case, is always better!

2

ryschwith t1_iqrfk4k wrote

Mostly I remember it being kind of a shitshow until suddenly it wasn’t. Cost overruns, technical difficulties, schedule problems. Then they finally get it into space and it can’t even focus right because they messed up the mirror. It—and NASA—was something of a joke at the time. Lots of questioning of why we spent so much money to take fuzzy star pictures.

And then they figured out a few algorithms to deal with the focus issues, the deep field photo came out, and suddenly everyone was (deservedly) big fans.

1

reddit455 t1_iqrnhap wrote

Hubble had a problem. so it was 3 years before the corrected images were seen.

I think the "wow" by then was mostly.. "thank god the fix worked"

​

>but did we have prior knowledge of the sheer scope and beauty of the cosmos?

​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field#Scientific_results

The HDF data provided extremely rich material for cosmologists to analyse and by late 2014 the associated scientific paper for the image had received over 900 citations.[15] One of the most fundamental findings was the discovery of large numbers of galaxies with high redshift values.

> were other events forcing it to the side-line?

not sure what you mean by "side-line"

2

agrk t1_iqsi1rh wrote

Once the problems were fixed, there we started getting some details of things we've previously only seen as dots. It provided a lot of data, but it wasn't as visually impressive right away like with the Webb telescope.

The visual wow moments in the 90's came from probes like Gallileo. Not that Hubble hasn't provided amazing images, but mostly it provided actual images of many distant objects. And pixels where we previously didn't see anything.

1