Just reading between the lines...
If the NRO doesn't need these optics any longer, that means they have something better already in service, right ? Of course, they aren't giving way those spares yet.
How challenging to build a suitable spacecraft around these telescopes ? I assume there isn't much technology that needs to be developed to make these operational.
Not technology but a lot of hardware
From the NYT article: "Instead of requiring an expensive launch to a solar orbit, the telescope can operate in geosynchronous Earth orbit...."
Not technology but a lot of hardware
I would assume that the major item would be two Satellite bus
From the NYT article: "Instead of requiring an expensive launch to a solar orbit, the telescope can operate in geosynchronous Earth orbit...."
that doesn't make sense.
Maybe the data rate would be such that it would overload TDRS, and they want a direct link to a high-capacity earth station?
Still, curious to see whether NASA can muster funds together to launch one or both telescopes, would assume they are going to L1 since no need to refurbish them.
I doubt there's much point in sending these telescopes to L2.
So they are sitting in an ITT clean room, does this mean Lockheed (KH-11 and beyond) heritage and not the canceled Boeing FIA imaging birds?
Can't think of any other reason offhand to prefer geosynchronous. You'd still be crossing the Earth's shadow boundary (which tends to unsettle the Hubble, ISTR) as the Earth itself rotates, etc.
TDRS isn't used for either orbit.
Not to pull a Jim,
But this should be a large heavy Telescope.
How much did Hubble weigh again?
What are the chances it will weigh less?
KH-11's require a Delta Heavy for LEO.
So other than a Delta Heavy, what exists to launch this into an orbit beyond LEO? Will a Delta Heavy be able to launch one of these to L2?
Now I will give you, KH-11's is believed to have launched a large amount of fuel for orbital maneuvers. I just think it will be very expensive to put one of these in HEO or L2. Could a Titan 34D/IV have sent Hubble to L2? I really don't know the answer, it is just setting off a flag.
I wonder if a private/public partnership could be devised:But why would SLS be used for telescopes this small?
Hold a competition to see if any interested parties are interested in providing either expensive parts or capabilities (thinking toward Planetary Resources).
A few years from now, the private sector may have methods of long range optical communication and stabilizers/data timing for optical interferometry. Might be worth asking around anyways/assessing interest...
Edit: You beat me to it Robert Ross! Also, by 2020, there will apparently be at least one sufficiently potent rocket on the market for this...
It's funny how quickly serious discussions on this board immediately skate off into LaLaLand. SpaceX, SLS and Planetary Resources are really not in the same decision space as what is being proposed.Some telescope parts exist with no program or supporting hardware. That appears less real/likely than Falcon Heavy does imo.
Everybody on this board tends to think in terms of hardware. But there's also no program or mission in existence yet. And the astronomy program is broke.
It's funny how quickly serious discussions on this board immediately skate off into LaLaLand.
Especially if launch costs are $100 million or so.
It's funny how quickly serious discussions on this board immediately skate off into LaLaLand. SpaceX, SLS and Planetary Resources are really not in the same decision space as what is being proposed.Some telescope parts exist with no program or supporting hardware. That appears less real/likely than Falcon Heavy does imo.
PR and SLS are more of a stretch to be sure. But PR or another private sector group might enable a cost sharing which would make this attractive enough to find remaining funding. Especially if launch costs are $100 million or so.
SLS, if it gets built, will be keen to find inexpensive payloads (presumably). Loading a double-shot of second-hand telescopes might be worthwhile politically (to the SLS backers).
1-So, Blackstar, assuming a program develops around these optics, how much do you think it will cost? 1/2 billion? 1 billion?, 2 billion?
2-So does your gut say early KH-11 optics? Thirty years seems a long time to sit in a clean room. How long from the cancellation of MOL until the optics ended up in MMT?
Especially if launch costs are $100 million or so.
If this thing needs a Delta Heavy, you talking $300 million for the launch.
That does not include the space craft bus, sensors, ground infrastructure, and development work.
So, Blackstar, assuming a program develops around these optics, how much do you think it will cost? 1/2 billion? 1 billion?, 2 billion?
If I were working JWST, I'd be feeling pretty nervous right now.
If I were working JWST, I'd be feeling pretty nervous right now.
I got the impression from the articles (they don't say clearly) that these things are more for visible light, whereas JWST is aimed at infra-red work?
It's quite possible that the optics (coatings, glass, etc) are optimized for visible/near IR (< 1.5 micron). If the optics are to be used, then an appropriate focal plane would need to be chosen, there are commercial vendors with various array densities with say 5 to 7 micron pixel pitch and 64 to roughly 100 megapixels per array. Of course you still have to mount the sub systems and test them - are the test fixtures from the original manufacture still available? I suspect the focal plane processing sub system would have to be built from scratch and the always present problem of getting the data to the ground. My gut feeling is a project on order billion dollars.If I were working JWST, I'd be feeling pretty nervous right now.
I got the impression from the articles (they don't say clearly) that these things are more for visible light, whereas JWST is aimed at infra-red work?
Noel
It's quite possible that the optics (coatings, glass, etc) are optimized for visible/near IR (< 1.5 micron).
My gut feeling is a project on order billion dollars.
1-I guess another interesting question to ask might be what the value of these mirrors are. If there were a program to replace Hubble with two similar space telescopes what would having this hardware save the program? There are other costs as some have already pointed out, things like sensors, satellite buses, power systems, and launch costs. It could be that even though these mirrors would cost quite a bit of money to make that they are still a small part of the whole cost.
2-Didn't a spare mirror from the Hubble project get made into a ground based telescope? If these mirrors can't make it to space they are still a pretty good size even on the ground.
My guess is that this thing would really have to stay in the visible region. But I gather that for the mission they want after JWST (that's going to investigate planet/etc formation, for which they need the IR capability), which is dark matter investigations, visible only is just fine.
Right, they're not competing on science. I still see them as competing for funding, especially given the troubled history of JWST cost overruns.
Considering JHU HOP as a benchmark for a telescope program that already had existing instruments in-hand, could launch on an AV-521, and still cost $1B for 1 telescope, I think the bidding for this program would *start* at $2B and go up from there.
I would not necessarily say "small," but certainly not a major part of the whole cost.
They're talking about doing the W-FIRST mission.
So when I first read this it was like, “gee thanks, I think”? So then it comes off the NRO’s books and now on to NASA’s who are going to be on the hook for the cost for maintaining them in controlled conditions for something they weren’t really looking for. Am I missing something the upside then?
1-So, Blackstar, assuming a program develops around these optics, how much do you think it will cost? 1/2 billion? 1 billion?, 2 billion?
2-So does your gut say early KH-11 optics? Thirty years seems a long time to sit in a clean room. How long from the cancellation of MOL until the optics ended up in MMT?
1-Beats me. But given some of the stuff that's posted on this board on a regular basis, I suspect that if you merged this thing with the all-purpose Dragon spacecraft and flew it to Mars it would probably only cost about $23.94. Colonization and asteroid mining would follow soon afterwards.
2-It was apparently post-Hubble optics, which is somewhat confusing to me, because my gut (which I'm not on speaking terms with because we're currently at war) would normally say early KH-11 optics. But I don't think that 30 years is a long time to sit in a clean room. Keep in mind that the KH-9 engineering mockup--which for all intents and purposes could have been flight hardware--was built in the late-1960s and was used in ground tests until 1986, all in a clean room.
That and, where the heck are they (physically located - does this gift include delivery? hehe).
Got an update: late 1990s/early 2000s hardware.That's... very new, relatively speaking. Even newer than Hubble's!
Thanks Blackstar. When I read the article, I wondered if this was truly a gift to NASA given their bleak budget outlays for the next several years & the Webb telescope troubles to just have these things sit in storage all the while and figuring out what to do with them.So when I first read this it was like, “gee thanks, I think”? So then it comes off the NRO’s books and now on to NASA’s who are going to be on the hook for the cost for maintaining them in controlled conditions for something they weren’t really looking for. Am I missing something the upside then?
You're missing the upside. Big optics don't come cheap, and these things were specially designed for space use. Now who knows how much it could cost to store them and how long that could be. It could be a decade or more. Now if the storage cost is only a few million per year, that's not a big deal. If the storage cost is tens of millions per year, that could be a problem after a short period of time.
In short, it's better to have these than to not have them, even if they sit in a warehouse a long time.
That and, where the heck are they (physically located - does this gift include delivery? hehe).
ITT Excelis in Rochester, NY. Formerly Kodak.
I’m happy about the large optics and I always keep an open mind, so I guess we’ll see… :)So when I first read this it was like, “gee thanks, I think”? So then it comes off the NRO’s books and now on to NASA’s who are going to be on the hook for the cost for maintaining them in controlled conditions for something they weren’t really looking for. Am I missing something the upside then?
You're missing the upside. Big optics don't come cheap, and these things were specially designed for space use. Now who knows how much it could cost to store them and how long that could be. It could be a decade or more. Now if the storage cost is only a few million per year, that's not a big deal. If the storage cost is tens of millions per year, that could be a problem after a short period of time.
In short, it's better to have these than to not have them, even if they sit in a warehouse a long time.
late 1990s/early 2000s hardware.
who knows how much it could cost to store them ... Now if the storage cost is only a few million per year, that's not a big deal. If the storage cost is tens of millions per year, that could be a problem after a short period of time.
Formerly Kodak.
Amazing gift, incredibly poor timing. Astro is so jacked even GEMS is in hot water (a little guy).
A bit more detail:
Got an update: late 1990s/early 2000s hardware.This hints at "Block 3" hardware - according to Ted Molczan's assignment of KH-11 "Blocks" - http://satobs.org/seesat_ref/misc/KH-11_lifetime.pdf (http://satobs.org/seesat_ref/misc/KH-11_lifetime.pdf)
When did fabrication start on the now canceled FIA again? Late 90's, Early 2000's? Blackstar I don't want to argue with you, I know you have a better insight on this, but I am now wondering if this is not left over KH-11 hardware, but that canceled project.
The Europeans are looking for future bartering opportunities with NASA, right ?.
While the elements have been declassified, there are still issues relating to ITAR and other sensitivities that limit our ability to share detailed information widely.
Hope your gut's treating you better... I could recommend a whole slew of fringe dietary changes, but Chris would most likely bounce me as a complete nut job ;)
Hope your gut's treating you better... I could recommend a whole slew of fringe dietary changes, but Chris would most likely bounce me as a complete nut job ;)
You misunderstood my reference. I'm battling my gut with diet and exercise. We're at war.
The Europeans are looking for future bartering opportunities with NASA, right ?
They can contribute at least an Arianne 5 launch or two to share in the science. Maybe they can contribute some instruments are well.
I assume there aren't any instruments designed for JWST that would work on these telescopes, since they are for a completely different purpose.
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/xpedio/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=BPA_069876&RevisionSelectionMethod=Latest
Not to pull a Jim,
But this should be a large heavy Telescope.
How much did Hubble weigh again?
What are the chances it will weigh less?
KH-11's require a Delta Heavy for LEO.
So other than a Delta Heavy, what exists to launch this into an orbit beyond LEO? Will a Delta Heavy be able to launch one of these to L2?
Now I will give you, KH-11's is believed to have launched a large amount of fuel for orbital maneuvers. I just think it will be very expensive to put one of these in HEO or L2. Could a Titan 34D/IV have sent Hubble to L2? I really don't know the answer, it is just setting off a flag.
A mission for SLS?
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/xpedio/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=BPA_069876&RevisionSelectionMethod=Latest
That presentation is incredible.
I'll repeat some of the things that are making my jaw.
f1.2 primary!!! F!1!.!2! That's less than 3 meters long!
f8 system leads to a 19,200mm focal length (~5x the focal length of the KH-8!) Though to be fair, CCD pixels are much larger than film grain, so it may be a wash.
Thermal Barrel and Radiator system included.
Mass of only 1700kg!
Of course that does not include the sensors, solar panels, batteries, spacecraft bus, and the million other parts I forgot. But still, how much would the rest of the package weigh? Could this fit and be sent to GEO on a large Atlas?
Then we get into the geeky stuff of 60nm rms... that better than 1/10 wave. The fancy materials, ect...
Oooh, I so want this to fly, almost as much as I want to see the history behind this set of optics. So, if the Optics are so "stubby", what does the KH-11* really look like? An F1.2 primary could fit and point sideways in a 4 or 5 meter fairing. Then the KH-11 would be like all the prior KH's. Looking out the side.
Okay, maybe I should slip over to the spaceX thread till I calm down and the Kool-Aid drains ;)
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/xpedio/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=BPA_069876&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestWhy did they cover up that picture of Hubble on slide 5?
1-Then the KH-11 would be like all the prior KH's. Looking out the side.
2-Okay, maybe I should slip over to the spaceX thread till I calm down and the Kool-Aid drains ;)
But here's the problem: the timing is wrong on this for several reasons. One reason that the timing is wrong is that Europe just committed to an expensive planetary mission, so they don't have cash. Another reason that the timing is wrong is that the economy in Europe (and maybe the US) is about to crash. Another reason that the timing is wrong is that ESA and NASA are not getting along very well right now. (Sample ESA question: "You were going to give us a rocket for Trace Gas Orbiter and you reneged on that pledge, so why should we give you a rocket for this thing?") Another reason that the timing is wrong is that JWST is way over budget and there is no money for W-FIRST. And another reason that the timing is wrong is that the US astronomy and astrophysics community spent two very long years coming up with their list of priorities and delivered that in 2010, and this thing wasn't in the mix. (That last one is the thing that nobody outside of Washington policy circles is going to understand, but there is a very careful and deliberative set of processes that determine what missions get funded in the space sciences. It's a bad idea to completely overturn that system, as we are seeing in the planetary sciences right now.)
Question: there have been rumors of 4 Hubble clones pointing the earth for years. This revelation confirms that there were similar telescopes, partially confirming the rumors. So the question are:No and No.
1) are these telescopes based on Hubble's development?
2) assuming 1), was the Hubble program, aside from astronomy, a way to pay for military development?
Question: there have been rumors of 4 Hubble clones pointing the earth for years. This revelation confirms that there were similar telescopes, partially confirming the rumors. So the question are:
1) are these telescopes based on Hubble's development?
2) assuming 1), was the Hubble program, aside from astronomy, a way to pay for military development?
Why did they cover up that picture of Hubble on slide 5?
http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/323298/view
late 1990s/early 2000s hardware.
So not KH11 prototypes, then... The best news from that is that these will be very good optical gear indeed, being that recent.who knows how much it could cost to store them ... Now if the storage cost is only a few million per year, that's not a big deal. If the storage cost is tens of millions per year, that could be a problem after a short period of time.
Could be even less than that - if they can be kept in an existing facilitiy, in space nobody is using, it could be a pretty nominal sum. If they have to be moved, and NASA doesn't have a suitable facility, that could be a lot. Devil's in the details, and we don't have them...Formerly Kodak.
That might be a clue right there, as to why they suddenly popped free. Could be that ITT doesn't want to work on this project any more, could be they want to get rid of the cost of storing them, and the NRO wouldn't pick it up - who knows? And maybe it's just that NRO doesn't need them any more (budget cuts mean they will never get launched, intelligence money shifted from technical to human assets, yadda-yadda). Too many different possibilities to guess correctly.
Noel
another reason that the timing is wrong is that the US astronomy and astrophysics community spent two very long years coming up with their list of priorities and delivered that in 2010, and this thing wasn't in the mix.
it is going to take people awhile to figure out what to do with it and how. If NASA spends the next six years studying it and figuring out how best to use it
but there's some really great potential here. NASA and the astronomy community should probably send a bouquet of flowers and a fruit basket to their friends at the NRO, thanking them.
With Kodak going away, (or already gone), is there anyone left domestically with the talent to build large optics like this ?
If it's not a joke, and I'd assume it isn't, it's probably the result of a classification officer applying KH-11 redaction guidelines without realizing that someone else had chosen a picture of Hubble to illustrate the telescope.
With Kodak going away, (or already gone), is there anyone left domestically with the talent to build large optics like this ?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/achenblog/post/spy-agency-gives-nasa-two-spare-hubbles/2012/06/05/gJQA7gdnFV_blog.htm
Posted at 09:21 AM ET, 06/05/2012
Spy agency gives NASA two spare Hubbles
By Joel Achenbach
I’m told by a government engineer with knowledge of the new instruments that they’re “a successful part of an otherwise failed program on the NRO side.”
It is a joke, made by the person who drafted that presentation.
An additional infobit FWIW:Quotehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/achenblog/post/spy-agency-gives-nasa-two-spare-hubbles/2012/06/05/gJQA7gdnFV_blog.htm
Posted at 09:21 AM ET, 06/05/2012
Spy agency gives NASA two spare Hubbles
By Joel Achenbach
I’m told by a government engineer with knowledge of the new instruments that they’re “a successful part of an otherwise failed program on the NRO side.”
another reason that the timing is wrong is that the US astronomy and astrophysics community spent two very long years coming up with their list of priorities and delivered that in 2010, and this thing wasn't in the mix.
Huh? According to this (http://www.space.com/8944-1-6-billion-telescope-search-alien-planets-probe-dark-energy.html), WFIRST was rated "the top priority for astronomers and astrophysicists" in 2010, and this thing is basically WFIRST.
1-Then the KH-11 would be like all the prior KH's. Looking out the side.
...
1-Why? The only reason earlier KH's did that was because they had to. That's not the way you'd want to do it.
...
At least something is looking or mounted sideways - either the instrument or the telescope's main optical axis.
Having the instrument on the side might of course also have to do with the ground scanning / sweeping motion of the secondary mirror projected in the telescope focal plane? At least the early KH-11s probably used linear (1D) array detectors.
At least something is looking or mounted sideways - either the instrument or the telescope's main optical axis.
Having the instrument on the side might of course also have to do with the ground scanning / sweeping motion of the secondary mirror projected in the telescope focal plane? At least the early KH-11s probably used linear (1D) array detectors.
Now I'm confused.
Keep in mind that the image you posted is NOT the actual hardware. They have not released photos of the actual hardware.
So, could they be examples of the "8X" program?
I have reasonably reliable info that they are an extension of the KH-11 line.
Look up TMA telescopes.
Who label the photo " KH-11Block3TMAdynamictestunit"?
Look up TMA telescopes.
Who label the photo " KH-11Block3TMAdynamictestunit"?
Dressler calls it "dynamic test unit" in his presentation.
Not to pull a Jim,
But this should be a large heavy Telescope.
How much did Hubble weigh again?
What are the chances it will weigh less?
KH-11's require a Delta Heavy for LEO.
So other than a Delta Heavy, what exists to launch this into an orbit beyond LEO? Will a Delta Heavy be able to launch one of these to L2?
Now I will give you, KH-11's is believed to have launched a large amount of fuel for orbital maneuvers. I just think it will be very expensive to put one of these in HEO or L2. Could a Titan 34D/IV have sent Hubble to L2? I really don't know the answer, it is just setting off a flag.
A mission for SLS?
IMHO the Falcon Heavy might be the better way to go.
A launcher is not the problem.
Designing a platform and system to incorporate the two scopes are not the problem. Designers and technicians skilled in CAD are reasonably plentiful.
The PROBLEM is MONEY.
The overbudget JWST program/project is sucking up funds that will prevent anything more than digital and paper design work from being carried out on these two donated scopes (and plans for their integration
or redesign) for the next?... five years?... 10 years?
So here's another chapter in the NASA-NRO saga, started in 1965 with Lunar Orbiter, continued with the Lunar Mapping and Survey System...
Someday there might be an interesting story to tell in a book.
"How NRO rescued NASA: from Apollo to WFIRST !"
And since we're talking about a launch sometime after 2022, Falcon Heavy is the most plausible option.
Gates Buffet Space telescope
How much of a contamination issue do you have with a Kero-LOX upper-stage on the optical surfaces. I think I would prefer an LH/LOX upper stage.
That wasn't why I was offended.If it's not a joke, and I'd assume it isn't, it's probably the result of a classification officer applying KH-11 redaction guidelines without realizing that someone else had chosen a picture of Hubble to illustrate the telescope.
It is a joke, made by the person who drafted that presentation. I posted that fact here, but somebody was offended for being told that they missed the joke and the mods deleted the post.
A lot of news agencies have been reporting its a picture of one of the NRO telescopes.It is a joke, made by the person who drafted that presentation.
I suspect that there are people in the NRO who are Not Amused. As a fake, it's a pretty good one.
I'll have to go back and review the lore on 8X to see if there are any clues there.
http://articles.latimes.com/1995-09-28/news/mn-51029_1_spy-satellite
U.S. Launches Costly Overhaul of Spy Satellites
September 28, 1995
JAMES RISEN and RALPH VARTABEDIAN
(various snippages performed)
WASHINGTON — The Clinton Administration is spending billions of dollars to upgrade America's secret spy satellites for the post-Cold War world, replacing systems originally designed to monitor Soviet military targets with satellites more useful in fast-moving regional conflicts, U.S. sources said.
Under one top-secret project, the United States is developing a new, highly flexible series of satellites, code-named 8X, that will provide the CIA and the Pentagon with vastly expanded photographic coverage, making the satellites more adaptable for use by military commanders faced with an array of potential battlefields around the world.
The 8X will be a major upgrade of the KH-12, the current spy satellite workhorse, sources said. The 8X, under development by Lockheed Martin Corp., which builds spy satellites in Sunnyvale, Calif., will be a behemoth, weighing as much as 20 tons, and will be capable of capturing intricately detailed images of areas as large as 1,000 square miles of the Earth's surface.
Once they are in use--which could be between the years 1998 and 2000--the 8X satellites will be far larger and more capable than any such satellite system in history.
Overhaul of the nation's fleet of spy satellites has come largely in response to complaints by then-Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf and other military leaders after the 1991 Persian Gulf War that the existing network could not provide adequate, timely intelligence for the fast-paced operations of a tactical war.
The current generation of photographic satellites take very high resolution images, but each photograph covers a relatively small area--roughly 10 miles by 10 miles according to John Pike, a space expert at the Federation of American Scientists. To patch together an image of an area as large as 1,000 square miles, a satellite had to repeatedly cross over the target, sometimes taking days.
"It's like looking at the world through a soda straw," said one defense industry consultant of the existing spy satellites.
The 8X program would redress that shortcoming by covering roughly 800 to 1,000 square miles in each photograph, with roughly the same resolution as the existing satellites, Pike said. The current satellites can typically show details as small as about six inches, depending on the angle of the shot and the atmospheric conditions. Its supporters argue that 8X will give the Pentagon a revolutionary capability, allowing battlefield commanders to watch the entire scope of an enemy's maneuvers over a very large area of battle.
So, it would seem the most likely outcome for one of these vehicles to launch would be as a single-instrument VIS/IR survey telescope launched to SEL2 by a Falcon Heavy.
In Death of Spy Satellite Program, Lofty Plans and Unrealistic Bids
November 11, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/washington/11satellite.html?pagewanted=all#step1
"The Future Imagery project is one of several satellite programs to break down in recent years, leaving the United States with outdated imaging technology. But perhaps more striking is that the multiple failures that led to the program’s demise reveal weaknesses in the government’s ability to manage complex contracts at a time when military and intelligence contracting is soaring."
"Boeing’s initial design for the optical system that was the heart of one of the two new satellite systems was so elaborate that optical engineers working on the project said it could not be built."
Taking that literally, that implies that they did not build it. Of course, it's dangerous to take anything literally, and they could have built test hardware before giving up.I concede the point.
Appears that NASA has made plans for them now???
This is especially true given the degree of outrage being expressed from some quarters about "NRO Waste" in having these expensive pieces of hardware "just lying around" in the first place.
... costs could be avoided by using one of the NRO telescopes. He added that the telescopes cost about $75,000-$100,000 to store at the manfacturer's (ITT Excelis) facilities in Rochester, NY.
(And as blackstar noted, the other main player is, or at least was, the former Perkin-Elmer in Danbury, CT).
Lots of discussion about possible missions at morning coffee today in the Center for Astrophysics, as you might expect. The Dressler plan seems reasonable, if and when money can be found. A lot of people would like a UV mission but I'm skeptical the mirror figure will be UV quality. The main conclusion is - keep it simple, do it fast, don't get sidetracked on gold-plating it, just slap a big wide field CCD array on the end, duct-tape a spacecraft bus and off you go. I'm guessing an EELV or an Ariane 5 could get it
to where you need it - I like the idea of GEO rather than L2 because for a wide field instrument you want a LOT of data bandwidth, so sitting over a single dedicated ground station at 6 Re instead of 235 Re makes sense to me.
Also a lot of discussion about how other priorities might get shoved aside for this, not an unmixed blessing by any means.
Now Goodrich.
I believe that they won some contract in the past year, implying that they are still building big honking optics.
Lots of discussion about this in almost every astronomy department in the world, I guess.
I too hope they don't start overdoing it with extra instruments. I hope JWST has taught a lesson.
Lots of discussion about this in almost every astronomy department in the world, I guess.
Plus lots of uninformed discussion on blogs.
Seems that lots of people want to sprinkle Dragon and Falcon over this like magic pixie dust and make it something wonderful. It's like saying that cars would be so much better if only Apple could merge them with iPhones.
I too hope they don't start overdoing it with extra instruments. I hope JWST has taught a lesson.
To be precise, it was not the instruments that created JWST's problems. It was the scope and ambition, doing several major new things at once. Plus poor management.
I like the idea of GEO rather than L2 because for a wide field instrument you want a LOT of data bandwidth, so sitting over a single dedicated ground station at 6 Re instead of 235 Re makes sense to me.
To be precise, it was not the instruments that created JWST's problems. It was the scope and ambition, doing several major new things at once. Plus poor management.
Not to get off topic or anything, but there are precedents for that. X-33 is one, IMO.
A lot of people would like a UV mission but I'm skeptical the mirror figure will be UV quality.
It's like saying that cars would be so much better if only Apple could merge them with iPhones.
keep it simple, do it fast, don't get sidetracked on gold-plating it, just slap a big wide field CCD array on the end, duct-tape a spacecraft bus and off you go.Amen.
I like the idea of GEO rather than L2 because for a wide field instrument you want a LOT of data bandwidth, so sitting over a single dedicated ground station at 6 Re instead of 235 Re makes sense to me.I would like to see one go to each location. L2 would focus on NEO's, and they could combine forces once in a while if it is useful for objects of specific interest. The parallax might find utility.
I also hope that people on both sides of the Atlantic consider whether it's really the best use of money to launch two similar missions just a couple of years apart.
They were previously Hughes-Danbury, and before that they were Perkin-Elmer. P-E made the optical system for the KH-9 Hexagon.
Seeing the different possible launchers and such for some craft constructed from these partial sats got me thinking....
NASA found it worthwhile to service the Hubble with manned craft (Shuttles) to keep it functional and enhance it where possible. NRO had a lot more than 1 Hubble like craft so unless they were so caviler with funds (as compared to NASA) that they viewed them as disposable ... one has to wonder how they service(d) them. Perhaps the NRO and associated black hats have assets that could help NASA a tad more with service calls?
8)
Seeing the different possible launchers and such for some craft constructed from these partial sats got me thinking....
NASA found it worthwhile to service the Hubble with manned craft (Shuttles) to keep it functional and enhance it where possible. NRO had a lot more than 1 Hubble like craft so unless they were so caviler with funds (as compared to NASA) that they viewed them as disposable ... one has to wonder how they service(d) them. Perhaps the NRO and associated black hats have assets that could help NASA a tad more with service calls?
A lot of people would like a UV mission but I'm skeptical the mirror figure will be UV quality.
The main conclusion is - keep it simple, do it fast, don't get sidetracked on gold-plating it, just slap a big wide field CCD array on the end, duct-tape a spacecraft bus and off you go. I'm guessing an EELV or an Ariane 5 could get it to where you need it - I like the idea of GEO rather than L2 because for a wide field instrument you want a LOT of data bandwidth, so sitting over a single dedicated ground station at 6 Re instead of 235 Re makes sense to me.
NRO found more cost effect to be disposable. NRO would enhance the spacecraft by flying new ones with better systems.
NRO found more cost effect to be disposable. NRO would enhance the spacecraft by flying new ones with better systems.
IIRC, back in the mid-'70s as both programs were getting going there was some semi-serious discussion of using the Shuttle for servicing/ recovery of the KH-11s. But it didn't last long.
One thing a few people here at Lowell have mentioned is the gyros. Even if there were no instrument replacement, HST still needed the servicing missions to replace the gyros that kept dying over its life.
NRO found more cost effect to be disposable. NRO would enhance the spacecraft by flying new ones with better systems.
IIRC, back in the mid-'70s as both programs were getting going there was some semi-serious discussion of using the Shuttle for servicing/ recovery of the KH-11s. But it didn't last long.
Actually, they were going to try to do it with KH-9's
Presumably to reload film and RVs. The details of installing a monster film reel and threading it in zero-g would be fascinating to see.
One thing a few people here at Lowell have mentioned is the gyros. Even if there were no instrument replacement, HST still needed the servicing missions to replace the gyros that kept dying over its life.
That's a place where the NRO might be of further assistance. It's fairly clear that the KH-11s make heavy use of CMGs for pointing and maybe for imaging(*). And they have impressively long lifetimes, more than a decade. Like the solar arrays, CMGs may represent a problem the early KH-11s had in common with HST, but the NRO solved on later models.
(*) Tweak the CMGs to sweep the imaging array over the scene at the desired rate.
Presumably to reload film and RVs. The details of installing a monster film reel and threading it in zero-g would be fascinating to see.
Actually, just to retrieve the whole vehicle and refurb on the ground.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1960/1
If NRO did solve the any problem if it existed, wasn't it because of HST? The failed units on Hubble were returned and dissected to find out WHY they failed and those problems could be fixed. Until then, didn't any failed units remain in orbit or burn up?
If NRO did solve the any problem if it existed, wasn't it because of HST? The failed units on Hubble were returned and dissected to find out WHY they failed and those problems could be fixed. Until then, didn't any failed units remain in orbit or burn up?
So a CMG fix that was good for KH-11 might not have done it for HST.
The problem with GEO for space telescopes is the radiation environment. GEO is still within the outer Van Allen belts, and so the heavy-ion radiation is considerably higher than the 1 AU background. That would play havoc with the CCDs, and would be especially annoying for a survey mission looking for transient events! So, you'd either need some nice heavy shielding around the instrument bay or a much more robust sensor. Neither of those is cheap...
Which may mean that entirely new gyros are needed for the donated vehicles, simply due to their vintage.
Which may mean that entirely new gyros are needed for the donated vehicles, simply due to their vintage.
Sorry, which "donated vehicles" are you speaking of here?
I was referring to this part. "KH-11Block3"
If it was you, then that is the wrong thing to do. People will take that as truth, when it is unconfirmed.
Which may mean that entirely new gyros are needed for the donated vehicles, simply due to their vintage.
Sorry, which "donated vehicles" are you speaking of here?
He's referring to the telescopes.
Which may mean that entirely new gyros are needed for the donated vehicles, simply due to their vintage.
Sorry, which "donated vehicles" are you speaking of here?
He's referring to the telescopes.
But the telescopes have no systems such as gyros
Well for one, Chandra is an X-Ray telescope, and so has pretty radiation-tolerant detectors!
Also, were ISO launched today, it would not have been put in that orbit; it's just that's the highest they could get it with an Ariane 44. As it was, they had to shut it down every time it passed through perigee, much like HST has to do now when it passes through the radiation in the South Atlantic Anomaly.
One thing a few people here at Lowell have mentioned is the gyros. Even if there were no instrument replacement, HST still needed the servicing missions to replace the gyros that kept dying over its life.
That's a place where the NRO might be of further assistance. It's fairly clear that the KH-11s make heavy use of CMGs for pointing and maybe for imaging(*). And they have impressively long lifetimes, more than a decade. Like the solar arrays, CMGs may represent a problem the early KH-11s had in common with HST, but the NRO solved on later models.
(*) Tweak the CMGs to sweep the imaging array over the scene at the desired rate.
http://www.space.com/16077-nasa-space-telescopes-failed-nro-program.html
In an email, ITT Exelis spokeswoman Irene Lockwood confirmed that her company built the hardware. “Since developing and building the two partial telescope assemblies in the late 1990s-early 2000s, ITT Exelis has stored the hardware in one of our Rochester facilities.”
Well for one, Chandra is an X-Ray telescope, and so has pretty radiation-tolerant detectors!
I suppose, although particle radiation can have a few orders of magnitude greater energy, so I thought that that might pose a problem.Also, were ISO launched today, it would not have been put in that orbit; it's just that's the highest they could get it with an Ariane 44. As it was, they had to shut it down every time it passed through perigee, much like HST has to do now when it passes through the radiation in the South Atlantic Anomaly.
I suppose a further exploration of this topic would be outside the scope of this thread. Going to ask more in Orbits Q&A soon...
Hmm... Mike Loucks (astrogator on the LADEE mission and one of the guys behind that Polar Broadband attempt at rescuing the stranded comsat earlier this year) had done some work on orbits that would stay over a given spot in North America, but had a lower perigee than GEO and a much higher apogee...I wonder if you could do a trick like what jcm is talking about where you protect the sensor at perigee and do most of your exploration at apogee?
Not sure if that makes any sense though--I'm not a space telescope guy.
~Jon
course, they don't build sensors like they used to.. :-)
Reporting on the history of similar events, it looks like Dr. Day managed to get the top article on thespacereview this week.
http://thespacereview.com/article/2100/1
Hats off Blackstar!
Reporting on the history of similar events, it looks like Dr. Day managed to get the top article on thespacereview this week.
Blackstar shooting from the hip into the dark, but a successful spy sat is more than just the optics, maybe the problems where elsewhere in the system, in the sensors, the com. system, spacecraft bus, or integrating all of the above. These optics are really light, a smaller platform does not mean they where using a smaller telescope. Just shrank every thing else. Though previous articles have said the optic design was unworkable design...
We know how to build LEO spacecraft.
The optical system is more than the main and secondary mirrors. We don't know if they had proposed a very ambitious focusing system, a perspective correction system, a scanning system or a multispectra system or what.Blackstar shooting from the hip into the dark, but a successful spy sat is more than just the optics, maybe the problems where elsewhere in the system, in the sensors, the com. system, spacecraft bus, or integrating all of the above. These optics are really light, a smaller platform does not mean they where using a smaller telescope. Just shrank every thing else. Though previous articles have said the optic design was unworkable design...
Yeah, a successful program requires more than successful optics. But the word on FIA (best source is a NY Times article from several years ago) indicates that it was "unworkable" from the beginning. So what was the big technological leap that failed? I assumed that it was an entirely new optical system. It's hard to see what else--other than the sensor--that would be radically new. We know how to build LEO spacecraft.
We know how to build LEO spacecraft.
Correction, Lockheed knows how to build Large LEO Optical satellites. That environment is a different from the operating environment of Boeing's Comsat's operate in.
From what you quoted above, it sounds like they planned a zooming and stabilizing platform on a super compact enclosure, and it was unworkable. Then they did a traditional system and it was cancelled. I would bet this are the "traditional" systems that were cancelled. I'm reading your post right?
Reporting on the history of similar events, it looks like Dr. Day managed to get the top article on thespacereview this week.
That's not much of a feat. There's no prize money, and I cannot use it in bars to impress chicks, for instance.
But thanks. It's never clear that anybody reads any article there that fails to mention the wonders of SpaceX.
From what you quoted above, it sounds like they planned a zooming and stabilizing platform on a super compact enclosure, and it was unworkable. Then they did a traditional system and it was cancelled. I would bet this are the "traditional" systems that were cancelled. I'm reading your post right?
Actually, the way I read that is that they built the optics, but the magic was in a stabilization system for the optics that was too complex to work. It's like that automatic image motion compensation that comes with many cameras now. I don't use it (I use a lens that has it, but not the software-based stuff), but my understanding is that it has a number of limitations.
That raises an interesting question--maybe these optics, which are pretty lightweight, were in many ways too lightweight for this mission. So maybe a problem with FIA was the optics/spacecraft integration, and they found that realistically they would have needed a much heavier spacecraft than what they planned.
Thinking aloud about this, I also suspect that the goal of FIA was to get off the Delta IV and onto the low/cheap end of the Atlas V, while maintaining the same quality. They couldn't do that.
the satellite agency put the Future Imagery contract out for bid in 1998 despite an internal assessment that questioned whether its lofty technological goals were attainable given the tight budget and schedule.
But he acknowledged that Boeing frequently provided the government with positive reports on the troubled project. “Look, we did report problems,” Mr. Nowinski said, “but it was certainly in my best interests to be very optimistic about what we could do.” Boeing, which fired Mr. Nowinski as the project fell apart, declined to comment.
Another factor was a decline of American expertise in systems engineering, the science and art of managing complex engineering projects to weigh risks, gauge feasibility, test components and ensure that the pieces come together smoothly.
the project’s formula — high-concept technology on a fast schedule with a tightly managed budget
“That told me there had been a total breakdown in discipline and systems engineering on the project,” he said, “and that the company was operating on cruise control.”
Writing winning proposals is different from building winning hardware.
At his invitation, Virginia Tech University is offering a master’s program in engineering management at agency headquarters outside Washington.
The thought about Atlas makes some sense, but it could only be part of the complication. They wouldn't be spending $5+ billion just to save what...$50-100 million per satellite...in the numbers they build these things.
No, the Boeing would had made more money on each spacecraft vs each launch vehicle by at least a magnitude
The thought about Atlas makes some sense, but it could only be part of the complication. They wouldn't be spending $5+ billion just to save what...$50-100 million per satellite...in the numbers they build these things.
But making it possible to launch on an Atlas may have allowed them to eliminate the Delta IV entirely.On the west coast, what about GSO heavy's?
It seems, that the "official american space" suffers a defeat because of insufficient funding...
The "official" means the programs or sectors, which are financed by your federal government.
Not surprising. Governments (not only US, *any* govts) are usually awful when it comes to efficiency.
They are (NASA) very glad to have such gift, but they don't know how to use it because of "everything comes down to money". (Jim, this is my own opinion, and I'll hear your point of view with great pleasure)
They are (NASA) very glad to have such gift, but they don't know how to use it because of "everything comes down to money". (Jim, this is my own opinion, and I'll hear your point of view with great pleasure)
The point is there is no "defeat". It isn't over. There is nothing that says NASA isn't going to use the mirrors.
Everybody seems to be thinking of these only as upward-facing, despite their origins… Would it be feasible to operate one of these at the Moon or Mars, facing down?
It seems a Falcon Heavy could handle either destination (although I’m not sure about MOI). One of these telescopes would have much better resolution than even HiRISE, or could improve Moon imagery by perhaps 50x, depending on its orbit. What would we give for 1cm detail of the Moon?
Everybody seems to be thinking of these only as upward-facing, despite their origins… Would it be feasible to operate one of these at the Moon or Mars, facing down?
It seems a Falcon Heavy could handle either destination (although I’m not sure about MOI). One of these telescopes would have much better resolution than even HiRISE, or could improve Moon imagery by perhaps 50x, depending on its orbit. What would we give for 1cm detail of the Moon?
What would be the point in imaging Moon or Mars with this resoultion?
Everybody seems to be thinking of these only as upward-facing, despite their origins… Would it be feasible to operate one of these at the Moon or Mars, facing down?
It seems a Falcon Heavy could handle either destination (although I’m not sure about MOI). One of these telescopes would have much better resolution than even HiRISE, or could improve Moon imagery by perhaps 50x, depending on its orbit. What would we give for 1cm detail of the Moon?
What would be the point in imaging Moon or Mars with this resoultion?
That was intended to be part of what I was asking. I can only assume, though, that HiRISE and the LROC NACs were born of some level of compromise. Can it really be the case that better imagery wouldn’t be useful?
What would be the point in imaging Moon or Mars with this resoultion?
That was intended to be part of what I was asking. I can only assume, though, that HiRISE and the LROC NACs were born of some level of compromise. Can it really be the case that better imagery wouldn’t be useful?
Why don't you tell us?
You can go and do some research and come back with an answer. We would love to hear it.
NEW Telescope Meeting
Princeton University
September 4-6, 2012
The NRO has gifted NASA two “Hubble class” telescopes. How should the astronomy community best use these facilities?
What is the most compelling science that can be done with these facilities at a reasonable cost?
This workshop will explore opportunities for WFIRST science, UV astronomy, exoplanet searches and other astronomical applications.
simonbp posted (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28805.msg955366#msg955366) this over on the Commercial Hubble Repair thread: http://www.princeton.edu/astro/news-events/public-events/new-telescope-meeting/program/NEW-Telescope-Meeting-Sept-2012-Program.pdf (http://www.princeton.edu/astro/news-events/public-events/new-telescope-meeting/program/NEW-Telescope-Meeting-Sept-2012-Program.pdf) (PDF links to a bunch of PDFs and PPTX files)
From the first page:QuoteNEW Telescope Meeting
Princeton University
September 4-6, 2012
The NRO has gifted NASA two “Hubble class” telescopes. How should the astronomy community best use these facilities?
What is the most compelling science that can be done with these facilities at a reasonable cost?
This workshop will explore opportunities for WFIRST science, UV astronomy, exoplanet searches and other astronomical applications.
Everybody seems to be thinking of these only as upward-facing, despite their origins… Would it be feasible to operate one of these at the Moon or Mars, facing down?
forget about down facing but building on the Mars, moon....
How about locking it in a lunar orbit using the darkside of the moon , the shadow? Only issue would be data transfer with a needed 2nd craft for that mission.
Keep in mind that the devil is really in the details here. There may be substantial costs with adapting the optics to do this stuff that they don't realize. So in the end, they may not "save" $200 million getting the optics because it might cost them $300 million to adapt them.
There was a very small piece in a recent New Scientist stating there would be announcement in January 2013 as to what was to happen with these. You heard anything about this?
There was a very small piece in a recent New Scientist stating there would be announcement in January 2013 as to what was to happen with these. You heard anything about this?
Keep in mind that the devil is really in the details here. There may be substantial costs with adapting the optics to do this stuff that they don't realize. So in the end, they may not "save" $200 million getting the optics because it might cost them $300 million to adapt them.When I spoke of those that didn't got the lessons I was specifically talking about those that proposed upto three extra mirrors with embedded chronographs and such. I loved the heliophisics proposal (I guess the deserve one) and the ones that proposed using legacy Hubble and Spitzer parts to get two telescopes under 1.5B (which we know means about 1B each).
Keep in mind that the devil is really in the details here. There may be substantial costs with adapting the optics to do this stuff that they don't realize. So in the end, they may not "save" $200 million getting the optics because it might cost them $300 million to adapt them.using legacy Hubble and Spitzer parts to get two telescopes under 1.5B (which we know means about 1B each).
Keep in mind that the devil is really in the details here. There may be substantial costs with adapting the optics to do this stuff that they don't realize. So in the end, they may not "save" $200 million getting the optics because it might cost them $300 million to adapt them.
If they don't start the program with an ironclad cost cap, we just shouldn't start.
Discovery / New frontier cost-capped class for astronomy anybody ? Or perhaps takes Dan Goldin out of storage ?
The ICM concept is very interesting......
The ICM concept is very interesting......
And to be clear what that is, the front three bits are the usable parts that NASA received: the shroud, optical assembly, and support structure.
The particular concept is to bolt those three parts to the Interim Control Module (ICM) that NRL developed for ISS back-up propulsion. This combination could be launched to GEO by a Falcon Heavy. GEO would be useful, as it avoids most Earthshine and radiation, but also allows a single dedicated downlink station to used for communications (much cheaper than TRDS or DSN).
Also note that the ICM appears to be connected by an APAS or LIDS, raising the possibility that it could be undocked and replaced unmanned on-orbit.
Most of the low-hanging fruit has been picked. So astronomy relies upon building bigger spacecraft to make real advances. They cannot go off and build small, cheap ones, and expect to make important discoveries.
ICM would be a bad bus, very dirty with thrusters
The particular concept is to bolt those three parts to the Interim Control Module (ICM) that NRL developed for ISS back-up propulsion. This combination could be launched to GEO by a Falcon Heavy.
Discovery / New frontier cost-capped class for astronomy anybody ? Or perhaps takes Dan Goldin out of storage ?
Already exists.
There is a problem that astronomy faces that the other science fields don't, which is that aperture (and therefore size) is very important. There is a lot less that you can do with smaller size spacecraft in astronomy. Most of the low-hanging fruit has been picked. So astronomy relies upon building bigger spacecraft to make real advances. They cannot go off and build small, cheap ones, and expect to make important discoveries.
The particular concept is to bolt those three parts to the Interim Control Module (ICM) that NRL developed for ISS back-up propulsion. This combination could be launched to GEO by a Falcon Heavy.
Does the ICM actually exist???
I'd like to see what a 'single barrel' telescope designed to fit within a 5 meter payload shroud could do! How big might the actual mirror be on such a spacecraft? 3.8 meters? 4.2 meters?Err... 5m fairing have 4.7m internal diameter which is what Shuttle had. So you can get... 2.4m. If you change a bit the design, for IR, for example, Herschel has a 3.5m mirror. But since its IR it's "open". You can't go much higher than that. In fact, JSWT will launch on the 5m fairing of an Ariane 5 (ES, I think). So 2.4m optical, 3.5m IR seems to be the biggest you can get with monolithic mirrors.
I'd like to see what a 'single barrel' telescope designed to fit within a 5 meter payload shroud could do! How big might the actual mirror be on such a spacecraft? 3.8 meters? 4.2 meters?Err... 5m fairing have 4.7m internal diameter which is what Shuttle had. So you can get... 2.4m. If you change a bit the design, for IR, for example, Herschel has a 3.5m mirror. But since its IR it's "open". You can't go much higher than that. In fact, JSWT will launch on the 5m fairing of an Ariane 5 (ES, I think). So 2.4m optical, 3.5m IR seems to be the biggest you can get with monolithic mirrors.
In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the CxP big fairing was quoted for Mars heat shield and big telescopes (look the ATLAST archives).
Well, L2 is close to C3=0. For reference, Hubble is 11,110 kg. But it was placed there by the Shuttle. Even though the telescope would be injected at C3=0, it would still have to maneuver itself to L2. That should require extra thrust, fuel, avionics and communication assets. Plus a more important spacecraft in general.I'd like to see what a 'single barrel' telescope designed to fit within a 5 meter payload shroud could do! How big might the actual mirror be on such a spacecraft? 3.8 meters? 4.2 meters?Err... 5m fairing have 4.7m internal diameter which is what Shuttle had. So you can get... 2.4m. If you change a bit the design, for IR, for example, Herschel has a 3.5m mirror. But since its IR it's "open". You can't go much higher than that. In fact, JSWT will launch on the 5m fairing of an Ariane 5 (ES, I think). So 2.4m optical, 3.5m IR seems to be the biggest you can get with monolithic mirrors.
In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the CxP big fairing was quoted for Mars heat shield and big telescopes (look the ATLAST archives).
Could one of these be launched on an Atlas V rather than a larger and more expensive launcher like the Delta IVH?
| Vehicle | Payload (kg) to C3=0 |
| Falcon 9 (v1.1) | 3,650 |
| Atlas V (521) | 4,150 |
| Atlas V (531) | 4,950 |
| Delta IV M+(5,2) | 5,400 |
| Atlas V (541) | 5,600 |
| Atlas V (551) | 6,100 |
| Ariane 5 ECA | 6,800 |
| Ariane 5 ME | 10,800 |
| Delta IV Heavy | 10,400 |
ICM would be a bad bus, very dirty with thrusters
ICM would be a bad bus, very dirty with thrusters
Jim, are you saying any thrusters on a bus = dirty, or just the ICM ones?
Then again, you could treat the bus firings like what Hubble would do when the shuttle arrived, just close an aperture door when ICM needs to fire, otherwise disable it and use the CMG's.
It is worth pointing that proposed ISS ICM (or Bus-1 as it was also know) is derived from the SCS (KH-9) and SSB (KH-11). Though both had totally different pointing requirements and needs compared to say Hubble.
There was a fair bit of discussion on BUS-1 in one of the KH-9 pre-declassification threads.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23851.msg683616#msg683616
Jim and/or Blackstar will correct me if I have the wrong bus.
I think the point was not to just use the ICM, but to float the idea that instead of buying a new, optimal bus the astronomical community should find either a left over or COTS bus to go along with the optical assembly. So while the ICM might not be practical, perhaps another "spare" bus is out somewhere in storage that can be utilized.
The pointing requirements for a telescope are a lot more stringent than even the requirements for a space station component, like ICM or Dragon.
And yet it was a representative from the Space Telescope Science Institute who presented the idea, and one would hope that they might know what a space telescope would require considering the fact that they work Hubble, Kepler, and eventually JWST....
They were also skeptical that it would be possible to do anything useful with these optical systems at all, because they were never designed for astronomical use.
I'd like to see what a 'single barrel' telescope designed to fit within a 5 meter payload shroud could do! How big might the actual mirror be on such a spacecraft? 3.8 meters? 4.2 meters?Err... 5m fairing have 4.7m internal diameter which is what Shuttle had. So you can get... 2.4m. If you change a bit the design, for IR, for example, Herschel has a 3.5m mirror. But since its IR it's "open". You can't go much higher than that. In fact, JSWT will launch on the 5m fairing of an Ariane 5 (ES, I think). So 2.4m optical, 3.5m IR seems to be the biggest you can get with monolithic mirrors.
In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the CxP big fairing was quoted for Mars heat shield and big telescopes (look the ATLAST archives).
That's pretty surprising. None of the presentations at the NEW Telescope meeting hint at any fundamental problems, and they have already looked into this in some detail. I'm not an expert in optics, but I don't see why the optical system would be entirely unsuitable for astronomy.
Has this project been thought about in the context of teaching the next generation?
That's pretty surprising. None of the presentations at the NEW Telescope meeting hint at any fundamental problems, and they have already looked into this in some detail. I'm not an expert in optics, but I don't see why the optical system would be entirely unsuitable for astronomy.
Depends upon who you talk to. I've met a couple of astronomers who are very excited/optimistic. I've also met more than a couple who are doubtful/skeptical. The latter group includes people who think that the process of modifying the equipment for astronomy use may be more difficult and expensive than it is worth--in other words, you wouldn't save any money simply because the equipment is "free." They've compared them to a white elephant--thanks for the gift, now how can I afford it?
But the devil is in the details, and so far the only unclassified details are rather limited. I suspect that it will require a lot of assessment by people with security clearances in order to get a good idea if these things are useful.
Long story short are you saying these two scopes are worthless for other uses full stop or they can be used for other uses but the cost & difficulty of doing this effectively amounts the same as the first option?
How's the budget for heliophysics? I loved their proposal and it would be a LEO sat.
How's the budget for heliophysics? I loved their proposal and it would be a LEO sat.Small. And they just produced their decadal survey. Look at that for their priority list.
Not that small; heliophysics got $647.0 million in 2012, similar to astrophysics minus JWST ($659.4 million).
I imagine that a potential advantage to having these telescopes in GEO (assuming they receive funding and the necessary equipment, etc...) are for NEOs. Every few months, there is another small body passing just within the orbit of Geostationary sats, and inevitably someone will ask if there are any satellites nearby with imaging capabilities. This could give us high resolution images of asteroids passing close to the telescopes, which Hubble currently cannot do.
Now, I'm not a spacecraft designer, too, but I've worked other big engineering projects and usually it's not the actual building or even development of components that costs so much money, it integration, testing and especially operations.
No. We don't need high resolution images of asteroids. We need to cover large amounts of sky looking for very dim objects. Best way to do that is with a half-meter diameter survey telescope working in the infrared and operating inside of Earth's orbit, looking outward.
NEO's that get close enough during earth flyby's have a fairly rapid motion across the sky, would such a theoretical high res space telescope designed for other things be able to slew fast enough? Also, Many of these earth crossing asteroids are quite small (< 100m).
Besides, we are getting quite good at Radar imaging them from the ground.
Not sure about space-based telescopes, but see PanSTARRS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PanSTARRS) for a telescope that is primary used for NEO tracking and discovery, but which also have many other great uses.
in Nature today: The telescopes that came in from the cold
http://www.nature.com/news/the-telescopes-that-came-in-from-the-cold-1.11511
I'm missing something here, but NASA simply came into the possession of two telescopes?You might have missed this? http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29081.0
So how about a high-signal-to-noise, high-resolution, multispectral whole-sky survey instrument?
So how about a high-signal-to-noise, high-resolution, multispectral whole-sky survey instrument?
You mean like the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST)? It's kinda designed to do exactly that, can cover the entire sky in half a week at full clip.
Unless you have really low resolution (i.e. WISE, GALEX), it's not really worth it to do large surveys from space telescopes. They are far more optimal at targeted observations, which better exploit their high angular resolution and long integration times. The donated scopes are "wide field" in as much as they are much wider than HST, but we're still talking about a <5 arcminute field at the focal plane.
This article includes some updates as regards these two telescopes.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2232/1
Isn't part of the problem with using one of these for WFIRST that it will put the launch costs right up as only a Falcon Heavy or Delta IVH will be able to launch something that big?
National Research Council study says that use of these mirrors would cost more than purpose designed systems.
I don't know how useful it would be but would it be possible to build a binocular 'scope with these two mirrors? I'm no optics expert but, say there was a telescoping frame ~100 feet long between them (expanded by compressed gas, for example). Would it provide useful resolution improvements for, say, imaging in-solar system objects?Yes, this is technically possible but very expensive, mostly to get the very precise relative positioning. The SIM mission (Space Interferometry Mission) was doing exactly this, but it was cancelled.
National Research Council study says that use of these mirrors would cost more than purpose designed systems.
So that's the end of that then is it, I assume that means they will not be used by NASA?
National Research Council study says that use of these mirrors would cost more than purpose designed systems.
So that's the end of that then is it, I assume that means they will not be used by NASA?
My understanding:
1.5m is low risk, with just enough return as expected by Decadal.
2.4m offers significant more science, and if coupled with a choronagraph, advances even in exoplanet search. But more immature and more cost growth without choronagrph. Choronagraph so low TRL that they can't even put a price.
And they remind that priority one is keeping a balanced budget with Explore program and actual data analysis.
So, they recommend first to make a completely independent cost assessment of the 2.4m with Choronagraph, And consider if that fits within the balanced budget and what are the choronagraph maturation options. If not possible, have an independent panel evaluate if the 2.4m without chorongraph makes sense over the 1.5m for the extra cost, and if they can keep a balanced budget. They clearly don't want a second JWST.
National Research Council study says that use of these mirrors would cost more than purpose designed systems.
So that's the end of that then is it, I assume that means they will not be used by NASA?
Here's an idea: try reading the report.
I have not read the report as it appears to require a secure login to do so.
I have not read the report as it appears to require a secure login to do so.
No it doesn't. You just have to click through and log in as a guest. Here's the file.
Recommendation 2-1: NASA should move aggressively to mature the coronagraph design
and develop a credible cost, schedule, performance, and observing program so that its impact on
the WFIRST mission can be determined. Upon completion of this activity, and a cost and technical
evaluation of WFIRST/AFTA with the coronagraph, an independent review focused on the
coronagraph should be convened to determine whether the impact on WFIRST and on the NASA
astrophysics program is acceptable or if the coronagraph should be removed from the mission.
Recommendation 3-1: NASA should sponsor an external technical and cost review of the
WFIRST/AFTA mission that NASA plans to propose as a new start. This review should be
independent of NASA’s internal process. The objective of the review should be to ensure that the
proposed mission cost and technical risk are consistent with available resources and do not
significantly compromise the astrophysics balance defined in the 2010 National Research Council
report New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics. This review should occur early
enough to influence the exercising of a rescoping of the mission if required.
The committee was informed that NASA is no longer studying the implementation of WFIRST
with a 1.3-m telescope (WFIRST/IDRM), and the committee was not asked to assess the scientific or
programmatic rationale of the WFIRST/IDRM implementation. Therefore, the committee was not asked
to recommend which version of WFIRST should be implemented. The committee was also not asked to
recommend whether the coronagraph should be added to WFIRST/AFTA, but rather was asked to assess
how the coronagraph might advance NWNH technology development and science goals, and to comment
on whether its addition is consistent with the programmatic rationale that led to WFIRST’s top ranking in
the large space mission category. It is with the understanding of this restricted charge that the committee
writes its report.
Does anyone have any updates on the two National Reconnaissance Office- donated Hubble-class space telescopes? The last information I saw was from back in March 2014:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/40010nasa-still-intends-to-use-donated-spy-telescope-for-dark-energy-mission
So these mirrors are solightthin that gravity causes distortions in the figure. Amazing tech....
It cannot be used on the ground because of gravity sag, so it must have a space mission designed around it.The line does not read like this is the case here.
Unlikely. Have you ever seen the the physical structure of the HST primary mirror? It's a multi-piece glass honeycomb structure of considerable weight. Stiff as you can ever get a piece of glass.So these mirrors are solightthin that gravity causes distortions in the figure. Amazing tech....
That's actually common for most large telescopes. Ground-based telescopes have supports that compensate for gravity distortion (i.e. they sag). I suspect that Hubble would have the same problem.
Construction and assembly of the space mirror was a painstaking process spanning almost a decade. Corning Glass Works fabricated the 13-inch-thick blank mirror made of ultra-low expansion glass. To accommodate changing temperatures, they designed it in the form of a sandwich that had a honeycomb core (alternating hexagonal sections of glass and hollow voids) 10 inches thick fused between 1.5-inch-thick solid glass front and back plates. In addition to allowing the glass to expand and contract without cracking, this design reduced the weight. A solid core mirror blank of the same size would weigh 12,000 pounds; Hubble's weighed only 2,400 pounds.
Engineers trimmed the front and back plates, rounded the inner and outer diameter edges, and in the process reduced the front and back plate thickness from 1.5 inches to 1 inch. This reduced the mirror's weight to 1,700 pounds.
The mass of each telescope including the Outer Barrel Assembly is 1,120kg. ( 2464 lbs. )
Put that in perspective with this up thread:Hubble mirrior was 1700lbs so the entire tube assembly weighing less than 2400lbs is pretty cool.QuoteThe mass of each telescope including the Outer Barrel Assembly is 1,120kg. ( 2464 lbs. )
Hubble is the same diameter, 2.4m. Yet the complete tube assembly with mirror is only 700lbs more than the Hubble mirror. Makes one wonder how much they reduced the weight of the primary mirror. I have not seen the mirror weight published.
If you look back in the thread, some of the drawings leave me wondering if they have a honeycomb back. It may be a thin glass shell that is supported by the mount. That would be impossible to maintain the figure when tilting on earth, but not an issue in orbit.
Have further details been released on the optics and support structures? Do we have a primary mirror mass by which to gauge how much they reduced the weight over Hubble?
Like I said, just incredible tech. here.
Hubble mirrior was 1700lbs so the entire tube assembly weighing less than 2400lbs is pretty cool.
Ive seen some Earth based telescopes that have these motors that apply variable forces across the mirrior to alleviate distortions created by both the mechanical forces of moving the telescope, and caused by differing atmospheric conditions. It was pretty amazing.
Yes, I believe you are correct. A deformable mirrior along the light path is used for atmospheric correction.Ive seen some Earth based telescopes that have these motors that apply variable forces across the mirrior to alleviate distortions created by both the mechanical forces of moving the telescope, and caused by differing atmospheric conditions. It was pretty amazing.
I don't think any telescope does atmospheric correction by distorting the primary mirror, that's usually done with a separate correction mirror or in some cases the secondary. Correcting the gravitational deformation of the primary (active optics), on the other hand, is standard on newer large telescopes.