NRO Gives NASA two "Space Telescopes"

[quellish]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/nasa-gets-two-military-spy-telescopes-for-astronomy/2012/06/04/gJQAsT6UDV_story.html

Good to see that 12 is still greater than 11.

 

[Archibald]

At first glance that article doesn't makes any sense. It gives no clues of what's really happening; in fact the way things are presented, it looks like an April Fool.

 

[Hobbes]

It may lose something in translation, but it's clear enough to me.


The contrast between NASA and NRO is almost painful: the NRO could afford to build these by the dozen, and just leave two of them lying around unused for years. NASA can't afford to finish or operate one.
Multinational funding would be a good idea, but is unlikely to happen given the telescopes' origins. If NASA can't even show a photo of the telescope...

 

[John21]

It may lose something in translation, but it's clear enough to me.


The contrast between NASA and NRO is almost painful: the NRO could afford to build these by the dozen, and just leave two of them lying around unused for years. NASA can't afford to finish or operate one.
Multinational funding would be a good idea, but is unlikely to happen given the telescopes' origins. If NASA can't even show a photo of the telescope...

If the NRO is giving away a satellite I don't really see any issues with sharing the data with the public and other countries space agencies. The tech in it is probably 20+ years behind current stuff. That NASA needs more funding is a given, for the price of 10-20 F-35s or a bunch of spy satellites alot more missions could be done. When an agencies total budget or number of personnel is classified like for the NRO,NSA,CIA...etc you know they're not always moral or benign.

 

[quellish]

The contrast between NASA and NRO is almost painful: the NRO could afford to build these by the dozen, and just leave two of them lying around unused for years. NASA can't afford to finish or operate one.
Multinational funding would be a good idea, but is unlikely to happen given the telescopes' origins. If NASA can't even show a photo of the telescope...

These have been in storage since 1985. Part of the irony here is that this particular payload drove much of the cost and complexity in the shuttle design. In the end, though, the payload had a weight problem, and post-Challenger changes to the shuttle program made it impossible to launch this.

 

[GeorgeA]

So they're one of the original KH-12s?

 

[Byeman]

When an agencies total budget or number of personnel is classified like for the NRO,NSA,CIA...etc you know they're not always moral or benign.

That is unsubstantiated blanket statement.

 

[Byeman]

These have been in storage since 1985. Part of the irony here is that this particular payload drove much of the cost and complexity in the shuttle design. In the end, though, the payload had a weight problem, and post-Challenger changes to the shuttle program made it impossible to launch this.

Wrong on all accounts.

1. They have not been in storage since 85
2. There was no "particular" payload that drove shuttle design. It was a combination of many.
3. There were no payloads left sitting on the ground due to Challenger.

 

[Mr London 24/7]

The Dressler presentation with the redacted image:

http://sites.nationalacademies.org/xpedio/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=BPA_069877&RevisionSelectionMethod=Latest

 

[Byeman]

The Dressler presentation with the redacted image:

The redacted image is an intentional joke. It is HST.

 

[Mr London 24/7]

Silly old me!: thank you Byeman

 

[TomS]

Byeman, thanks for pointing that out.

If anyone else is curious, here is the unredacted image:

http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/323298/enlarge

 

[John21]

When an agencies total budget or number of personnel is classified like for the NRO,NSA,CIA...etc you know they're not always moral or benign.

That is unsubstantiated blanket statement.

Can you give me a better answer than that? When NASA can't find a few hundred million to fund a scientific mission but hundreds of billions are spent over the decades on "black" projects that nobody knows about, you know the priorities are screwed up.

 

[sferrin]

When an agencies total budget or number of personnel is classified like for the NRO,NSA,CIA...etc you know they're not always moral or benign.

That is unsubstantiated blanket statement.

Can you give me a better answer than that? When NASA can't find a few hundred million to fund a scientific mission but hundreds of billions are spent over the decades on "black" projects that nobody knows about, you know the priorities are screwed up.

The consequences of not seeing the ultra deep field for a few more years are a tad smaller than the consequences of being surprised by a nuclear armed potential adversary.

 

[Byeman]

When an agencies total budget or number of personnel is classified like for the NRO,NSA,CIA...etc you know they're not always moral or benign.

That is unsubstantiated blanket statement.

Can you give me a better answer than that? When NASA can't find a few hundred million to fund a scientific mission but hundreds of billions are spent over the decades on "black" projects that nobody knows about, you know the priorities are screwed up.

Your comment wasn't about priorities. It was stating that agencies were immoral and non benign. I resent that 100%.

but anyways,
a. It is not screwed up priorities
b. NASA is not national security agency and what those agencies do is far more important.
c. If priorities are screwed up, what entitles NASA to the money and not some other agency?

 

[flateric]

via Ronsmytheiii@http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/xpedio/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=BPA_069876&RevisionSelectionMethod=Latest

 

[GeorgeA]

Space News article with additional info:

http://www.spacenews.com/civil/120608-telescopes-remnants-failed-program.html

 

[Mat Parry]

Very interesting, thank you.

There is one thing that strikes me about these redundant Future Imagery Architecture space telescopes... they dont appear that futuristic compared to what has gone before. The magic must have been in the sensor packages.

 

[RGClark]

Blog post on using the new telescopes for planetary defense, asteroid prospecting, and Mars orbiter satellites:

Low cost development and applications of the new NRO donated telescopes.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/06/low-cost-development-and-applications.html

Bob Clark

 

[Byeman]

Blog post on using the new telescopes for planetary defense, asteroid prospecting, and Mars orbiter satellites:

Low cost development and applications of the new NRO donated telescopes.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/06/low-cost-development-and-applications.html

Bob Clark

The blog author doesn't know what he is talking about.

 

[RGClark]

In the blog post linked below, I discuss the fact that comparable ground scopes
cost a fraction of the price charged for space scopes, at $10 million to $20 million
and even less. Also, the same electronics can be used for the space scopes
as for the ground ones with only inexpensive modifications.
So if you already have the space qualified optics and support structures, as in
the NRO scopes case, then the space scopes can be completed for comparable
costs to the ground scopes, in the $10 million to $20 million range:

Low cost development and applications of the new NRO donated telescopes, Page 4.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/06/low-cost-development-and-applications_17.html

Planetary Resources Co-Founder Eric Anderson spoke at the 2012
International Space Development Conference:

ISDC 2012 Luncheon Speaker
Eric Anderson, Planetary Resources
http://www.nss.org/resources/library/videos/ISDC12anderson.html

About 33 minutes in he speaks about following a more commercial
approach to reduce the cost of satellites.


Bob Clark

 

[Byeman]

So if you already have the space qualified optics and support structures, as in
the NRO scopes case, then the space scopes can be completed for comparable
costs to the ground scopes, in the $10 million to $20 million range:

Wrong. Unsubstantiated. Your sources do not support your claim.
Stringing together internet sources is not a legimate proof.

 

[sferrin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xpufJ3LyM0&feature=plcp

(Forward to 3:24)

 

[DWG]

In the blog post linked below, I discuss the fact that comparable ground scopes
cost a fraction of the price charged for space scopes, at $10 million to $20 million
and even less. Also, the same electronics can be used for the space scopes
as for the ground ones with only inexpensive modifications.
So if you already have the space qualified optics and support structures, as in
the NRO scopes case, then the space scopes can be completed for comparable
costs to the ground scopes, in the $10 million to $20 million range:

Now it is possible to produce a low cost satellite system using ground hardware - Surrey Satellite Technology (I do wish I'd got that job with them!) currently have a technology demonstrator microsat being built to use an iPhone as its electronics core, and they're looking at demonstrating docking two cubesats using Xbox Kinect hardware. However these are technology stunts with a limited focus (which is not to say they have no value) and for a major scientific mission it's not necessarily that simple, the electronics are one of the more simple components to space-rate, and what these satellites are missing is not so much the electronics - I'm not clear how complete the bus is - but the sensors. And those are one of the items you need to ensure are space-rated. What makes a practical cooling mechanism for a ground based telescope sensor isn't remotely practical for a space environment where you can't refill it with coolant on demand. And once you start on space-rating that kind of hardware, with the necessary testing and so forth, the costs just start to mount up.


And beyond that, most of us would consider on-orbit delivery to be a fairly essential part of the project costs, and for a Hubble derivative I'd guess we're talking a Delta IV Heavy or similar, which comes in at something north of $250m. Any claim of dropping costs by orders of magnitude goes immediately out of the window once launch costs are included.

 

[RGClark]

Now it is possible to produce a low cost satellite system using ground hardware - Surrey Satellite Technology (I do wish I'd got that job with them!) currently have a technology demonstrator microsat being built to use an iPhone as its electronics core, and they're looking at demonstrating docking two cubesats using Xbox Kinect hardware.

Thanks for that info. They are potentially very important technology demonstrators because they can show what's possible for satellites in general. Obviously there are quite complex electronics in a smart phone.

However these are technology stunts with a limited focus (which is not to say they have no value) and for a major scientific mission it's not necessarily that simple, the electronics are one of the more simple components to space-rate, and what these satellites are missing is not so much the electronics - I'm not clear how complete the bus is - but the sensors. And those are one of the items you need to ensure are space-rated. What makes a practical cooling mechanism for a ground based telescope sensor isn't remotely practical for a space environment where you can't refill it with coolant on demand. And once you start on space-rating that kind of hardware, with the necessary testing and so forth, the costs just start to mount up.

It's a thermos bottle.

And beyond that, most of us would consider on-orbit delivery to be a fairly essential part of the project costs, and for a Hubble derivative I'd guess we're talking a Delta IV Heavy or similar, which comes in at something north of $250m. Any claim of dropping costs by orders of magnitude goes immediately out of the window once launch costs are included.

To LEO since they're smaller than the Hubble, use the $50 million Falcon 9. To GEO or even to a Sun-Earth Lagrange point, use the $100 million Falcon Heavy.


Bob Clark

 

[Byeman]

To LEO since they're smaller than the Hubble, use the $50 million Falcon 9. To GEO or even to a Sun-Earth Lagrange point, use the $100 million Falcon Heavy.

Again you show that you don't know what you are talking about.
A. What says the spacecraft would be smaller than HST?
b. Falcon 9 does not cost 50 million. Forget anything you read on the internet
c. FH does not exist yet

 

[Hobbes]

SpaceX has publicly said that you can buy a Falcon 9 launch for $54M 'fixed price'. http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php

They now have contracts for ~38 flights. If the actual price in those contracts had been higher than 54M, you'd think someone would have blabbed by now. If you have better information, share it. Otherwise your accusation is rather hollow.

 

[Byeman]

SpaceX has publicly said that you can buy a Falcon 9 launch for $54M 'fixed price'. http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php

They now have contracts for ~38 flights. If the actual price in those contracts had been higher than 54M, you'd think someone would have blabbed by now. If you have better information, share it. Otherwise your accusation is rather hollow.

I do have better information but I can't share it. But here is some discriminators.
The "fixed" price is without necessary options such as payload adapters among other things.
The 38 flights include cargo to the ISS which was paid for by the pound and not by launch vehicle.
Spacex costs are rising, their flight rate remains low and their labor costs are increasing
The gov't does not get the website price.

 

[RGClark]

To LEO since they're smaller than the Hubble, use the $50 million Falcon 9. To GEO or even to a Sun-Earth Lagrange point, use the $100 million Falcon Heavy.

Again you show that you don't know what you are talking about.
A. What says the spacecraft would be smaller than HST?
b. Falcon 9 does not cost 50 million. Forget anything you read on the internet
c. FH does not exist yet

The news reports are that the optics and structures weigh less than those of the Hubble which had a mass of 11 mT. Since the electronics of the Hubble stem from the 1980's, by Moore's law they will weigh markedly less now than those on the Hubble.
Call the launch price of the Falcon $54 million if you want or even $60 million, still a significant bargain over that of the usual American launch price, ca. $100 million for a 10 mT payload to LEO.
Given the Elon Musk and SpaceX history, I think most people would consider it a very good bet the Falcon Heavy will be launched, whether as planned next year or a year later. I admit though I'm not too sanguine about having 27 engines on the Falcon Heavy.


Bob Clark

 

[Byeman]

The news reports are that the optics and structures weigh less than those of the Hubble which had a mass of 11 mT. Since the electronics of the Hubble stem from the 1980's, by Moore's law they will weigh markedly less now than those on the Hubble.
Call the launch price of the Falcon $54 million if you want or even $60 million, still a significant bargain over that of the usual American launch price, ca. $100 million for a 10 mT payload to LEO.

Wrong again. Moore's Law has little meaning in this case, since avionics are not a significant portion of spacecraft mass. Again, your internet based education fails you.

More like 80-90 million, which is makes the other US launchers competitive.

 

[DWG]

It's a thermos bottle.

The kind of 'thermos bottle' with requirements to make most engineers wince. And if you want a system that doesn't depend on the evaporation of a block of nitrogen ice, or liquid helium, and which therefore has a fixed lifetime, then you need a mechanical cooler. The NICMOS cryocooler on Hubble uses a 400,000 rpm turbine with diamond-coated bearings, that's not the kind of hardware that comes cheaply....

To LEO since they're smaller than the Hubble, use the $50 million Falcon 9. To GEO or even to a Sun-Earth Lagrange point, use the $100 million Falcon Heavy.

Even if the Falcon is capable of the lift, and that's a major if, the costs you yourself have just quoted mean the $10-20m you claimed could put the telescopes in operation is exceeded by between 250 and 500% just to cover launch costs, never mind the completion itself.

 

[DWG]

Since the electronics of the Hubble stem from the 1980's, by Moore's law they will weigh markedly less now than those on the Hubble.

That's not how Moore's Law works. Moore's Law states the density of transistors on the surface of an IC doubles every two years. That has nothing to do with weight. As an example, an i7 processor is vastly more powerful than an old Z-80, but it doesn't weigh less, in fact it's larger and heavier because of the multiple cores and the need to provide heatsinks to allow that greater density of circuitry to function without melting itself. Look at your current PC, is it any smaller than your first PC? All my PCs (and I've been using them since they were 'IBM PCs') have been roughly the same size and weight, despite the quantum leaps made in performance, and if we go back to my old ZX-81.... The point is that the circuitry isn't a significant part of the weight, it's all the ancillaries that weigh, and they aren't subject to Moore's Law.

 

[Hobbes]

That has nothing to do with weight.

Sure it does. For an individual processor you are correct. But you'd need a whole heap of 1980s processors to provide the same amount of processing power as a single current processor. The same goes for memory.

As for PC size: desktops aren't a good comparison: there are no size constraints so they can optimize for other things instead. Look at laptops instead. A current laptop motherboard is less than 10x10 cm, several times smaller than the motherboard+plugin cards of an early PC. Heck: compare a 1984 PC to a modern phone: the phone is much faster in 1/100 the volume.

 

[Byeman]

That has nothing to do with weight.

Sure it does.

Not in this case, a few pounds is in the noise, compared to the rest of the vehicle.

 

[RGClark]

Since the electronics of the Hubble stem from the 1980's, by Moore's law they will weigh markedly less now than those on the Hubble.

That's not how Moore's Law works. Moore's Law states the density of transistors on the surface of an IC doubles every two years. That has nothing to do with weight. As an example, an i7 processor is vastly more powerful than an old Z-80, but it doesn't weigh less, in fact it's larger and heavier because of the multiple cores and the need to provide heatsinks to allow that greater density of circuitry to function without melting itself. Look at your current PC, is it any smaller than your first PC? All my PCs (and I've been using them since they were 'IBM PCs') have been roughly the same size and weight, despite the quantum leaps made in performance, and if we go back to my old ZX-81.... The point is that the circuitry isn't a significant part of the weight, it's all the ancillaries that weigh, and they aren't subject to Moore's Law.

iPad 2 as fast as Cray 2 supercomputer, fraction of the size.
updated 08:15 am EDT, Tue May 10, 2011

Apple's iPad 2 is as fast as a Cray 2 supercomputer from a quarter-century ago, Top 500 and Linpack co-manager Dr. Jack Dongarra said late Monday. At 1.5 to 1.65 gigaflops of computing power, Apple's tablet would compete with the eight-processor, 1985-era system despite being just a sliver of the size. Where the Cray 2 was the size of a washing machine, the NYT said, the iPad 2 can manage the same performance in the space of a large notepad.

http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/05/10/ipad.2.benches.as.fast.as.cray.2.from.1985/

Cray 2 at top; iPad 2 smaller than the blue notebook held by the Cray worker.

The reduction in size and weight of memory is also as great. Memory storage that would have previously required racks of magnetic tape can now be held in gigabyte flash drives the size of your thumb.
And these size and weight reductions have been accompanied in reductions in cost. Whereas a Cray supercomputer would have cost millions, an ipad costs a few hundred.


Bob Clark

 

[sferrin]

The 386 CPU didn't need a heat sink. Have you seen the cooling requirements for the x86 CPUs over the last 5 years?

 

[Byeman]

The reduction in size and weight of memory is also as great. Memory storage that would have previously required racks of magnetic tape can now be held in gigabyte flash drives the size of your thumb.
And these size and weight reductions have been accompanied in reductions in cost. Whereas a Cray supercomputer would have cost millions, an ipad costs a few hundred.

Once again, your internet education fails you. Your example is not applicable here. Crays were never flying in space. And spacecraft didn't have racks of magnetic tape. Highly compact CPU's and memory are subject to SEU's. You won't see an Ipod controlling any critical systems.

 

[RGClark]

The news reports are that the optics and structures weigh less than those of the Hubble which had a mass of 11 mT. Since the electronics of the Hubble stem from the 1980's, by Moore's law they will weigh markedly less now than those on the Hubble.
Call the launch price of the Falcon $54 million if you want or even $60 million, still a significant bargain over that of the usual American launch price, ca. $100 million for a 10 mT payload to LEO.
Given the Elon Musk and SpaceX history, I think most people would consider it a very good bet the Falcon Heavy will be launched, whether as planned next year or a year later. I admit though I'm not too sanguine about having 27 engines on the Falcon Heavy.

This post on space writer Michael Belfiore's blog discusses that satellite prices can come down by an order of magnitude by mass production and by using commercially available off the shelf components:

Affordable space flight through mass production.
Posted by Michael Belfiore on Nov 6, 2012
http://michaelbelfiore.com/2012/11/spacecraft-mass-production.html#comment-3889


Bob Clark

 

[RGClark]

Blog post on using the new telescopes for planetary defense, asteroid prospecting, and Mars orbiter satellites:

Low cost development and applications of the new NRO donated telescopes.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/06/low-cost-development-and-applications.html

Bob Clark

Excellent news:


NASA May Launch Donated Spy Satellite Telescope to Mars.
by Mike Wall, SPACE.com Senior WriterDate: 15 May 2013 Time: 04:30 AM ET

The NRO's gift to NASA of unused spy satellites could enable a new project termed MOST, or Mars-Orbiting Space Telescope.
...
As it's currently envisioned, MOST would have three main science instruments — an imaging spectral mapper, a high-resolution imager and an ultraviolet spectrometer — allowing it to make a broad range of detailed observations.
The mapper would have a spatial resolution of 0.7 feet (0.21 m) per pixel at an orbiting altitude of 250 miles (400 kilometers), McEwen said. That's about 100 times better than the resolution achieved by a similar instrument aboard NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO), which has been circling the Red Planet since 2006.
...
MOST's imaging instrument would be able to photograph small areas with a resolution of 3.1 inches (8 centimeters) per pixel — about four times better than MRO's HiRise instrument (which McEwen leads as principal investigator).
...
Looking beyond Mars
MOST would also be built to look up and out, beyond the Red Planet and its two tiny moons.
The telescope's UV spectrometer is envisioned to be similar to that of the Hubble Space Telescope. But MOST likely wouldn't be able to study extremely distant objects as well as the famous HST, because installing a Hubble-like guidance and navigation system that allows a prolonged lock on such faint targets would raise the price tag significantly, McEwen said.
Instead, MOST may be optimized to view planets and moons in the outer solar system.
"We decided to emphasize bright targets, so mostly solar system targets — monitoring Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune atmospheres, monitoring volcanism on [Jupiter's moon] Io and cloud patterns on [Saturn's moon] Titan," McEwen said. "There's an interesting variety of things you could do in planetary science with it."

http://www.space.com/21064-nasa-donated-spy-telescope-mars.html

Bob Clark

 

[sferrin]

They need to put one around the moon and map it from as low of an altitude as possible. People would make a hobby of scouring the surface for interesting features. (LRO is but a shadow of what one of these could do.)