NRO Gives NASA two "Space Telescopes"

[RGClark]

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.)

What new features on the Moon might such high resolution imaging detect?

Bob Clark

 

[Mat Parry]

A resolution of 8cm per pixel at an altitude of 400km from these redundant NRO spy sat optic packages
that's surprisingly instructive, does this represent the current state of the art for US spy sats?

 

[sferrin]

A resolution of 8cm per pixel at an altitude of 400km from these redundant NRO spy sat optic packages
that's surprisingly instructive, does this represent the current state of the art for US spy sats?

Do you think they'd be giving them away if it did?

 

[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.)

What new features on the Moon might such high resolution imaging detect?

Bob Clark

More detail obviously.

 

[Mat Parry]

My understanding is that these were from failed future imagery architecture program

Are you suggesting there had been some kind of light gathering breakthrough since these were made...
membranes with an etched diffraction pattern or.... Quantum radar on the X-37B, ( that is my joke by the way)

If these mirrors are now obselete in terms of their performance,how has the diffraction limit been surpassed?

 

[Mat Parry]

Or James web style origami?

 

[RGClark]

My understanding is that these were from failed future imagery architecture program

Are you suggesting there had been some kind of light gathering breakthrough since these were made...
membranes with an etched diffraction pattern or.... Quantum radar on the X-37B, ( that is my joke by the way)

If these mirrors are now obselete in terms of their performance,how has the diffraction limit been surpassed?

Remember Hubble was built after the defense department had been using classified space scopes its size for years. I strongly suspect the DoD now has unfolding scopes the size of the James Webb or larger already in orbit.

Bob Clark

 

[Mat Parry]

Well the Hubble precedent is certainly true and a James web style ability to somewhat decouple aperture size from the size of the launch vehicle would no doubt be attractive to the NRO. That agencies launches are a matter of public record (the launches not the payloads) and I'm struggling to remember possible IMINT launches that fit the orbital characteristics and timeframe, but there are more suitable forums than this one to research this.... Where is byeman when we need him to add a valuable sanity check? (Being genuine, not being sarcastic or offensive to anyone here)

 

[Hobbes]

A resolution of 8cm per pixel at an altitude of 400km from these redundant NRO spy sat optic packages
that's surprisingly instructive,

That resolution would only be valid for Mars, which has much less of an atmosphere than Earth.

 

[Mat Parry]

Excellent point, thank you

I wonder though if these figures for mars can be used to calculate a resolution for earth?

 

[quellish]

Excellent point, thank you

I wonder though if these figures for mars can be used to calculate a resolution for earth?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_telescope#Angular_resolution

 

[Byeman]

Remember Hubble was built after the defense department had been using classified space scopes its size for years. I strongly suspect the DoD now has unfolding scopes the size of the James Webb or larger already in orbit.

unsubstantiated. Such a scope would be visible from the ground

 

[quellish]

I strongly suspect the DoD now has unfolding scopes the size of the James Webb or larger already in orbit.

Bob Clark

Since mirror size is the primary driver for resolution, you seem to be assuming more resolution is better. This is not always the case. The mirror size - and resolution - of NRO "close look" imaging satellites has remained largely consistent since the late 70s. KENNAN, IKON, and FIA all had primary mirrors of pretty much the same dimensions.

Not because of technology. Other similar "things" had much larger mirrors in the 80s.

 

[RGClark]

Remember Hubble was built after the defense department had been using classified space scopes its size for years. I strongly suspect the DoD now has unfolding scopes the size of the James Webb or larger already in orbit.

unsubstantiated. Such a scope would be visible from the ground

Since a surveillance scope's highest capabilities would be classified, that such a scope is being used would be unsubstantiated. Those in a position to know would deny its existence. This doesn't prove it exists. Only the fact that it is not discussed publicly does not prove it does not.
On the detection issue, various types of stealth satellites have been deployed for decades:

Anatomy of a Spy Satellite
by Leonard David, Senior Space WriterDate: 03 January 2005 Time: 06:45 AM ET
http://www.space.com/637-anatomy-spy-satellite.html

I liked this passage:

"The United States started to use bureaucratic stealth when it first began the Corona reconnaissance program in the late 1950s. The very existence of the project was a secret and for several years the U.S. Air Force told the public that it was simply testing engineering equipment, not launching actual reconnaissance satellites," the source, who did not wish to be identified, noted.

Hmm, what current Air Force space program does that remind you of?

Bob Clark

 

[RGClark]

Here is the report by McEwen at the "Study on Applications of Large Space Optics" (SALSO) workshop:

The Mars Orbiting Space Telescope (MOST).
http://salso.msfc.nasa.gov/lib/119Mcewen.pdf

The NRO scopes were reported to be lighter than Hubble, but I was surprised how much lighter. The study by McEwen uses a mass of only 2,000 kg for the telescope and instruments. This is compared to a mass of 11,000 kg for the Hubble. In that case it's surprising it's felt solar electric propulsion would be needed to put it in Mars orbit, not even to land. Quite likely a Delta IV Heavy could do it, certainly a Falcon Heavy could.

Other proposed uses for the NRO scopes discussed at the SALSO workshop available here:

SALSO Abstract Library.
http://salso.msfc.nasa.gov/


Bob Clark

 

[Byeman]

On the detection issue, various types of stealth satellites have been deployed for decades:

Not true. Just one or two launches. And nothing in the timeframe that would support a JWST type spacecraft.

Your premise is wrong. There are no JWST type reconsats

 

[Byeman]

The NRO scopes were reported to be lighter than Hubble, but I was surprised how much lighter. The study by McEwen uses a mass of only 2,000 kg for the telescope and instruments. This is compared to a mass of 11,000 kg for the Hubble.

Frickin clueless. The 2000kg does not include the spacecraft supporting it, where as HST mass (11,000) is for the whole spacecraft, which also has more instruments. The actual mass of the NRO telescopes are 1700kg and the HST optical telescope assembly, which includes the fine guidance sensors, is 4000kg. 20 year separation in design and assembly easily accounts for the mass difference.

 

[RGClark]

The NRO scopes were reported to be lighter than Hubble, but I was surprised how much lighter. The study by McEwen uses a mass of only 2,000 kg for the telescope and instruments. This is compared to a mass of 11,000 kg for the Hubble.

Frickin clueless. The 2000kg does not include the spacecraft supporting it, where as HST mass (11,000) is for the whole spacecraft, which also has more instruments. The actual mass of the NRO telescopes are 1700kg and the HST optical telescope assembly, which includes the fine guidance sensors, is 4000kg. 20 year separation in design and assembly easily accounts for the mass difference.

Perhaps you should actually read the McEwen report. The 2,000 kg includes the entire telescope assembly including the new instruments that need to be added to the NRO scopes.

Bob Clark

 

[RGClark]

On the detection issue, various types of stealth satellites have been deployed for decades:

Not true. Just one or two launches. And nothing in the timeframe that would support a JWST type spacecraft.

Your premise is wrong. There are no JWST type reconsats

Of course assuming you know, you would have to say that whether it was the case or not.

Bob Clark

 

[quellish]

Since a surveillance scope's highest capabilities would be classified, that such a scope is being used would be unsubstantiated.

Not really. Anyone can do the math, and the important characteristics of the optics are in the public domain.

Of course assuming you know, you would have to say that whether it was the case or not.

Launches are very visible, and there is a large community of people who track the payloads. It is not possible at this time to "hide" a Webb-sized payload. The launch is impossible to conceal. If the payload "disappeared" it would be noticed as it was with USA-63 and USA-144.

NRO's customers do not have a concrete need for resolution greater than that offered by the KENNAN series. If anything, it causes more problems than it solves. There is no significant advantage to using a Webb-sized telescope to look down for intelligence purposes. Instead the customers are more interested in capabilities like being able to see through cloud cover, or being able to use uber-cool multi spectral imaging, or being able to change where the cameras are looking more often.

 

[RGClark]

Since a surveillance scope's highest capabilities would be classified, that such a scope is being used would be unsubstantiated.

Not really. Anyone can do the math, and the important characteristics of the optics are in the public domain.

Of course assuming you know, you would have to say that whether it was the case or not.

Launches are very visible, and there is a large community of people who track the payloads. It is not possible at this time to "hide" a Webb-sized payload. The launch is impossible to conceal. If the payload "disappeared" it would be noticed as it was with USA-63 and USA-144.
NRO's customers do not have a concrete need for resolution greater than that offered by the KENNAN series. If anything, it causes more problems than it solves. There is no significant advantage to using a Webb-sized telescope to look down for intelligence purposes. Instead the customers are more interested in capabilities like being able to see through cloud cover, or being able to use uber-cool multi spectral imaging, or being able to change where the cameras are looking more often.

Of course, the relevant national security agencies would need to deny the use of James Webb-class scopes. Then estimates for spy sat resolution would stay at those of Hubble-class scopes.
The JWST weighs ca. 6 mT. It needs an Ariane 5 or other 20+ mT payload class launcher to get it far beyond Earth orbit. However, to just LEO, several medium class launchers could do it, such as the Atlas V and Delta IV Medium. For DoD launches, they may say it's a reconnaissance satellite but they never say what its detailed capabilities are.
As mentioned in that Space.com article on stealth satellites, it is believed the DoD uses decoys to disguise the actual spy sat orbits. After reaching orbit various stealth methods could be used to hide their location.
Even if it is the case, which I doubt, that the DoD would not want optical resolution better than Hubble-class telescopes, there are a few reasons for larger scopes. One reason is that the larger scopes can be at higher altitude which would improve their lack of detectability while maintaining the same resolution. Another is the larger area would have higher light collecting ability so can do imaging better in low light or partially cloud covered scenarios. Still another is that infrared observations useful at night which because of their longer wavelength would have worse resolution than optical observations would have now resolution equal to or better than the previous scopes at optical wavelengths.

Bob Clark

 

[quellish]

Of course, the relevant national security agencies would need to deny the use of James Webb-class scopes. Then estimates for spy sat resolution would stay at those of Hubble-class scopes.

These systems are governed by the laws of physics. There is nothing to "deny".

However, just out of curiosity can you point me to the money used to develop this fleet of "James Webb-class" payloads? Or the workforce that was employed to do so? The companies who received the billions of dollars of government funds required to develop them? The organizations that provided legislative oversight? I mean, FIA was a big program and was very visible. So were other imaging reconnaissance programs - even the "stealth satellite"!

As mentioned in that Space.com article on stealth satellites, it is believed the DoD uses decoys to disguise the actual spy sat orbits. After reaching orbit various stealth methods could be used to hide their location.

No, not really. And having a large, folding, reflecting surface (and sunshield!) does not help matters.

Even if it is the case, which I doubt, that the DoD would not want optical resolution better than Hubble-class telescopes, there are a few reasons for larger scopes. One reason is that the larger scopes can be at higher altitude which would improve their lack of detectability while maintaining the same resolution.

And what would be the military or intelligence utility in increased resolution? Best case you are talking about going from being able to resolve an object about 2.5 inches to one that is 0.94 inches. That's at the low point of USA-224's orbit. Sadly, a 6.5m mirror will not magically allow you to identify faces (that would require a primary much, much larger, or a different solution entirely).

Let's not ignore that imaging intelligence satellites are not just "telescopes pointing down". The change orbits. They have to point themselves in all kinds of interesting ways. They are commonly used to capture low oblique images rather than straight down. This can make them very different from something like Webb or HST. This gets a lot harder to do with a large folding mirror like the Webb.

Putting a satellite higher is a costly an ineffective counter detection strategy. It costs a lot less for your adversary to make a better detection system than it does for you to put it higher.

Another is the larger area would have higher light collecting ability so can do imaging better in low light or partially cloud covered scenarios. Still another is that infrared observations useful at night which because of their longer wavelength would have worse resolution than optical observations would have now resolution equal to or better than the previous scopes at optical wavelengths.

Larger mirrors do not have the advantages you are citing for this application. There are many resources available in your local library that may help you better understand the physics, politics, and policy that shapes imaging intelligence programs.

 

[Byeman]

Perhaps you should actually read the McEwen report. The 2,000 kg includes the entire telescope assembly including the new instruments that need to be added to the NRO scopes.

Actually, it is you that needs to reread it and my post too and also try to comprehend them this time. I excluded the instrument weigh to make the proper comparison between telescopes and not spacecraft. The NRO telescope weight is 1700kg and HST is 4000kg. An entire telescope assembly is not a spacecraft.

Here I will spell it out for you so you can understand. Here are the words in the report:

"High heritage spacecraft design, using solar electrical propulsion to deliver a large mass to Mars orbit with standard launch vehicles. 2000 kg payload mass, >5500 W power at Mars."
and
"The bus is a combination of flight proven heritage components and subsystems configured for the Large Optical Payload, with the inclusion of electric propulsion (EP) for efficient delivery of the observatory to Mars orbit. The spacecraft accommodates a 2000 kg payload/instrument"

The "2000 kg payload mass" and "2000 kg payload/instrument" are not the weight of the spacecraft but the weight of the telescope plus instruments (1700 + 300).

It says nothing about the weight of the whole spacecraft. Also, the 300kg of instruments are not the same class as Hubble's.
So you point of comparing the NRO telescopes to the HST spacecraft total weight of 11000kg is meaningless, nor does it account for added weight to the HST design for serviceability by EVA, man rating, and redundancy.

Do some real research (not internet searches) before making nonsensical statements.

 

[Byeman]

One reason is that the larger scopes can be at higher altitude which would improve their lack of detectability while maintaining the same resolution. Another is the larger area would have higher light collecting ability so can do imaging better in low light or partially cloud covered scenarios. Still another is that infrared observations useful at night which because of their longer wavelength would have worse resolution than optical observations would have now resolution equal to or better than the previous scopes at optical wavelengths.

Wrong again.

1. Amateur trackers know were most spacecraft are, especially those in LEO. There hasn't been enough launches to hide such spacecraft. It is easy to figure out orbits and spacecraft by launch azimuth and fairing size. There hasn't been any large fairing launches for a JWST type spacecraft in reconn type orbits.

2. Larger mirror don't help looking through clouds.

3. Infrared imaging requires cold sensors, which means either cryogens, large sunshield or radiators. The sunshield and radiators would negate your stealth idea. Cryogens have short life onorbit.

Your internet education is failing you again.

 

[Byeman]

One reason is that the larger scopes can be at higher altitude which would improve their lack of detectability while maintaining the same resolution.

Wrong, they would just as easy to spot and even easier. They would have a longer transit and be visible longer.
The r2 works both ways. The increased size of the mirrors for higher orbits would negate the additional distance from the ground observer.

 

[Byeman]

This is just another example of the internet giving a voice to the uninformed and clueless and where their nonsense spreads and infects other sites, and other less knowledgeable pick it up as fact and further distribute the virus