What Will NASA Do With Its Gifted Spy 'Scopes?

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

What Will NASA Do With Its Gifted Spy 'Scopes?

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @06:25AM from the regift-them-to-spacex dept.

astroengine writes "NASA has begun surveying scientists on what they would like to do with two Hubble-class space telescopes donated to the civilian space agency by its secretive sibling, the National Reconnaissance Office — which operates the nation's spy satellites. But the gifts have some formidable strings attached, including costs to develop instruments and launch the observatories. The telescopes, though declassified, also are subject to export regulations. 'We need to retain possession and control,' NASA's astrophysics division director Paul Hertz told Discovery News. 'That doesn't preclude us from partnering (with other countries). It just sets boundaries on the nature of the partnership.' NASA also isn't allowed to use the telescopes for any Earth-observing missions. Topping the list of possible missions for the donor hardware is a remake of NASA's planned Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope, known as WFIRST. The mission, estimated to cost between $1.5 billion and $2 billion, is intended to answer questions about dark energy, a relatively recently discovered phenomenon that is believed to be speeding up the universe's rate of expansion."

129 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Thoughts by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-27 06:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

The scientific community fights for years over one Hubble telescope - and some shady agency has two?
They can afford to "give them away" now. Probably because they have something much better now?
Am I the only one who thinks there is something simply "wrong" with all this? (And yes, I find it good those things are *now*, better: *finally*, used for science)
1. Re:Thoughts by jfdavis668 · 2012-11-27 06:36 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I don't know where I found out, but I knew soon after Hubble that the more were made for spy missions. It has been known for quite a while, just doesn't seem to be general knowledge.
2. Re:Thoughts by X0563511 · 2012-11-27 06:37 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  These were designed to look down. Of course they have something better now. If you don't think they can't read the headlines on your newspapers from space you're mistaken.
  I don't see anything wrong with this. When you have other superpowers threatening to glass your country, seeing where they are putting those munitions and such is mandatory.
  The world is not a utopia. We need espionage, if only to try to see it coming.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
3. Re:Thoughts by SJHillman · 2012-11-27 06:39 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  NASA has a tiny budget compared to military and intelligence, so it's no surprise that gear NASA has to fight to fund can be given away as surplus or obsolete by another agency.
  I'm just glad, and a bit surprised, the 'free' telescopes weren't scrapped or left to rust in some military warehouse.
4. Re:Thoughts by mcgrew · 2012-11-27 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  These were designed to look down. Of course they have something better now. If you don't think they can't read the headlines on your newspapers from space you're mistaken.
  The newspaper? How about the date on a dime, through your roof -- or even better.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
5. Re:Thoughts by gregulator · 2012-11-27 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  Never attribute to malice, what can be easily explained by incompetence.
  These telescopes are still here, on the ground. This makes me assume they were *never* in space, as retrieval would be very costly, and apparently pointless if they have no use for them.
  They either have several more up in space, or they were never able to get them up and running in the first place.
6. Re:Thoughts by Jeng · 2012-11-27 06:52 · Score: 2
  
  They could also be spares in case of launch failures.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
7. Re:Thoughts by ShanghaiBill · 2012-11-27 06:56 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I don't know where I found out, but I knew soon after Hubble that the more were made for spy missions.
  During the hearings over the Hubble Mirror fiasco, at least one NASA official admitted that the NRO had warned them to calibrate the mirror carefully. Apparently, the spooks had made a similar error years earlier. Unfortunately, NASA did not heed the warning.
8. Re:Thoughts by mhajicek · 2012-11-27 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  So launch into space isn't export?
9. Re:Thoughts by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-27 07:13 · Score: 0
  
  Nasa would have never had any had the technology not been first used for the older spy satellites.
10. Re:Thoughts by Dins · 2012-11-27 07:13 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Citizen #312374213 we've noticed a suspicious looking mole on your left upper thigh. You might want to get that checked out...
11. Re:Thoughts by squiggleslash · 2012-11-27 07:15 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Even worse, NASA only got these telescopes because someone accidentally mistyped "NSA" on the PO...
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
12. Re:Thoughts by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-27 07:17 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Because there is a requirement to maintain a certain amount of capability (so if a spy satellite fails, they need to have a spare to launch to replace it in short order), and the long lead times (say 5 to 10 years) to build these satellites, the DoD orders a number of satellites, and some of them may possibly never actually end up being flight vehicles.
  These two satellite 'cores' are just such spares. They weren't launched because a new generation of spy satellites were put into operation before these were needed. There are probably no other examples of these things still in orbit, though the model was probably used for a decade or more.
  Remember, NASA wasn't given two completed satellites, they were given two mirror assembly's and the associated bus and structure. It is up to NASA to design and build a useful science satellite with them.
  As to the DoD having something better, they probably do, but it isn't the mirror that is better, it's that the bus and structure will be of a different design. Optically, the limitation on a downward looking spy satellite will be the atmosphere, not the mirror or other associated optical components.
13. Re:Thoughts by MBlueD · 2012-11-27 07:19 · Score: 0
  
  Also the hooker you hired yesterday gave you herpes.
  
  --
  We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing.
14. Re:Thoughts by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-27 07:30 · Score: 0
  
  Only Google can do that.
  (Or would bother.)
15. Re:Thoughts by Metabolife · 2012-11-27 07:35 · Score: 2
  
  I know you're trying to scare me, but that actually sounds really useful.
16. Re:Thoughts by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · 2012-11-27 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe they built them to keep an eye on the ones in orbit. Watch the watchers etc.
17. Re:Thoughts by router · 2012-11-27 07:45 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I think you have that wrong way round, the Hubble mirror is the size it is because Lockheed (prime) could build it cheaper if it was sized the same as satellites they were already building. See wikipedia article on kh-11
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_Kennan
  these were 2.4m space telescopes first launched in 1976, same prime as Hubble.
  andy
18. Re:Thoughts by Bo'Bob'O · 2012-11-27 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  We spend almost as much on the NRO alone the NASA's whole budget and it only does one thing: spy satellites. NASA gets just a few billion more and does a whole range of things, rovers, space station, weather and aeronautics research, long term research in a verity of fields at what is suppose to be the vangaurd of US Science. So yes, I think there is something wrong with all this too.
  National Reconnaissance Office Budget for 2010: ~$15 Billion
  NASA Budget for 2010: $18.7 Billion
19. Re:Thoughts by Clomer · 2012-11-27 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  Something to keep in mind is that spy satellites looking down have the same problem that astronomical ground-based telescopes have looking up. Specifically, they have to look through the atmosphere, and the distortion that causes puts a pretty firm upper limit on how clear images can be. Yes, there are tricks that can be done to minimize the issue, but those tricks only go so far. I doubt they'll ever be able to read a newspaper from orbit.
  
  That's why Hubble was useful in the first place. As a telescope, it's not that impressive - far bigger and fancier ones exist. What sets it apart is that it is above all that atmospheric interference.
  
  --
  Intelligent responses welcome, flames will be met with marshmallows.
20. Re:Thoughts by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2012-11-27 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  The US owns the moon. Finders keepers.
  
  --
  
  ---
  ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
21. Re:Thoughts by Strider- · 2012-11-27 08:00 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  That's why Hubble was useful in the first place. As a telescope, it's not that impressive - far bigger and fancier ones exist. What sets it apart is that it is above all that atmospheric interference.
  Well, not quite... the adaptive optics on modern ground-based telescopes can deal with much of the problems associated with atmospherics. The real win with Hubble is that a) it can look in wavelengths that are heavily attenuated by the atmosphere (Think UV and Infrared) and b) it can stare at a target, continuously, for very long periods of time. Earth-based telescopes are (obviously) limited to observing at night, while Hubble can continuously observe a large portion of the sky on a continual basis (24 hours, 36, whatever). This is especially important when you're trying to observe extremely dim targets who's brightness can be measured in photons per minute.
  
  --
  ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
22. Re:Thoughts by ColdWetDog · 2012-11-27 08:04 · Score: 2
  
  Because there is a requirement to maintain a certain amount of capability (so if a spy satellite fails, they need to have a spare to launch to replace it in short order), and the long lead times (say 5 to 10 years) to build these satellites, the DoD orders a number of satellites, and some of them may possibly never actually end up being flight vehicles.
  These two satellite 'cores' are just such spares. They weren't launched because a new generation of spy satellites were put into operation before these were needed. There are probably no other examples of these things still in orbit, though the model was probably used for a decade or more.
  Remember, NASA wasn't given two completed satellites, they were given two mirror assembly's and the associated bus and structure. It is up to NASA to design and build a useful science satellite with them.
  As to the DoD having something better, they probably do, but it isn't the mirror that is better, it's that the bus and structure will be of a different design. Optically, the limitation on a downward looking spy satellite will be the atmosphere, not the mirror or other associated optical components.
  The sad part is that you are exactly correct. There must be a bunch of warehouses with all sorts of 'fun' stuff. Too bad we'll never see it.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
23. Re:Thoughts by lennier · 2012-11-27 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  If you don't think they can't read the headlines on your newspapers from space you're mistaken.
  Okay, so if I do think they can read the headlines... hold on... add the one, carry the zero, interpolate the spline... I'm still mistaken?
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
24. Re:Thoughts by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-27 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with Hubble's mirror was not with calibration - the mirror was not finished to the required specifications. It was a fuckup by a contractor.
25. Re:Thoughts by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-27 08:54 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  ...I think you're confusing science fiction with reality there. Unless the government has been amazing at hiding insanely advanced science and technology from the rest of us(and keep in mind, they have a hell of a time hiding a *sex scandal*), it is actually impossible to read anything through a roof from space. You can zoom in all you like(not actually true, but we'll give them the benefit of the doubt here.) All you'll get is a better image of the roof.
  Sci-fi writers, myself included, can generally get away with using infrared from space to track warm bodies in a cool environment(or cool bodies in a warm environment), but even that fails through, say, glass, which isn't transparent to IR. Also, a dime, being metal, will probably be at the same temperature as its environment.
  Maybe they could use x-rays, if you've got a powerful x-ray source under the dime. Or neutrinos, if you're using dimes either thick enough to reach the satellite in orbit or that are made out of neutronium. Of course, if you've got a 400 km thick dime, reading the date on it would probably be pretty easy, if you had a really fast camera, a good eye, and didn't run into the massive dime-tower at 25,000 mph.
  It's a fair bet the government has access to technology far better than we do, but if they had access to that level of tech, they wouldn't have to resort to drone strikes on terrorists.
  They'd simply suck them through a wormhole into the sun.
  Or...I guess they could have a *really* long lens that would reach down from orbit and drill through your roof, but the kinetic energy of such a large satellite striking your roof, even partially, might cause more problems than could ever be caused by surreptitious reading of dates on your private coinage.
26. Re:Thoughts by Theory+of+Everything · 2012-11-27 10:04 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, HST has a 96 minute orbital period around the Earth, so it cannot stare continuously. But it can coadd several exposures over several orbits.
  The real advantage of HST is that it is diffraction limited even on very faint objects (adaptive optics requires bright guide stars; even laser-guide-star adaptive optics needs a relatively bright natural star for the first-order correction) and the background light is much lower.
27. Re:Thoughts by Theory+of+Everything · 2012-11-27 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  The scientific community fights for years over one Hubble telescope - and some shady agency has two?
  They can afford to "give them away" now. Probably because they have something much better now?
  Am I the only one who thinks there is something simply "wrong" with all this? (And yes, I find it good those things are *now*, better: *finally*, used for science)
  No, some shady agency does not have two. They have two surplus and obsolete (for their purposes) telescopes that were never launched. The NRO had many, many more than two such satellites in actual operation, and now we are being told those are no longer cutting edge, so they definitely have something much better.
  There is a saying in astronomy that you cannot compare ground-observatory project costs to space-observatory project costs (every grad student ever has pointed out "for the cost of HST, imagine the huge telescope we could have built on the ground!" only to be rebuked with "space dollars are not the same as ground dollars). Similarly, military dollars are not the same as space dollars are not the same as ground dollars. Otherwise, one could naively say "for just the cost of one F22, we could have paid for XYZ science program by now."
28. Re:Thoughts by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-27 10:23 · Score: 0
  
  The US or the first caveman (or ape, or fish, but let's keep it within our species) to look up at night?
  Oh, you mean claiming it physically? Then it'd be the Sovjets, who were the first to accomplish a (unmanned) moon landing.
29. Re: Thoughts by Marillion · 2012-11-27 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  That's a very good point - looking down. The luminance levels from earth are MUCH brighter than a distant object. I once heard (translation: totally unverified) that the Hubble team had to be careful not to aim it a the moon because it could overload and/or the sensor. So what will the try to image with it?
  
  --
  This is a boring sig
30. Re:Thoughts by bware · 2012-11-27 10:59 · Score: 2
  
  I actually do have a suspicious looking mole on my left upper thigh, you insensitive clod!
  Now I know both my citizen number and that the tinfoil hat isn't working...
31. Re:Thoughts by khallow · 2012-11-27 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  There is a saying in astronomy that you cannot compare ground-observatory project costs to space-observatory project costs (every grad student ever has pointed out "for the cost of HST, imagine the huge telescope we could have built on the ground!" only to be rebuked with "space dollars are not the same as ground dollars). Similarly, military dollars are not the same as space dollars are not the same as ground dollars. Otherwise, one could naively say "for just the cost of one F22, we could have paid for XYZ science program by now."
  And that's one reason why I divide the cost of a NASA project by ten to get a better idea of how much the project actually costs. Because one really could get a lot for the cost of a F22 ($150 million), but not from NASA.
32. Re:Thoughts by Hatta · 2012-11-27 12:07 · Score: 2
  
  NASA has a tiny budget compared to military and intelligence
  That's the problem. Education and science always take a back seat to warfare. It doesn't have to be that way.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
33. Re:Thoughts by khallow · 2012-11-27 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  Am I the only one who thinks there is something simply "wrong" with all this?
  Obviously not, but it is worth noting that those spy satellites provide more value for the money spent to the US than NASA's space-related activities.
34. Re:Thoughts by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-27 15:21 · Score: 0
  
  Psst, when the Hubble looks 'north' or 'south', the earth's orbit never interferes with things it's looking at. It can starte continuously for 72 hours, or however many the astronomer using it is booked for.
35. Re: Thoughts by LurkerXXX · 2012-11-27 15:27 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, I've got a bridge in New York I'm looking to sell, and you sound like just the right buyer...
  The Hubble is based off Spy Satellite tech. Those can stare at clouds on the earth (not much dimmer than reflections off the moon) with no problems.
  Oh, and if you don't believe someone trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge, then there's this...
  http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/hubble_moon.html
36. Re: Thoughts by Marillion · 2012-11-27 17:22 · Score: 1
  
  Excellent to know about Hubble. It's a shame too, I hear the bridges in New York are cheaper now because of the flood ...
  
  --
  This is a boring sig
37. Re:Thoughts by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-27 20:53 · Score: 0
  
  It's a fair bet the government has access to technology far better than we do, but if they had access to that level of tech, they wouldn't have to resort to drone strikes on terrorists.
  Perhaps. But it's far likely to be of an incremental improvement type stuff that you can get if you throw enough money at it, than giant leap forward type stuff. Otherwise some equally clever person in the private market'd be coming up with the same type of thing within a few years.
38. Re:Thoughts by Dr.M0rph3us · 2012-11-27 21:02 · Score: 1
  
  Even sadder is that, with the ongoing budget cuts, it's possible that those satellites won't be launched. It's just in brainstorming phase, where propositions are being made, and if something sufficiently scientifically compelling to worth the resources is proposed, then _maybe_ it will proceed to planning phase.
39. Re:Thoughts by MickLinux · 2012-11-27 22:36 · Score: 1
  
  They're hereon the ground.
  Now I understand how they were able to read your newspaper headlines. I thought optical resolution limits prevented that, practically speaking.But I had never considered that they might just truck their hubble scopes from one part of the country to another.
  I'll have to keep an eye out for neighbors or g-men at the next table who have a suspicious-looking hubble next to their coffee. You never know when the NSA might be interested in subversive elements of your breakfast cereal.
  
  --
  Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
40. Re:Thoughts by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 04:21 · Score: 0
  
  for the uninformed, NASA gets half of one percent of the military budget.... 0.005 is not even the back seat. its a bug on the windshield.
41. Re:Thoughts by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 10:55 · Score: 0
  
  Must not have seen the movie Contact. Why build only one when you're charging for 3 (plus who knows what else was on the receipt.).
42. Re:Thoughts by termineite · 2012-11-28 16:56 · Score: 1
  
  Think of it the other way round; we need two Hubbles protecting us to be able to have one for science. War, greed and all in the mix are far more intrinsically human than science.
Map the asteroid belt by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-27 06:37 · Score: 0

We could use a more detailed survey of the solar system, I think.
link to earlier discussion by Trepidity · 2012-11-27 06:40 · Score: 4, Informative

For those who missed the original donation, here was the /. discussion of that. It seems the main update is that they've now taken a bunch of suggestions and are prioritizing them.

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
1. Re:link to earlier discussion by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-27 11:27 · Score: 0
  
  Coca leaves and poppy fields
Mars relay by vinn · 2012-11-27 06:43 · Score: 2

With the Mars Odyssey dying a slow death, NASA is desperately going to need a new craft just to act as a communications relay. Outfit one of these things with the comm equipment and send it to Mars. Put some (flight-rated) commodity image processing onboard and we get a nice set up for better imaging of Mars.
Of course, there's probably a million things that would be problematic with all that, not the least of which is the thing probably isn't rated for flying that far and might need a special delivery craft to get it there. However, as far as size goes, it should have more than enough capacity on the power side and on the internal space to handle a mission that far.

--
----- obSig
scrubbing by Tablizer · 2012-11-27 06:43 · Score: 1

First they have to remove all the images of Vladamir P. taking dumps.

--
Table-ized A.I.
This is nothing new. by sunking2 · 2012-11-27 06:43 · Score: 1

NASA deals with ITAR all the time.
Priorities by guises · 2012-11-27 06:45 · Score: 2

I'm delighted to hear that while NASA is underfunded to the point where they've needed to cancel maintenance of the Hubble and the James Webb telescope is on the verge of being scrapped, our spy organization is so overflowing with money that they can make two Hubble equivalents which are, apparently, redundant next to all of their other money and toys.
1. Re:Priorities by lennier · 2012-11-27 09:19 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I'm delighted to hear that while NASA is underfunded to the point where they've needed to cancel maintenance of the Hubble and the James Webb telescope is on the verge of being scrapped, our spy organization is so overflowing with money that they can make two Hubble equivalents which are, apparently, redundant next to all of their other money and toys.
  Well, yes. Who did you think paid all the R&D bills for space in the first place?
  The Mercury capsules were launched on ICBMs, remember. And with shenanigans like GRAB going on since 1960, one could be forgiven for wondering if there have ever been any actual "pure science" missions in the US space fleet at all.
  The dual-use of "civilian" spaceflight and the primacy of military uses for space has never been a secret, most of this information is open-source and available in plenty of dry academic websites if you really want to know. But much of the US citizenry seem to enjoy believing in a gentle apolitical space fairy which exists only to take harmless pictures of nebulae and launch GPS and Internet relay satellites. It seems easier than confronting the funding reality.
  Same as the National Ignition Facility exists for "fusion power research" in the brochures. There is a lot of power generated in a boosted fission weapon, so technically it's not a lie.
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
2. Re:Priorities by The+Master+Control+P · 2012-11-27 10:25 · Score: 2
  
  Hubble isn't the only telescope NASA runs, or even the most powerful. FERMI, SWIFT, Spitzer, Chandra, ERO, and Kepler are just the ones I can name without Google's help, there's many more.
  
  They just don't produce pretty pictures in the optical frequency range like Hubble does.
3. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-27 12:57 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, NRO didn't have the budget to orbit them either.
4. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-27 20:57 · Score: 0
  
  You're assuming they were unused before being given to NASA. Could be they only stopped using them in the last few weeks.
  The older spy satellites are totally impractical for use by NASA too. They recovered to reels of film, which were jettisoned, fell into the atmosphere and then captured by spy plane (often above enemy territory before it landed on the ground). These donated telescopes are I'm sure easier to use than that, but it means all the earlier ones NASA might have had donated wouldn't have been worth the trouble. They might only now be starting to decommission the stuff NASA would love to accept.
5. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 00:03 · Score: 0
  
  NASA annual budget 2012: $18 bn
  US Military air-con bill 2012: $20 bn
  ?
6. Re:Priorities by Comboman · 2012-11-28 00:40 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not assuming anything because (gasp!) I actually read the article. They have never been used because they have never been launched into space (it's pretty hard to use a space telescope that's sitting on the ground).
  
  --
  Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Priorities by Comboman · 2012-11-27 06:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

No one is claiming that espionage is not necessary. It's just disturbing that NASA is a constant target of budget cuts and has been struggling to keep it's single space telescope operational for the last 20 years while the military has be sitting on two, unused, surplus space telescopes (that we know about).

--
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Flawed Mirror by gregulator · 2012-11-27 06:48 · Score: 1

I wonder if these also have the "Flawed Mirror" that the Hubble had.
I also wonder if that flaw helped the telescope view the earth rather than the stars.
1. Re:Flawed Mirror by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-27 07:30 · Score: 0
  
  yes they did but were fixed by the NRO years earlier. NASA was warned but failed to fix the mirror assembly.
2. Re:Flawed Mirror by Strider- · 2012-11-27 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  The flaw on Hubble's main mirror is one of Spherical Aberration. Basically, the light bouncing off the mirror's surface doesn't actually converge at a point, but rather in a line. It doesn't matter whether you're looking at the ground, or at the stars, spherical aberration is still bad.
  
  --
  ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
3. Re:Flawed Mirror by OhSoLaMeow · 2012-11-27 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder if these also have the "Flawed Mirror" that the Hubble had.
  The Hubble mirror was developed around the same time the Pentium P5 came out. Coincidence?
  
  --
  They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
Budget Problems Solved by TheAngryMob · 2012-11-27 06:50 · Score: 4, Funny

Just point them at key members' of Congress' homes for a while. Then, when budget reviews come up, NASA simply goes to Congress with a thumb drive. "We need funding for a new Mars mission, Senator. If not, we'll have to start selling some of these picture-filled drives to the public to offset the costs. Wouldn't it be a damn shame if certain images of that high school cheerleading squad coming and going from your house at all hours of the night were to...accidentally...end up on the Internet? That would be a damn, criminal, shame...wouldn't it, Senator?"

--

Don't just game, Dungeoneer
1. Re:Budget Problems Solved by NettiWelho · 2012-11-27 07:05 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Just point them at key members' of Congress' homes for a while. Then, when budget reviews come up, NASA simply goes to Congress with a thumb drive. "We need funding for a new Mars mission, Senator. If not, we'll have to start selling some of these picture-filled drives to the public to offset the costs. Wouldn't it be a damn shame if certain images of that high school cheerleading squad coming and going from your house at all hours of the night were to...accidentally...end up on the Internet? That would be a damn, criminal, shame...wouldn't it, Senator?"
  >Coming up on 10 o'clock news: A senior NASA official died today in a strange car accident...
2. Re:Budget Problems Solved by DarkTempes · 2012-11-27 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  > Breaking news: A Senator's home was hit by a rogue meteorite today, killing everyone inside.
  You probably don't want to mess with people with access to the top of the well when you live at the bottom of it.
3. Re:Budget Problems Solved by NettiWelho · 2012-11-27 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  >This just in; In a freak incident NASA HQ gets attacked by an armada of rogue Predator drones armed with hellfire missiles. Anonymous CIA source says Iranian hackers are thought be to involved.
4. Re:Budget Problems Solved by Jeng · 2012-11-27 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  If said hypothetical senator is smart he'll just publicly point out that NASA is spying on US citizens and all those involved at NASA will be spending the rest of their lives in jail as the agency is dismantled.
  It is very rare that anyone really cares if a politician is fucking around.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
5. Re:Budget Problems Solved by NettiWelho · 2012-11-27 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  If said hypothetical senator is smart he'll just publicly point out that NASA is spying on US citizens and all those involved at NASA will be spending the rest of their lives in jail as the agency is dismantled.
  It is very rare that anyone really cares if a politician is fucking around.
  All right, at the risk on sounding stupid: why is it so tightly held secret then?
6. Re:Budget Problems Solved by Jeng · 2012-11-27 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  Well you wouldn't want your wife knowing, but if you are being blackmailed at that level whether or not your wife knows is the lesser issue.
  Clinton is a good example, he fucked around a lot and the thing he got in trouble for was lying about it, not the deed itself. And his base did not care one bit because he was doing a great job otherwise.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
7. Re:Budget Problems Solved by schlachter · 2012-11-27 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  It appeared that he was trying to swerve to avoid the falling debris of NASA's new imaging satellite which was accidentally shot out of the sky by an Ageis anti-ballistic missile this morning. What a tragedy.
  
  --
  My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
8. Re:Budget Problems Solved by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-27 09:14 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, they'd be more subtle than that. They've got plenty of options:
  1) Rogue hacker deletes the entire NASA image database.
  2) Right back at ya; NASA director forced to resign due to scandalous affair(real or fake, what's the difference?)
  3) Prominent NASA scientist kidnapped by terrorists. No public demands made. Scientist is returned days later slightly worse for wear and the images have disappeared.
  That's without even getting too creative.
9. Re:Budget Problems Solved by ceoyoyo · 2012-11-27 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  Thus why one of the conditions was that NASA not use them for Earth observing.
this is why they shouldn't be given nice things by Thud457 · 2012-11-27 06:52 · Score: 1

Don't give them to NYC. They won't bother to take care of them or handle them properly.

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
What Will NASA Do With Its Gifted Spy 'Scopes? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-27 06:59 · Score: 0

Let's look at girls.
S. R. Hadden by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2012-11-27 07:05 · Score: 1

> two Hubble-class space telescopes donated to the civilian space agency
"First rule of government spending: Why build one when you can have three for three times the price?"

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
1. Re:S. R. Hadden by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-27 07:31 · Score: 0
  
  Probably more like 'build 12 instead of the 10 we need in orbit'. You may have heard of this thing called 'redundancy'? Turns out it is actually cheaper to have spares ready BEFORE you need them as opposed to scrambling to get more built in case of a failure.
2. Re:S. R. Hadden by Metabolife · 2012-11-27 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  R&D costs are far more than production costs.
3. Re:S. R. Hadden by nedlohs · 2012-11-27 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  Because never in all of space launches has a launch failed in a way that destroys the payload and hence you should just build the dozen you need and not a couple of extras just in case a rocket goes boom in the wrong fashion.
4. Re:S. R. Hadden by Jstlook · 2012-11-27 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  When I was doing work in that line, my motif was "lets build a dozen, test em all, and use the one that worked right." Nothin redundant about it. Sure, the other eleven might be saved somehow, but let's not forget that when you're talking materials that have to survive in extreme conditions, you test your systems on the ones that won't survive, and ship the one that will.
  
  --
  ---jstlook ---For that is the way of Elves, for they say both yes AND no, and mean every word of it. --- J.R.R.T.
GIVEN by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-27 07:06 · Score: 0

A "gifted" spy scope is the recipient of a gift, not the gift itself. NASA is gifted. The spy scopes are given.
1. Re:GIVEN by Gadget_Guy · 2012-11-27 07:41 · Score: 1
  As an adjective it means:
  
  having great special talent or ability: the debut of a gifted artist.
  having exceptionally high intelligence: gifted children.
  It is possible that they meant one of these meanings instead, but I doubt it. It does seem strange that they would substitute "gifted" for the perfectly cromulent word "donated" that was in the summary.
2. Re:GIVEN by clyde_cadiddlehopper · 2012-11-27 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  Sure. And that fruitcake you will be getting this year will be "regiven" not "regifted".
  
  --
  Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
3. Re:GIVEN by lennier · 2012-11-27 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  Sure. And that fruitcake you will be getting this year will be "regiven" not "regifted".
  Such abuse of language should never be forgifted. English once liven us to great heights; now you have rifted it in twain, siven it like wheat, and drifted a wedge between us.
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
yes, there is something wrong with this by circletimessquare · 2012-11-27 07:07 · Score: 1

it's called "reality is ugly and not a cuddly puppy"

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:the statistics back me up by Jeng · 2012-11-27 07:07 · Score: 1

George W Bush was a cheerleader.

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Burn Ants by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-27 07:13 · Score: 0

Of course.
L4 and L5, of course. by NReitzel · 2012-11-27 07:16 · Score: 1

Are you kidding, -two- Hubble class telescopes.
Dig deep into everyone's pockets, and launch them to the L4 and L5 LaGrangian points (Earth-Solar), and make a whopping big interferometer out of them.

--
Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.
1. Re:L4 and L5, of course. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-27 07:33 · Score: 0
  
  Are you kidding, -two- Hubble class telescopes.
  Dig deep into everyone's pockets, and launch them to the L4 and L5 LaGrangian points (Earth-Solar), and make a whopping big interferometer out of them.
  A pity the DoD didn't gift NASA with tens of billions of $ to go along with the 2 spare telescopes.
  Right now those 2 telescopes are more like a poisoned gift than anything else.
2. Re:L4 and L5, of course. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-27 07:42 · Score: 0
  
  Are you kidding, -two- Hubble class telescopes.
  Dig deep into everyone's pockets, and launch them to the L4 and L5 LaGrangian points (Earth-Solar), and make a whopping big interferometer out of them.
  That is brilliant. I hope they do that.
3. Re:L4 and L5, of course. by clyde_cadiddlehopper · 2012-11-27 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  How about using the same positions, but for stereoscopic ultra high res search and mapping of near Earth objects?
  
  --
  Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
4. Re:L4 and L5, of course. by agm · 2012-11-27 07:52 · Score: 0
  
  Are you kidding, -two- Hubble class telescopes.
  Dig deep into everyone's pockets, and launch them to the L4 and L5 LaGrangian points (Earth-Solar), and make a whopping big interferometer out of them.
  Is "digging deep into everyone's pockets" a euphemism for "take more tax off people"? If so then I want no part of it. It's a major scam that the state can tax people to pay for these telescopes, then when they're no longer needed then simply give them away. Surely they should be sold and the proceeds be given *back* to the taxpayers that paid for them (in proportion to how they were taxed).
  Having powerful receivers at L4 and L5 is a great idea though.
5. Re:L4 and L5, of course. by dargaud · 2012-11-27 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  How about using the same positions, but for stereoscopic ultra high res search and mapping of near Earth objects?
  
  It would be better to place them near the sun in that case. And I'm not sure that their optical formula is the best for _finding_ objects. You want a wide field for that.
  
  --
  Non-Linux Penguins ?
6. Re:L4 and L5, of course. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-27 09:25 · Score: 0
  
  Except only NASA would want to buy those satellites, using tax money collected from the same people you just handed the proceeds of the sales to. Net gain == 0.
7. Re:L4 and L5, of course. by ceoyoyo · 2012-11-27 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  Problem is, we can't do VLBI at optical wavelengths yet.
  Also, what is it you'd like to measure the size of?
The choice is obvious by lordofthechia · 2012-11-27 07:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

If these can be calibrated to work as regular telescopes, then we need *Stereo* images of all the galaxies and nebulae!
It's about time NASA got on the 3D bandwagon!

--
Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
1. Re:The choice is obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-27 07:30 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Stereo imaging has the added benefit of allowing the removal of glare from images, besides the cool 3D effect... Glare removal is especially helpful in viewing planets as they cross their sun. I think there's some land based telescopes that have or are attempting this.
2. Re:The choice is obvious by Lumpy · 2012-11-27 07:56 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Launch and park them at the L4 and L5 points. and you would get some serious science out of them. Detecting and imaging Exoplanets as well as other things roaming the galaxy would become a lot easier with a stereo spread that wide.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
3. Re:The choice is obvious by ColdWetDog · 2012-11-27 07:58 · Score: 2
  
  You don't need two telescopes to do 'stereo'. You can use the fact that the telescope is moving in space.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
4. Re:The choice is obvious by dargaud · 2012-11-27 08:12 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You don't need two telescopes to do 'stereo'. You can use the fact that the telescope is moving in space.
  Unless you want to do interferometry. I don't know if long base optical interferometry is feasible. I know that the VLT in Chile is designed to do it but that they had a hell of a time to calibrate it. I would be beyond awesome to have those two babies in opposite solar orbits doing optical interferometry. Well, I'm probably dreaming as it would mean maintaining them fixed in respect to one another to one quarter wavelength of observed light... Or somesuch.
  
  --
  Non-Linux Penguins ?
5. Re:The choice is obvious by Convector · 2012-11-27 08:52 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You're not going to get enough parallax on something as distant as a galaxy to be useful for stereo imaging. If you place these in Earth orbit, on opposite sides of the Earth, you're looking at on order 10000 km separation. The distance to the Canis Major Dwarf Galaxy (let's call that the nearest one) is 25,000 ly, or on order 10^17 km. That gives you a parallax of 20 nano-arcseconds. Hubble's diffraction limited resolution is 50 milli-arcseconds. (Interferometry won't help here, since we're trying to compare two distinct images from individual telescopes).
  There are closer nebulae. The Orion nebula is only 1300 ly away, so we're looking at a parallax of 0.2 micro-arcseconds. Still not enough.
  If, as another poster suggested, we put them at L4 and L5 (Sun-Earth), we're talking more like a few times 10^8 km separation. So that puts us in the few milliarcsecond range for the Orion nebula. Not quite good enough for visible light, but UV could work.
6. Re:The choice is obvious by ceoyoyo · 2012-11-27 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  It's not. Yet. Current optical interferometry requires a fibre optic link between the telescopes because the light has to physically interfere.
7. Re:The choice is obvious by lordofthechia · 2012-11-27 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  Hah I know, I was just being facetious. Figured most people would think about how "3D" the stars and moon look to them in real life and catch the joke.
  
  --
  Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
8. Re:The choice is obvious by perceptual.cyclotron · 2012-11-27 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  Many large telescopes already use multiple dishes. But the base you need to actually get stereoscopic views on astronomical distances is outrageous. Of course, that is precisely what WFIRST and its ilk are for...
9. Re: The choice is obvious by root_42 · 2012-11-27 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  Well then: who volunteers to draw the cable from L4 to L5?
  
  --
  [--- PGP key and more on http://www.root42.de ---]
10. Re:The choice is obvious by bware · 2012-11-27 11:05 · Score: 2
  
  You don't need either optical interference nor a fiber optic link to do quite sensitive interferometry.
  For an example of interferometry without optical interference, LISA would have used Time Delay Interferometry. Now cancelled, even though it rated highly in the decadal.
  TPF-I was a white light interferometer with no physical connection between the separated spacecraft.
  To name two.
11. Re:The choice is obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-27 11:34 · Score: 0
  
  Put some atomic clocks on them with enough precision for synchronization, slap some polarization filters on the sensors so that aspect of light can be recorded in the data, and make the right software... I'm sure some joker out there could figure it out how to make it work.
  Might not have been done before, but I wouldn't say it's impossible.
12. Re:The choice is obvious by prefect42 · 2012-11-27 11:51 · Score: 2
  
  What stereo spread? What sort of angular difference do you end up with?
  
  --
  jh
13. Re:The choice is obvious by ceoyoyo · 2012-11-27 12:01 · Score: 2
  
  The TPF-I was an infrared interferometer that did most certainly use optical interference. Several designs were suggested but they all involved actual light from each telescope being collected and allowed to interfere at the combiner. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA484941
  LISA also involves sending light (laser light in this case, not astronomical light) along two different paths and optically combining it. http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/~veronica/CaJAGWR/info/general/shaddock.pdf
  Theoretically you don't require a fibre optic link (some TPF proposals didn't have one) if you can send the light through free space, but you still have to send the actual light from each telescope to a combiner. That will not work over distances like the diameter of Earth's orbit, as the OP suggested.
14. Re:The choice is obvious by Convector · 2012-11-28 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  Not at all; I think that would be a cool project. It just requires a larger baseline than the Earth's orbit and/or larger telescopes. Drop these at the Sun-Neptune Lagrange points, and it might work for the nebulae.
15. Re:The choice is obvious by lordofthechia · 2012-12-02 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  They could add tilt/shift focus to make the universe look tiny!
  
  --
  Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
16. Re:The choice is obvious by Lucractius · 2012-12-02 16:25 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, that might work for radio... where we can accurately filter phase based on electronics. However doing it with optical frequencies is a major pita... I've spent a few years contemplating how it could be achieved let alone building one.
  Good idea, its bloody hard to do one rather important part, the 'phase filter'
  
  --
  XML - A clever joke would be here if /. didn't mangle tag brackets.
Like a lot of shuttle support equipment... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-27 07:29 · Score: 0

the phrase "abandon in place" will get tossed around quietly.
Can' use them for *Earth* observations.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-27 07:42 · Score: 0

The satellites were intended for ground observations. Put one around Mars and the other around, say, Venus then go to town.
Point it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-27 07:47 · Score: 0

at Uranus.
mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-27 07:50 · Score: 0

awesome idea....pity it was post 37, but hey, it's /. after all.
Set them up as a ground based observatory by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-27 08:00 · Score: 0

Don't launch them into space but set them up as ground based observatory. This will avoid the huge launch costs. Thats probably why the NRA choose to donate them instead of launching them. Since there are two of them, they might be able to configure them as an interferometer.
I would rather see NASA use what little money it has to launch the James Webb telescope which is close to getting cut from the budget.
They are not "surplus" by Dr+La · 2012-11-27 08:06 · Score: 3, Informative

The telescopes in question are not "surplus": it consists of never finished hardware from the aborted optical component of FIA (Future Imagery Architecture). This optical FIA component, intended to replace the Keyhole system, was scrapped because of massive budget overruns. Part of the hardware was already built by that time, and that is what now has been donated to NASA. It never were complete telescopes, let alone "surplus"telescopes.

--
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse
Re:the statistics back me up by ColdWetDog · 2012-11-27 08:06 · Score: 1

Do. Not. Want...

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
gullfaraz by gullfaraz · 2012-11-27 08:07 · Score: 0

Just point them at key members' of Congress' homes for a while. Then, when budget reviews come up, NASA simply goes to Congress with a thumb drive. "We need funding for a new Mars mission, Senator. If not, we'll have to start selling some of these picture-filled drives to the public to offset the costs. Wouldn't it be a damn shame if certain images of that high school cheerleading squad coming and going from your house at all hours of the night were to...accidentally...end up on the Internet? That would be a damn, criminal, shame...wouldn't it, Senator?" http://www.readenews.com/2012/11/instagram-launches-profile-badges.html
Binoculars by PPH · 2012-11-27 08:46 · Score: 1

World's biggest.
Just don't loan them to my kid. He always screws with the focus.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Ass by gooner666 · 2012-11-27 09:37 · Score: 1

I would point it at Jessica Biels ass to get a better look.

--
Lets get this over with... Fuck Off
street view the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-27 10:58 · Score: 0

it is about time already.
Earth Maps by skelly33 · 2012-11-27 12:41 · Score: 1

Sounds a little corporate, but I think everyone would benefit from *free* access to street-view quality satellite photos that are in the public domain. And maybe even, oh I don't know, updated regularly?
I am sure the bevy of Chinese "grad students"... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-27 12:54 · Score: 0

...at NASA are lining up to "help" with any project using this hardware.
Re:the statistics back me up by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-27 14:50 · Score: 0

Obama is a republican?
Better invest in Atlas Telescope by sciencewatcher · 2012-11-27 22:11 · Score: 1

The Hubble Telescope has done great science. It's successor in time is the James Webb Telescope but the Webb is designed to scan the sky in a very different part of the spectrum. The Atlas Telescope is supposed to be it's successor in functionality. The design goal for the Atlas Telescope is more than three orders of magnitude better than Hubble. We better spend our money on such a telescope than on a Hubble v 1.1.
Well that mission to approach a girl in 2018 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 04:18 · Score: 0

Well that mission to approach a girl in 2018 will go on a chopping block now
http://www.theonion.com/video/nasa-scientists-plan-to-approach-girl-by-2018,14400/
Business as usual by flatcat · 2012-11-28 08:19 · Score: 1

Under NASA ( National All Seeing Administration )