What Will NASA Do With Its Gifted Spy 'Scopes?

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."

Comments

Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

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)

Re:Thoughts

[X0563511]

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.

Re:Thoughts

[SJHillman]

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.

Re:Thoughts

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Re:Thoughts

[Dins]

Citizen #312374213 we've noticed a suspicious looking mole on your left upper thigh. You might want to get that checked out...

Re:Thoughts

[squiggleslash]

Even worse, NASA only got these telescopes because someone accidentally mistyped "NSA" on the PO...

Re:Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Thoughts

[router]

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

Re:Thoughts

[Strider-]

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.

link to earlier discussion

[Trepidity]

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.

Priorities

[Comboman]

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).

Budget Problems Solved

[TheAngryMob]

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?"

Re:Budget Problems Solved

[NettiWelho]

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...

The choice is obvious

[lordofthechia]

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!

Re:The choice is obvious

[Lumpy]

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.