Re: NASA gets two military spy telescopes for astronomy - The Washington Post

[Robert Clark]

On Jun 5, 10:00 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/nasa-gets-milit...

NASA gets two military spy telescopes for astronomy
By Joel Achenbach, Published: June 4
[quote]The announcement Monday raised the obvious question of why the
intelligence agency would no longer want, or need, two Hubble-class
telescopes. A spokeswoman, Loretta DeSio, provided information
sparingly.
“They no longer possessed intelligence-collection uses,” she said of
the telescopes.[/quote]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/nasa-gets-military-spy-telescopes-for-astronomy/2012/06/04/gJQAsT6UDV_story.html

The explanation clearly is that Hubble scale telescopes are now
obsolete for surveillance as I argued here:

Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics, sci.space.policy,
sci.astro.amateur, us.military.army
From: Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com>
Date: 23 Apr 2007 02:49:39 -0700
Subject: Orbital surveillance satellites now exceed 1 inch
resolution.
https://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/browse_thread/thread/eac3f1699e0bf014?hl=en

Also, I haven't seen it mentioned yet but these scopes can also be
used for accurate asteroid search. For instance the wide field camera
on the WISE mission satellite was able to find this Trojan class
asteroid:

NASA's WISE Mission Finds First Trojan Asteroid Sharing Earth's Orbit.
07.27.11
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/WI...e20110727.html

The mirror on the new scopes is 100 inches compared to 16 inches for
the WISE mission satellite, resulting in 6 times greater collecting
area and sensitivity.
This would be quite useful for planetary defense purposes and also for
the asteroid mining ventures that need to find high values asteroids
that are nearby.
In fact, NASA might be able to have the satellite development be
partially funded by the asteroid mining ventures.


Bob Clark

[Robert Clark]

On Jun 7, 11:51 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 5, 10:00 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/nasa-gets-milit...
>
> NASA gets two military spy telescopes for astronomy
> By Joel Achenbach, Published: June 4
> [quote]The announcement Monday raised the obvious question of why the
> intelligence agency would no longer want, or need, two Hubble-class
> telescopes. A spokeswoman, Loretta DeSio, provided information
> sparingly.
> “They no longer possessed intelligence-collection uses,” she said of

> the telescopes.[/quote]http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/nasa-gets-milit...

>
>  The explanation clearly is that Hubble scale telescopes are now
> obsolete for surveillance as I argued here:
>
> Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics, sci.space.policy,
> sci.astro.amateur, us.military.army
> From: Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com>
> Date: 23 Apr 2007 02:49:39 -0700
> Subject: Orbital surveillance satellites now exceed 1 inch

> resolution.https://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/browse_thread/thread/eac3f1...

>
>  Also, I haven't seen it mentioned yet but these scopes can also be
> used for accurate asteroid search. For instance the wide field camera
> on the WISE mission satellite was able to find this Trojan class
> asteroid:
>
> NASA's WISE Mission Finds First Trojan Asteroid Sharing Earth's Orbit.

> 07.27.11http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/WI...e20110727.html

>
> The mirror on the new scopes is 100 inches compared to 16 inches for
> the WISE mission satellite, resulting in 6 times greater collecting
> area and sensitivity.
> This would be quite useful for planetary defense purposes and also for
> the asteroid mining ventures that need to find high values asteroids
> that are nearby.
> In fact, NASA might be able to have the satellite development be
> partially funded by the asteroid mining ventures.
>
> Bob Clark

The URL for that last link should be:

NASA's WISE Mission Finds First Trojan Asteroid Sharing Earth's Orbit.
07.27.11

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/WISE/news/wise20110727.html

After I wrote this it occurred to me another great use for this scope
would be as a Mars orbiting
satellite. The Falcon Heavy with a Centaur-style Earth departure stage
of gross mass ca. 40 mT
could send a Hubble-sized scope to orbit Mars.
The Falcon Heavy also makes possible with Centaur-style upper
stage(s) Mars Sample Return
missions at the only few hundred million dollar cost range. This has
been the Holy Grail of planetary
missions but NASA previously estimated the cost at ca. $10 billion.
Using the Falcon Heavy it now can
be done as one of NASA's low cost Discovery-class missions.
I'll write about this on my blog the next few days:

htpp://exoscientist.blogspot.com


Bob Clark

[Brad Guth]

On Jun 7, 8:51 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 5, 10:00 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/nasa-gets-milit...
>
> NASA gets two military spy telescopes for astronomy
> By Joel Achenbach, Published: June 4
> [quote]The announcement Monday raised the obvious question of why the
> intelligence agency would no longer want, or need, two Hubble-class
> telescopes. A spokeswoman, Loretta DeSio, provided information
> sparingly.
> “They no longer possessed intelligence-collection uses,” she said of

> the telescopes.[/quote]http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/nasa-gets-milit...

>
>  The explanation clearly is that Hubble scale telescopes are now
> obsolete for surveillance as I argued here:
>
> Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics, sci.space.policy,
> sci.astro.amateur, us.military.army
> From: Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com>
> Date: 23 Apr 2007 02:49:39 -0700
> Subject: Orbital surveillance satellites now exceed 1 inch

> resolution.https://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/browse_thread/thread/eac3f1...

>
>  Also, I haven't seen it mentioned yet but these scopes can also be
> used for accurate asteroid search. For instance the wide field camera
> on the WISE mission satellite was able to find this Trojan class
> asteroid:
>
> NASA's WISE Mission Finds First Trojan Asteroid Sharing Earth's Orbit.
> 07.27.11 http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/WI...e20110727.html
>
> The mirror on the new scopes is 100 inches compared to 16 inches for
> the WISE mission satellite, resulting in 6 times greater collecting
> area and sensitivity.
> This would be quite useful for planetary defense purposes and also for
> the asteroid mining ventures that need to find high values asteroids
> that are nearby.
> In fact, NASA might be able to have the satellite development be
> partially funded by the asteroid mining ventures.
>
> Bob Clark

www.http://exoscientist.blogspot.com

[Brad Guth]

> 07.27.11http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/WISE/news/wise20110727.html

>
>  After I wrote this it occurred to me another great use for this scope
> would be as a Mars orbiting
> satellite. The Falcon Heavy with a Centaur-style Earth departure stage
> of gross mass ca. 40 mT
> could send a Hubble-sized scope to orbit Mars.
>  The Falcon Heavy also makes possible with Centaur-style upper
> stage(s) Mars Sample Return
> missions at the only few hundred million dollar cost range. This has
> been the Holy Grail of planetary
> missions but NASA previously estimated the cost at ca. $10 billion.
> Using the Falcon Heavy it now can
> be done as one of NASA's low cost Discovery-class missions.
>  I'll write about this on my blog the next few days:
>
> htpp://exoscientist.blogspot.com
>
>    Bob Clark

Cutting so deeply into the cost of off-world exploitation is very anti-
government, and probably makes their Oligarchs as very unhappy campers
whenever they're not in charge of who gets to benefit.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG, Guth Usenet/Guth Venus

[Brad Guth]

> 07.27.11http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/WISE/news/wise20110727.html

>
>  After I wrote this it occurred to me another great use for this scope
> would be as a Mars orbiting
> satellite. The Falcon Heavy with a Centaur-style Earth departure stage
> of gross mass ca. 40 mT
> could send a Hubble-sized scope to orbit Mars.
>  The Falcon Heavy also makes possible with Centaur-style upper
> stage(s) Mars Sample Return
> missions at the only few hundred million dollar cost range. This has
> been the Holy Grail of planetary
> missions but NASA previously estimated the cost at ca. $10 billion.
> Using the Falcon Heavy it now can
> be done as one of NASA's low cost Discovery-class missions.
>  I'll write about this on my blog the next few days:
>

> http://exoscientist.blogspot.com
>
>    Bob Clark

http://exoscientist.blogspot.com

Actually William Mook offered similar efficient alternatives for
reusable methods that wouldn't have cost 10% of what our NASA had to
offer, or having planned for us.

There's simply so much wrong with the NASA policy that it's hard to
know how many of their poorly conceived babies need to get tossed out
with their bath water.

[Robert Clark]

On Jun 7, 4:31 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  http://exoscientist.blogspot.com
>

Thanks for correcting the link I gave for my blog.


Bob Clark

[Robert Clark]

> 07.27.11http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/WISE/news/wise20110727.html

>
>  After I wrote this it occurred to me another great use for this scope
> would be as a Mars orbiting
> satellite. The Falcon Heavy with a Centaur-style Earth departure stage
> of gross mass ca. 40 mT
> could send a Hubble-sized scope to orbit Mars.
>  The Falcon Heavy also makes possible with Centaur-style upper
> stage(s) Mars Sample Return
> missions at the only few hundred million dollar cost range. This has
> been the Holy Grail of planetary
> missions but NASA previously estimated the cost at ca. $10 billion.
> Using the Falcon Heavy it now can
> be done as one of NASA's low cost Discovery-class missions.
>  I'll write about this on my blog the next few days:
>

> http://exoscientist.blogspot.com
>
>    Bob Clark


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

[Robert Clark]

On Jun 8, 5:05 pm, will...@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) wrote:
> [newsgroups trimmed]
>
> In article <a4ed62c7-890b-4ff0-beb8-722560931...@cu1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

>  Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >  Also, I haven't seen it mentioned yet but these scopes can also be
> > used for accurate asteroid search.
>

> Seems very unlikely.  Even "100 times the field of view of Hubble" is
> still tiny.
>
> What one of these telescopes might actually do is suggested by Alan
> Dressler's presentation here:http://sites.nationalacademies.org/BPA/BPA_048755#pastpresentations
> (I couldn't figure out a direct link, but it's the third one down.)
> There's also some information in Paul Hertz's presentation, the
> one above Dressler's.
>
> The most ambitious survey is about 1/10 of the sky per year.  Lots of
> great science there, but not so much for asteroid searching.

>
> > For instance the wide field camera
> > on the WISE mission satellite was able to find this Trojan class
> > asteroid:
>

> One limitation on the NRO telescopes seems to be that they have to
> operate near room temperature.  That sets a long-wavelength limit of
> about 2 microns.  WISE was cryogenically cooled and observed up to 25
> microns with the best asteroid detection at 12 microns.
>
> Also bear in mind that these are bare telescopes: primary mirror,
> secondary, and some structure.  No camera or other instruments, no
> pointing system, no telemetry system, no launch vehicle, etc.  Also,
> they're heavy: 1700 kg.  Doing _anything_ with one of them -- at
> least anything very interesting -- is likely to cost hundreds of
> millions of dollars at least.
>
> --
> Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
> Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123     swill...@cfa.harvard.edu
> Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

Thanks for the response. Here's a heuristic argument that it could
work:

These NRO telescopes are being considered for the wide field infrared
imaging that NASA wants
to do with the proposed WFIRST telescope:

Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Field_Infrared_Survey_Telescope

Since the WFIRST will have all sky survey capability, so also will
the NRO-telescope versions. This
also suggests the NRO scopes can be modified to operate under chilled
conditions to detect long
wavelength infrared emissions.
But the WFIRST is supposed to be an upgrade in capabilities to the
WISE, so likewise would be the
NRO-telescope versions of WFIRST. But the WISE telescope was able to
be used to detect asteroids.
So the WFIRST, including the NRO-telescope version, should also have
this capability.
BTW, I did find a reference that suggests this might be one of the
uses the WFIRST could be put to:

WFIRST Interim Report.
Section 3: Figures of Merit.
"3.3 NIR Survey FoM
"3.3.1 NIR Survey FoM Description
"The broad range of science potential for the NIR
survey aspect of WFIRST presents some challenges in
terms of defining an FoM. While the cosmological and
microlensing science programs have relatively specific
and well defined questions they are attempting to answer,
the NIR survey data will be beneficial for science
ranging from studying asteroids in our Solar System to
measuring the diffuse NIR background due to the first
galaxies to form in the Universe."
p. 17
http://wfirst.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/WFIRST_Interim_Report.pdf


Bob Clark

[Brad Guth]

> Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Field_Infrared_Survey_Telescope

Soon there will be a swarm or gauntlet of dark and cool items of which
we humans forever stuck on Earth get to play a truly lethal game of
dodge-ball with. So, the more active NIR observations the better.

[Robert Clark]

On Jun 11, 3:43 pm, will...@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) wrote:
> [Newsgroups snipped.  Again.]
>
> In article <974ac61a-7c9b-4409-a81c-4e5d82b1e...@h10g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,

>  Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >  Since the WFIRST will have all sky survey capability,
>

> I suggest you actually read Dressler's presentation, in particular
> the table on page 9.  The maximum suggested survey speed for WFIRST

> is about 1/10 of the sky per year.
>

> > This also suggests the NRO scopes can be modified to operate under
> > chilled conditions
>

> I don't know what "This" is, but page 8 shows a maximum wavelength of
> 2.175 microns.  That is limited by the telescope temperature.
> Surveying for asteroids would best be done at a wavelength 5 or so
> times longer.

>
> >  But the WFIRST is supposed to be an upgrade in capabilities to the
> > WISE,
>

> WFIRST will be a completely different mission than WISE.  They both
> start with "W," but other than that, I can't think of much they have
> in common.

>
> >  BTW, I did find a reference that suggests this might be one of the
> > uses the WFIRST could be put to:
>

> The reference to "studying asteroids" means determining their
> mineralogy and such; it has nothing to do with an all-sky survey.
> That said, WFIRST will inevitably find asteroids wherever it looks.
> It may provide useful statistics, but it won't be effective for
> planetary protection unless the "killer asteroid" is in a very lucky
> part of the sky at just the right time.
>
> --


We'll agree to post to the newsgroups we each want to.
Actually, for the near Earth asteroid search it doesn't have to be all-
sky. It just has to be near the plane of the ecliptic.
To get the longer wavelengths you could just add to the telescope
similar detectors as for the WISE. IF Planetary Resources, Inc. really
can get comparable performance to the $300 million WISE telescope at
1/10th the cost, this would add only tens of millions to the cost of
the scope.


Bob Clark

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article
<96a23aa6-2249-4fe9...@b21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,

Not necessarily true, but it does raise the probability of finding
threats to scan near the ecliptic.

Rogue extrasolar objects can, however, come at us from any direction,
including near right angles to the ecliptic.

[Robert Clark]

On Jun 11, 11:15 pm, Orval Fairbairn <orfairba...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> In article
> <96a23aa6-2249-4fe9-9fc3-3f5a546b1...@b21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>  Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...

> >  We'll agree to post to the newsgroups we each want to.
> > Actually, for the near Earth asteroid search it doesn't have to be all-
> > sky. It just has to be near the plane of the ecliptic.
> >  To get the longer wavelengths you could just add to the telescope
> > similar detectors as for the WISE. IF Planetary Resources, Inc. really
> > can get comparable performance to the $300 million WISE telescope at
> > 1/10th the cost, this would add only tens of millions to the cost of
> > the scope.
>
> >   Bob Clark
>
> Not necessarily true, but it does raise the probability of finding
> threats to scan near the ecliptic.
>
> Rogue extrasolar objects can, however, come at us from any direction,
> including near right angles to the ecliptic.

On Jun 11, 11:15 pm, Orval Fairbairn <orfairba...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> In article
> <96a23aa6-2249-4fe9-9fc3-3f5a546b1...@b21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>  Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>...

> >  We'll agree to post to the newsgroups we each want to.
> > Actually, for the near Earth asteroid search it doesn't have to be all-
> > sky. It just has to be near the plane of the ecliptic.
> >  To get the longer wavelengths you could just add to the telescope
> > similar detectors as for the WISE. IF Planetary Resources, Inc. really
> > can get comparable performance to the $300 million WISE telescope at
> > 1/10th the cost, this would add only tens of millions to the cost of
> > the scope.
>
> >   Bob Clark
>
> Not necessarily true, but it does raise the probability of finding
> threats to scan near the ecliptic.
>
> Rogue extrasolar objects can, however, come at us from any direction,
> including near right angles to the ecliptic.

Interesting articles here about the WISE capability to detect large
unknown planets at the very fringes of the Solar System:

Up telescope! Search begins for giant new planet.
Tyche may be bigger than Jupiter and orbit at the outer edge of the
solar system.
BY PAUL RODGERS SUNDAY 13 FEBRUARY 2011
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/up-telescope-search-begins-for-giant-new-planet-2213119.html

About that Giant Planet Possibly Hiding in the Outer Solar System…
by NANCY ATKINSON on FEBRUARY 16, 2011
http://www.universetoday.com/83363/about-that-giant-planet-possibly-hiding-in-the-outer-solar-system/

The Hubble-class scopes could perform a much more sensitive search
than WISE.

Another possible use would be the search for nomad or rogue planets,
which are planets in the interstellar space between star systems:

Researchers say galaxy may swarm with 'nomad planets'.
[quote]A good count, especially of the smaller objects, will have to
wait for the next generation of big survey telescopes, especially the
space-based Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope and the ground-based
Large Synoptic Survey Telescope, both set to begin operation in the
early 2020s.
A confirmation of the estimate could lend credence to another
possibility mentioned in the paper – that as nomad planets roam their
starry pastures, collisions could scatter their microbial flocks to
seed life elsewhere.[/quote]
February 23, 2012 BY ANDY FREEBERG
http://phys.org/news/2012-02-galaxy-swarm-nomad-planets.html

Again the Hubble-class scopes would have much better sensitivity to
detect them than the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope(WFIRST)
scope mentioned.
It has been speculated such nomad planets could have life in
subsurface water. Since some of these nomads are believed to be
ejected from other star systems, nomads near to us or captured by our
Solar System would provide a more near term route to search for life
in other star systems.
Because of the interest in the search for extraterrestrial life, you
could have another source for private funding for such scopes. One
could have for example the scope named after a foundation or
individual who provided a large portion of the funding, like the Keck
telescope.



Bob Clark

[Robert Clark]

> BY PAUL RODGERS   SUNDAY 13 FEBRUARY 2011http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/up-telescope-search-begins-...

>
> About that Giant Planet Possibly Hiding in the Outer Solar System…

> by NANCY ATKINSON on FEBRUARY 16, 2011http://www.universetoday.com/83363/about-that-giant-planet-possibly-h...

>
>  The Hubble-class scopes could perform a much more sensitive search
> than WISE.
>
>  Another possible use would be the search for nomad or rogue planets,
> which are planets in the interstellar space between star systems:
>
> Researchers say galaxy may swarm with 'nomad planets'.
> [quote]A good count, especially of the smaller objects, will have to
> wait for the next generation of big survey telescopes, especially the
> space-based Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope and the ground-based
> Large Synoptic Survey Telescope, both set to begin operation in the
> early 2020s.
> A confirmation of the estimate could lend credence to another
> possibility mentioned in the paper – that as nomad planets roam their
> starry pastures, collisions could scatter their microbial flocks to
> seed life elsewhere.[/quote]

> February 23, 2012 BY ANDY FREEBERGhttp://phys.org/news/2012-02-galaxy-swarm-nomad-planets.html

>
>  Again the Hubble-class scopes would have much better sensitivity to
> detect them than the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope(WFIRST)
> scope mentioned.
>  It has been speculated such nomad planets could have life in
> subsurface water. Since some of these nomads are believed to be
> ejected from other star systems, nomads near to us or captured by our
> Solar System would provide a more near term route to search for life
> in other star systems.
>  Because of the interest in the search for extraterrestrial life, you
> could have another source for private funding for such scopes. One
> could have for example the scope named after a foundation or
> individual who provided a large portion of the funding, like the Keck
> telescope.
>
>    Bob Clark

Discuss these points in a follow-up blog post:

Low cost development and applications of the new NRO donated

telescopes, Page 2.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/06/low-cost-development-and-applications_12.html


Bob Clark

[Robert Clark]

On Jun 13, 2:45 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...

> telescopes, Page 2.http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/06/low-cost-development-and-app...
>
>   Bob Clark


Discussion of using distributed computing to allow the public to take
part in the asteroid, new planet, and brown dwarf search:

Low cost development and applications of the new NRO donated

telescopes, Page 3.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/06/low-cost-development-and-applications_13.html



  Bob Clark

[Robert Clark]

On Jun 14, 1:44 pm, will...@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) wrote:
> [Newsgroups snipped.]
> In article <96a23aa6-2249-4fe9-9fc3-3f5a546b1...@b21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,

>  Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > Actually, for the near Earth asteroid search it doesn't have to be all-
> > sky. It just has to be near the plane of the ecliptic.

> As someone else pointed out, this is incorrect.

> >  To get the longer wavelengths you could just add to the telescope
> > similar detectors as for the WISE.

> If you want good sensitivity, the telescope has to be cooled.  A
> _very rough_ estimate is that the telescope temperature in kelvins
> has to be lower than 600/w, where w is the wavelength in microns. (A
> more precise estimate depends on mission details.)  Observing at 2
> microns needs a telescope at 300 K, about room temperature.  To
> observe at 12 microns, good for asteroid detection, the temperature
> has to be below 50 K.  If you want 22 microns, as for the long wave
> channel of WISE, the temperature needs to be below about 25 K.  (The
> WISE telescope was cooled to about 12 K by solid hydrogen.)
> Based on subsequent discussions I've heard, it looks like any mission
> using the NRO telescopes is going to cost upwards of $1B.  I was
> hoping something might be possible for about half that, but it
> doesn't look like it at the moment.
> --

According to this because of their greater collecting power the NRO
scopes could complete the sky survey four times faster than WFIRST:

Ex-Spy Telescope May Get New Identity as a Space Investigator.
By DENNIS OVERBYE
Published: June 4, 2012
[quote]Even bigger advantages come, astronomers say, from the fact
that the telescope’s diameter, 94 inches, is twice as big as that
contemplated for Wfirst, giving it four times the light-gathering
power, from which a whole host of savings cascade.
Instead of requiring an expensive launch to a solar orbit, the
telescope can operate in geosynchronous Earth orbit, complete its
survey of the sky four times faster, and download data to the Earth
faster.[/quote]
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/05/science/space/repurposed-telescope-may-explore-secrets-of-dark-energy.html

So if it took 10 years for WFIRST to do a sky survey it would take 2
and 1/2 years for the NRO scopes; so you wouldn't need to restrict it
to near the ecliptic plane.
For the cost, using the Falcon Heavy as the launcher at $100 million,
a $1 billion mission cost would mean $900 million for the instruments
alone.
Such estimates may well have been valid for the usual NASA accounting
with a fully government financed program, but as SpaceX and other
companies involved in the commercial crew program have shown,
development costs can be as much as 1/10th as much when largely
privately financed.


Bob Clark

[Thomas Womack]

In article <4063797b-d1a3-4aaa...@37g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,

Robert Clark <rgrego...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> For the cost, using the Falcon Heavy as the launcher at $100 million,
>a $1 billion mission cost would mean $900 million for the instruments
>alone.

No: you need a *spacecraft* to put the instruments on, and that's the
costly part; you need a spacecraft with exceptionally good
fine-pointing (because spacecraft jitter of 0.1 arcsecond in a
half-hour exposure would destroy the lensing signal that WFIRST is
looking for). There's really very little commonality with the Dragon
capsule; I'm sure SpaceX have some employees who have experience
building very stable satellites for long-term use in NEO, but that's
not really their focus.

An infra-red focal plane array is not quite an off-the-shelf object,
but you'll have change from a couple of hundred million dollars if you
just wrote to Teledyne and asked for an 8x8 array of 4RG.

Since the NRO show no signs of letting NASA take space telescopes off
their production lines, the SpaceX cost optimisation based on building
production lines really doesn't help you here.

Tom

[Robert Clark]

On Jun 16, 11:31 am, Thomas Womack <twom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
wrote:
> In article <4063797b-d1a3-4aaa-94b6-472791605...@37g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,

Since the Falcon Heavy has a 53mT to LEO capability, the NRO scopes,
lighter than the Hubble, would weigh only 1/5th of the LEO capability.
Then quite likely the Falcon Heavy could loft them to GEO. In any case
GEO satellites use only a small kick motor to send them to GEO once
launched to orbit.
In this post I discuss the fact that comparable ground scopes cost a
fraction of the price charged for space scopes, and that off the shelf
electronics can be used for the space scopes with only inexpensive
modifications:

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

Bob Clark

[bob haller]

> telescopes, Page 4.http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/06/low-cost-development-and-app...
>
>   Bob Clark

equip one of the scopes as a traveler to other planets. get dime sized
resolution of mars and other planets. equipped with a engine for
traveling to other planets.

send it to our moon first, kill the moon landing was a hoax, everyone
could see the footprints. then on to mars and hopefully image some
mars moons, or perhaps a stop at mercury first..

the mission could last for many years, and do lots of science.....

might save money on landers, or select better landing spots for landers

[Greg Hennessy]

> In this post I discuss the fact that comparable ground scopes cost a
> fraction of the price charged for space scopes, and that off the shelf
> electronics can be used for the space scopes with only inexpensive
> modifications:

No "off the shelf" electronics are going to be used on any flown NRO-1
telescope. The 16-24 H4RG's needed to fill out the square degree of
focal plane don't qualify as "off the shelf". Nor will the rest of the
electronics be anything but custom developed.

[Greg Goss]

bob haller <hal...@aol.com> wrote:

>equip one of the scopes as a traveler to other planets. get dime sized
>resolution of mars and other planets. equipped with a engine for
>traveling to other planets.
>
>send it to our moon first, kill the moon landing was a hoax, everyone
>could see the footprints. then on to mars and hopefully image some
>mars moons, or perhaps a stop at mercury first..

You cannot kill conspiracies with imaging. Apollo 15 gave us the
wrecked UFO in Izsak crater. Viking gave us a face on Mars.
Ultratelephoto shots of footprints won't convince anyone of anything.
--
I used to own a mind like a steel trap.
Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it
wouldn't have rusted like this.

[Thomas Womack]

In article <ec361521-1aa3-464a...@h41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Clark <rgrego...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jun 16, 11:31=A0am, Thomas Womack <twom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>wrote:
>> In article <4063797b-d1a3-4aaa-94b6-472791605...@37g2000yqu.googlegroups.=
>com>,

>> Robert Clark =A0<rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > For the cost, using the Falcon Heavy as the launcher at $100 million,
>> >a $1 billion mission cost would mean $900 million for the instruments
>> >alone.
>>
>> No: you need a *spacecraft* to put the instruments on, and that's the
>> costly part; you need a spacecraft with exceptionally good
>> fine-pointing (because spacecraft jitter of 0.1 arcsecond in a
>> half-hour exposure would destroy the lensing signal that WFIRST is

>> looking for). =A0There's really very little commonality with the Dragon

>> capsule; I'm sure SpaceX have some employees who have experience
>> building very stable satellites for long-term use in NEO, but that's
>> not really their focus.

>> Tom
>
> Since the Falcon Heavy has a 53mT to LEO capability, the NRO scopes,
>lighter than the Hubble, would weigh only 1/5th of the LEO capability.
>Then quite likely the Falcon Heavy could loft them to GEO. In any case
>GEO satellites use only a small kick motor to send them to GEO once
>launched to orbit.

This is a reasonable argument if you want to launch them as ballast
weights; but since I have the impression that you'd probably want them
to point at something, you're continuing completely to ignore the
spacecraft engineering part. Fine guidance sensors are nearly off the
space shelf - Kepler's would be good enough - but they have to be
designed for the optical system and integrated with (that is, bolted
very firmly to the same block of silicon carbide as) the focal plane
array.

>In this post I discuss the fact that comparable ground scopes cost a
>fraction of the price charged for space scopes, and that off the shelf
>electronics can be used for the space scopes with only inexpensive
>modifications:

I can see an argument that, assuming you're using an excessively large
rocket and have plenty of weight to spare, you could use current
technology electronics in an extremely solid tantalum box for some of
the data-processing parts. The SIDECAR ASICs need to be quite close
to the H4RG chips and all on the cold side, and there's not much scope
to wrap thick metal around things that definitionally need to be open
to light.

But building scopes on the ground, where you've got the whole
atmosphere to cool convectively to, the whole Chilean power grid for
power, convenient gravity to keep wheels on rails, and where a
component or cooling failure means you've lost a night rather than the
mission - and you lose a lot of nights - doesn't seem a remotely
meaningful standard of comparison for space work.

Tom

[Erik Max Francis]

On 06/17/2012 07:01 PM, bob haller wrote:
> equip one of the scopes as a traveler to other planets. get dime sized
> resolution of mars and other planets. equipped with a engine for
> traveling to other planets.
>
> send it to our moon first, kill the moon landing was a hoax, everyone
> could see the footprints.

You're kidding yourself if you think conspiracy theorists would be
convinced by this. And it's pretty obvious what they'd say, too: "Oh,
you just faked _those_ photos, too. See, here's what I see wrong with
these pictures [and then a bunch of made-up stuff]."

You cannot use rational evidence to someone to get them out of a
conclusion which they did not reach through rationality in the first place.

--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Jabber erikmaxfrancis
Stars scribble in our eyes the frosty sagas, / The gleaming cantos of
unvanquished space. -- Hart Crane, 1899-1932

[bob haller]

On Jun 21, 6:32 am, Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
> On 06/17/2012 07:01 PM, bob haller wrote:
>
> > equip one of the scopes as a traveler to other planets. get dime sized
> > resolution of mars and other planets. equipped with a engine for
> > traveling to other planets.
>
> > send it to our moon first,  kill the moon landing was a hoax, everyone
> > could see the footprints.
>
> You're kidding yourself if you think conspiracy theorists would be
> convinced by this.  And it's pretty obvious what they'd say, too:  "Oh,
> you just faked _those_ photos, too.  See, here's what I see wrong with
> these pictures [and then a bunch of made-up stuff]."
>
> You cannot use rational evidence to someone to get them out of a
> conclusion which they did not reach through rationality in the first place.
>
> --

> Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com &&http://www.alcyone.com/max/

>   San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Jabber erikmaxfrancis
>    Stars scribble in our eyes the frosty sagas, / The gleaming cantos of
>     unvanquished space. -- Hart Crane, 1899-1932

such a moon survey might keep the conspiracy plague from spreading
while net some real science...

a telescope with dimed sized resolution at mars could reveal so much
of the planet.

imagine it in orbit around mercury..

the big thing would be sending it over many years to different
planets....

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

"bob haller" wrote in message
news:092f8b01-3d67-4b40...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...

>
>On Jun 21, 6:32 am, Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
>
>such a moon survey might keep the conspiracy plague from spreading
>while net some real science...
>

BULL. Conspiracy theorists aren't swayed by things as simple as facts.

>a telescope with dimed sized resolution at mars could reveal so much
>of the planet.
>

Perhaps, but a) this scope won't do that b) there's a difference between
data and information.

What we want information. But if we can't analyze the data, it isn't
useful.

>imagine it in orbit around mercury..

Where it would fry up due to the heat?

>
>the big thing would be sending it over many years to different
>planets....

Right, because in order to do that we'd have to invent at least an Impulse
drive and if we had that we'd be 1/2way to building NCC-1701.

And if I had some ham, I could make a ham and cheese sandwich. If I had
some cheese.


>
>

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

[bob haller]

On Jun 21, 12:03 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <moor...@ignorethisgreenms.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >"bob haller"  wrote in message
> >news:092f8b01-3d67-4b40...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>On Jun 21, 6:32 am, Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
>
> >>such a moon survey might keep the conspiracy plague from spreading
> >>while net some real science...
>
> >BULL.  Conspiracy theorists aren't swayed by things as simple as facts.
>
> >>a telescope with dimed sized resolution at mars could reveal so much
> >>of the planet.
>
> >Perhaps, but a) this scope won't do that b) there's a difference between
> >data and information.
>
> >What we want information.  But if we can't analyze the data, it isn't
> >useful.
>
> >>imagine it in orbit around mercury..
>
> >Where it would fry up due to the heat?
>
> >>the big thing would be sending it over many years to different
> >>planets....
>
> >Right, because in order to do that we'd have to invent at least an Impulse
> >drive and if we had that we'd be 1/2way to building NCC-1701.
>
> >And if I had some ham, I could make a ham and cheese sandwich.  If I had
> >some cheese.
>

> Well, then you could but for the bread....
>
> --
> "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
>                            -- Charles Pinckney

dime sized resolution in earth orbit should also be dime sized
resolution around mars....

use one of these leftovers taking them on a grand tour of the solar
system......

technical issues woould have to be solved but the opportunities are
there

[Greg Goss]

Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>A telescope with dimed sized resolution at mars could reveal nothing,
>since you'd have to violate the laws of physics.

You call new loopholes in physics "nothing"? (grin)

[bob haller]

On Jun 21, 5:01 pm, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

whats the difference of the telescope orbiting earth with a dime sized
resoluton, or the same telescope orbiting mars from roughly the same
distance?

in both cases it should have dime sized resolution?

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

"bob haller" wrote in message

news:7040e431-e803-49eb...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...

Yes. But we're talking about the telescopes that exist now, not the ones in
your fantasies.

[bob haller]

On Jun 21, 6:02 pm, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"

<moor...@ignorethisgreenms.com> wrote:
> "bob haller"  wrote in message
>
> news:7040e431-e803-49eb...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jun 21, 5:01 pm, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> >> Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >A telescope with dimed sized resolution at mars could reveal nothing,
> >> >since you'd have to violate the laws of physics.
>
> >> You call new loopholes in physics "nothing"?   (grin)
> >> --
> >> I used to own a mind like a steel trap.
> >> Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it
> >> wouldn't have rusted like this.
>
> >whats the difference of the telescope orbiting earth with a dime sized
> >resoluton, or the same telescope orbiting mars from roughly the same
> >distance?
>
> >in both cases it should have dime sized resolution?
>
> Yes.  But we're talking about the telescopes that exist now, not the ones in
> your fantasies.
>

The NRO sats were in use for many years, they appear to date back to
hubble. they are obsolete or the NRO wouldnt be willing to donate them
to nasa

By this time the replacement sats must be better than dime sized
resolution.. but this would be fine for exploring the solar system.

Mercurys hot environment would likely be a challenge, perhaps a sun
shade of some type

Venus heavy cloud cover might not be worth the trouble to visit:(

Images of the moon might be revealing helping get support for follow
up mssions

mars would be a great target..... lots to look at. plus mars moons

build a all purpose propulsion and communication module.

it could move the telescope to wherever, then detach so it doesnt
vibrate messing up photography.

but at a distance it could relay communication links.

the telescope could do a grand tour and be brought back eventually for
repairs upgrades or return to earth for exhibit..........

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article
<7040e431-e803-49eb...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,

Some differences:

1. the boosters required to get it there
2. the type of power used to power it (solar cells or nuclear)
3. the communications system to relay data to Earth
4. the spacecraft housing the telescope and its attitude control system.

[Brad Guth]

> technical issues would have to be solved but the opportunities are
> there

Fred doesn't believe in opportunities unless it has something to do
with improving his white Zionist Nazi quality of life.

[Brad Guth]

On Jun 22, 6:20 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> dime sized resolution in earth orbit should also be dime sized
> >> resolution around mars....
>
> >> use one of these leftovers taking them on a grand tour of the solar
> >> system......
>
> >> technical issues would have to be solved but the opportunities are
> >> there
>
> >Fred doesn't believe in opportunities unless it has something to do
> >with improving his white Zionist Nazi quality of life.
>

> No, Guthball.  Fred doesn't believe in opportunities that require
> fantasy physics in order to work.  Those who are ignorant of even
> basic physics seem to have a problem with that.
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
>  only stupid."
>                             -- Heinrich Heine

Thanks for further proving my point.

[Brad Guth]

What cloud cover?

“Guth Venus” 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/102736204560337818634/BradGuth#slideshow/5629579402364691314

Imagine a rigid composite airship packing one of those NRO spy sat
optics at say 25 km above the surface. Could give us a serious look-
see at those Venusians.

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

"bob haller" wrote in message

news:595f8e56-d1af-4e76...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

Bob, you DO realize there's a DIRECT relationship between the size of the
scope and resolution.

It's one of the reasons your backyard telescope can't resolve things to the
same detail as Keck.

Wishing this away doesn't change things.

>
>Mercurys hot environment would likely be a challenge, perhaps a sun
>shade of some type
>
>Venus heavy cloud cover might not be worth the trouble to visit:(
>
>Images of the moon might be revealing helping get support for follow
>up mssions

You do realize a LOT of science isn't necessarily done in the visible
spectrum.

>
>mars would be a great target..... lots to look at. plus mars moons
>
>build a all purpose propulsion and communication module.
>
>it could move the telescope to wherever, then detach so it doesnt
>vibrate messing up photography.
>
>but at a distance it could relay communication links.
>
>the telescope could do a grand tour and be brought back eventually for
>repairs upgrades or return to earth for exhibit..........

Right, and the energy to do all this?

If you could build a tug like this, you'd have the tech to simply fly people
there.

[bob haller]

dime sized resolution by military spy sats has been common knowledge
for many years........

[Brad Guth]

> >Thanks for further proving my point.
>

> You're quite welcome.  Any time in future you would like your abysmal
> ignorance pointed out (which I assume MUST have been your 'point' in
> posting), why, you just let me know.

>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
>  only stupid."
>                             -- Heinrich Heine

Your usual and unoriginal FUD is noted.

[Brad Guth]

On Jun 22, 7:50 pm, bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> dime sized resolution by military spy sats has been common knowledge
> for many years........

Yes indeed, and with considerably smaller pixels and tighter packed
pixels/mm2, it's even better.

SAR spy imaging is also considerably better resolution, by offering at
least ten fold better than we're being told.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”

[Brad Guth]

On Jun 22, 11:59 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >dime sized resolution by military spy sats has been common knowledge
> >for many years........
>

> 'Common knowledge' among the ignorant, perhaps.  The military doesn't
> get its own laws of physics, Bobbert.  They have to use the same ones
> the rest of us get.  Even a dolt can follow the math, so perhaps
> someone can explain it to you.
>
> Let's examine what it would take to get 'dime sized resolution' one
> more time, just for Bobbert.
>
> Ignoring blurring of the image by turbulence in the atmosphere
> (atmospheric seeing) and optical imperfections of the telescope, the
> angular resolution of an optical telescope is determined by the
> diameter of the primary mirror or lens gathering the light (also
> termed its "aperture")
>
> The Rayleigh criterion for the resolution limit (in radians) is given
> by sin(resolution angle) = 1.22*lambda/aperture where lambda is the
> wavelength (550 nm is the middle of the visible light spectrum).  Note
> that this is the BEST that can be done by a theoretically perfect
> telescope viewing through a perfect vacuum.
>
> So let's see how big the aperture of the telescope would have to be,
> given other things that are known, to have "dime sized resolution".
>
> A dime is 17.91 mm across.  Those 'military spy satellites' are
> typically in sun synchronous orbits with perigees no lower than 250 km
> (amateur observers can spot and track them with relatively modest
> telescopes, so their general orbits are not secret).  Note that the
> atmosphere extends well above this altitude, so these satellites have
> to use on board fuel to reboost periodically, even if they never have
> to actually change orbital plane for observational reasons.
>
> We now know enough to start doing the arithmetic.  The angle subtended
> by a dime from a distance of 250 km is given by:
>
>         tan(angle) = .01791/250000
>
> That gives a required resolution of 7.164e-8 radians in order to have
> 'dime sized resolution'.  Now that we have that, we can calculate the
> Ralleigh criterion and see how big the aperture must be to get that
> resolution.
>
>         sin(7.164e-8) = 1.22 * 4.5e-007 / Aperture in meters
>
> That gives us a required aperture of around 7.66 meters to get "dime
> sized resolution by military spy sats".  That makes it around half
> again as big as the absolute largest cargo diameter we have ever been
> able to launch on anything other than a Saturn V.
>
> Now take into account that mirrors are NOT perfect and there IS an
> atmosphere and the numbers only get worse...
>
> Bottom line, the idea that "dime sized resolution by military spy
> sats" exists is obvious bullshit unless you assume there are secret
> laws of physics that only the military can use.
>
> No doubt you'll continue to repeat the same stupid shite, but everyone
> else will know it for what it is.

>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
>  only stupid."
>                             -- Heinrich Heine

A dime is roughly 18 mm, and that's technically doable with good
optics and tightly populated CCDs. The size of the primary and
secondary mirrors are for the gathering of light, and not just
required for resolution. Extremely powerful magnification microscopes
do not use large mirrors.

BTW; our crack DoD and the dozen some odd other official government
and/or contracted agencies also use PhotoShop or something better in
order to resample and enlarge images by another ten fold. This
doesn't improve the resolution, but it does help us to better
interpret those otherwise fuzzy or distorted images.

“Guth Venus” 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/102736204560337818634/BradGuth#slideshow/5629579402364691314

[Wayne Throop]

: Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com>
: One more time.
: RESOLUTION IS LIMITED BY THE APERTURE SIZE OF THE TELESCOPE.

:: Extremely powerful magnification microscopes do not use large mirrors.

: That's because you're looking through the thing through the other end
: when you're talking about microscopes, you stupid fuck.

Also, "large" is in terms of the angular size. What's the angular size of
the lens of a microscope from the viewpoint of a microbe, vs the angular
size of a spysat from the surface of the earth. Microscope's lens is
about a bazillion times larger.

Or, put another way, it's because the microscope's lens is nearly
*touching* the microbe (a mere specimen slide's thickness away),
while the spysat's mirror is 250 km away from the dime.

[Greg Goss]

Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>That gives us a required aperture of around 7.66 meters to get "dime
>sized resolution by military spy sats". That makes it around half
>again as big as the absolute largest cargo diameter we have ever been
>able to launch on anything other than a Saturn V.

Didn't one of the recent (or upcoming) astronomical scopes unfold
itself after reaching orbit?

[Greg Goss]

Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>>
>>Didn't one of the recent (or upcoming) astronomical scopes unfold
>>itself after reaching orbit?
>>
>

>I would be vastly surprised if you could get sufficient optical
>quality in something that was going to unfold. Power (solar wings)
>usually unfold after launch, but I'm not aware of any optical mirrors
>that do so.
>
>JWST is supposed to do this, but it's in IR.
...
> JWST
>has been preposterously difficult and expensive to develop and it's an
>easier problem than visible light.

Thanks. JW is the one I had been thinking of, and I hadn't been
paying enough attention to realize it was IR.

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

"Greg Goss" wrote in message news:a4mvnf...@mid.individual.net...

>
>Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>Didn't one of the recent (or upcoming) astronomical scopes unfold
>>>itself after reaching orbit?
>>>
>>
>>I would be vastly surprised if you could get sufficient optical
>>quality in something that was going to unfold. Power (solar wings)
>>usually unfold after launch, but I'm not aware of any optical mirrors
>>that do so.
>>
>>JWST is supposed to do this, but it's in IR.
>...
>> JWST
>>has been preposterously difficult and expensive to develop and it's an
>>easier problem than visible light.
>
>Thanks. JW is the one I had been thinking of, and I hadn't been
>paying enough attention to realize it was IR.

Well it's often called a "replacement" for HST. But the truth is that it
serves a fairly different niche.

I hate the whole idea of "well we have a new toy, we don't need HST any
more." (I realize the budget is a limiting factor, but when they built Keck,
that didn't automatically make Mount Palomar useless. )

[bob haller]

is there any way to service hubble without the shuttle?

once manned dragon is operational? manned dragon docked to a bigelow
station with a arm?

[Brad Guth]

On Jun 23, 3:02 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >On Jun 22, 7:50 pm, bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> dime sized resolution by military spy sats has been common knowledge
> >> for many years........
>
> >Yes indeed, and with considerably smaller pixels and tighter packed
> >pixels/mm2, it's even better.
>

> Brad, you ignorant slut, it has NOTHING to do with the CCD sensor or
> pixel density.  It has EVERYTHING to do with the Ralleigh criterion of
> the lens/mirror.  You can put a billion pixel CCD back there and you
> STILL can't violate the laws of physics, so you STILL won't do any
> better than the Ralleigh criterion of the optical system.
>
> Hint:  The original
>
> I just walked through the arithmetic and showed that "dime sized
> resolution" requires preposterously large mirrors.  I guess I
> shouldn't be surprised that you're too bloody stupid to follow simple
> arithmetic.

>
>
>
> >SAR spy imaging is also considerably better resolution, by offering at
> >least ten fold better than we're being told.
>

> Oh, is it, now?  Perhaps you'd like to explain how they can violate
> the laws of physics on those, too?

>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
>  only stupid."
>                             -- Heinrich Heine

You denial of being in denial is noted.

[Brad Guth]

On Jun 23, 3:18 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >A dime is roughly 18 mm, ...
>
> A dime is 17.91 mm.  I gave that number already.  See above.
>
>
>
> >... and that's technically doable with good optics and tightly populated CCDs.
>
> Not from even the lowest point in orbit of a military recon sat, it is
> not.  And, once again, "tightly populated CCDs" have *ZERO* to do with
> the resolution capability of a recon satellite.

>
>
>
> >The size of the primary and
> >secondary mirrors are for the gathering of light, and not just
> >required for resolution.
>

> Brad, you ignorant slut.  RESOLUTION IS LIMITED BY THE APERTURE SIZE
> OF THE TELESCOPE.  Get that tattooed on your and and every time you
> want to post stupid shit like the preceding, READ IT AGAIN.  That
> 'aperture size' is the diameter of the main lens or mirror.  End of
> story.
>
> Secondary mirrors are used to get wider angle of view and/or do
> refocussing to allow a shorter tube, but CANNOT CHANGE THE RESOLUTION
> LIMIT OF THE TELESCOPE.

>
> One more time.  RESOLUTION IS LIMITED BY THE APERTURE SIZE OF THE
> TELESCOPE.
>
>
>

> >Extremely powerful magnification microscopes
> >do not use large mirrors.
>

> That's because you're looking through the thing through the other end
> when you're talking about microscopes, you stupid fuck.
>
>
>

> >BTW; our crack DoD and the dozen some odd other official government
> >and/or contracted agencies also use PhotoShop or something better in
> >order to resample and enlarge images by another ten fold.  This
> >doesn't improve the resolution, but it does help us to better
> >interpret those otherwise fuzzy or distorted images.
>

> You've gotten this about half right, which is probably the best that
> can be expected from your variety of half-assed halfwit.
>
> They use this:
>
> http://www.socetgxp.com/content/products/socet-gxp
>
> You can buy it yourself if you have the cash.

>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
>  only stupid."
>                             -- Heinrich Heine

Your ZNR/GOP approved FUD is noted.

[Brad Guth]

On Jun 23, 9:03 am, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> : Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com>

Put the microscope optics as focused upon the CCD FOV, and what do we
get?

Also, the stacking of images brings more viable pixels per given FOV.

Of course, we all know that FUD-masters are forbidden to connect any
dots, but have been allowed to interpret almost anything as a Muslim
WMD.

[Brad Guth]

The Russians or Chinese can service Hubble, or entirely replace Hubble
with something better.

[bob haller]

> >is there any way to service hubble without the shuttle?
>

> No.

>
>
>
> >once manned dragon is operational? manned dragon docked to a bigelow
> >station with a arm?
>

> By then Hubble will be history.


manned dragon should be flying in what 3 years? add a year for
logistics, to assemble a manned dragon work platform.

assume success 4 years.

how long has hubble gone between service missions?

and even if hubble fails for some reason in that time its orbit should
be stable for how long?

so hubble could be out of service for awhile but brought back on line
once the service mission were possible:)

now if the $$$ being wasted on SLS were devoted to manned dragon
devlopment perhaps that 3 year timeline could be cut?

SLS has inadquate funding and no real destination. It squeals like the
pork piggie it is:(

[Brad Guth]

Hubble has given us a great deal of nifty eyecandy, however it hasn't
resolved any terrestrial issues, hasn't helped to spot or defend us
from any asteroids, nor having put any grain of food on our tables,
nor paid any of us one cent for the cost of energy or the many other
inflated cost of living. It also hasn't prevented any wars nor could
it possibly spot those Muslim WMD or locate OBL. In fact, Hubble is
only responsible for contributing at least 0.1% inflation that's
costing everyone, and having to launch and service it has only put a
great deal of pollution into the environment as well as having risked
dozens of lives.

At not 1% the all-inclusive cost, other missions like Magellan gave us
Venus.

“Guth Venus” 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/102736204560337818634/BradGuth#slideshow/5629579402364691314

Other thumbnail images, including mgn_c115s095_1.gif (225 m/pixel)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/thumbnail_pages/venus_thumbnails.html
Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles, Venus from Magellan Cycle 1
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif

[Steve Hix]

In article <a4mpgm...@mid.individual.net>, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org>
wrote:

> Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >That gives us a required aperture of around 7.66 meters to get "dime
> >sized resolution by military spy sats". That makes it around half
> >again as big as the absolute largest cargo diameter we have ever been
> >able to launch on anything other than a Saturn V.
>
> Didn't one of the recent (or upcoming) astronomical scopes unfold
> itself after reaching orbit?

Sounds like the recent x-ray telescope, where the main components are separated
by a truss boom. Which works for x-rays...

[Thomas Womack]

1;2cIn article <a4mpgm...@mid.individual.net>,

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>That gives us a required aperture of around 7.66 meters to get "dime
>>sized resolution by military spy sats". That makes it around half
>>again as big as the absolute largest cargo diameter we have ever been
>>able to launch on anything other than a Saturn V.
>
>Didn't one of the recent (or upcoming) astronomical scopes unfold
>itself after reaching orbit?

Yes, JWST is intended to do so. And the fact that the unfolding
mirror wasn't regarded as the absolute greatest technical difficulty
of the project made it seem quite plausible (given also the Hubble
backstory) that NRO was using deployed mirrors already; moreover
there's http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=51980 with a
segmented-mirror telescope made by Kodak and shipped to NPS because
NRO had no further use for it.

JWST is specified for about a 150nm RMS surface error, which is
quarter-wave quality at the 600nm shortest wavelength that its
instruments detect. But the JWST mirror segments have seven actuators
and the SMT ones have 'more than 100'; that degree of active surface
control sounds to me like what would be required for optical surface
quality. Note too
http://www.stsci.edu/stsci/meetings/nhst/talks/GaryMatthews1.pdf which
is a Kodak paper from 2003 describing a mostly-finished lightweight
actuated segmented mirror project.

JWST as an infra-red telescope at the L2 point has all sorts of
cryonics issues which a telescope designed for use from low Earth
orbit in the optical regime would not have to worry about; looking at
scenes illuminated by sunlight or by endogenous heat is a rather
different regime to looking at very distant galaxies.

(a human might be outputting about 100 watts at 250 kilometres; an
active galactic nucleus outputs about 10^33 watts at 250 megaparsecs
which is the equivalent of _one microwatt_ at 250 kilometres)

I would be unsurprised if the NRO used multi-metre unfolding
telescopes in Earth orbit at present; though I suspect it will be
thirty or more years before they release the relevant documents, and
it could be that the whole thing was part of the famously-disastrous
Future Imagery Architecture project and it never actually worked.

Tom

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news:i0pcu7tfh2rjl9et3...@4ax.com...

>
>"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com> wrote:
>
>>"Greg Goss" wrote in message news:a4mvnf...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Didn't one of the recent (or upcoming) astronomical scopes unfold
>>>>>itself after reaching orbit?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I would be vastly surprised if you could get sufficient optical
>>>>quality in something that was going to unfold. Power (solar wings)
>>>>usually unfold after launch, but I'm not aware of any optical mirrors
>>>>that do so.
>>>>
>>>>JWST is supposed to do this, but it's in IR.
>>>...
>>>> JWST
>>>>has been preposterously difficult and expensive to develop and it's an
>>>>easier problem than visible light.
>>>
>>>Thanks. JW is the one I had been thinking of, and I hadn't been
>>>paying enough attention to realize it was IR.
>>>
>>
>>Well it's often called a "replacement" for HST. But the truth is that it
>>serves a fairly different niche.
>>
>>I hate the whole idea of "well we have a new toy, we don't need HST any
>>more." (I realize the budget is a limiting factor, but when they built
>>Keck,
>>that didn't automatically make Mount Palomar useless. )
>>
>

>The reason they bill JWST as a 'replacement' for Hubble is that they
>don't have the capability to service Hubble anymore, so when the
>reaction wheels fail it's done. They don't want to admit that a
>billion dollar asset is useless and they aren't replacing it with
>another optical scope, so they LIE and act as if IR is the same as
>optical.
>

Except JWST was billed as a replacement for Hubble even before they couldn't
service it any more.


>It's not. It would be good to have both. I'm not aware that there
>are huge free times in the bookings for Hubble, rendering it unneeded,
>but perhaps there are. But I doubt it.
>

Agreed. Heck, I've been arguing for years they should have taken the Kodak
blank, the replaced hardware from servicing missions and built a new shell
and launched that. (i.e. sort of what folks are proposing with the NRO sats
now.)

The mistake is if they try to make a duplicate of Hubble. I'm sure there
are plenty of scientists who would love time on a large mirror telescope
above the atmosphere even if it weren't as good as Hubble. I think they'd
be better off building "Hubble lites" out of these than anything too fancy.

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:bbucu7948huc3776s...@4ax.com...

>
>bob haller <hal...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>is there any way to service hubble without the shuttle?
>>
>

>No.

I realize when dealing with Bob that sometimes absolutes are better.

That said, I believe the last servicing mission did add a docking target and
grapple.

So in theory a manned dragon with the full size cargo area MIGHT be able to
do something.

I think consumables (cycling the air, etc.) would be the biggest headache.

That said, I can't see NASA going for any servicing mission at this point.

>
>>
>>once manned dragon is operational? manned dragon docked to a bigelow
>>station with a arm?
>>
>

>By then Hubble will be history.

Unfortunately I agree. But who knows, we might get lucky.

[bob haller]

On Jun 24, 3:15 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thomas Womack <twom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> >1;2cIn article <a4mpgmFlk...@mid.individual.net>,
> >Greg Goss  <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

> >>Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>That gives us a required aperture of around 7.66 meters to get "dime
> >>>sized resolution by military spy sats".  That makes it around half
> >>>again as big as the absolute largest cargo diameter we have ever been
> >>>able to launch on anything other than a Saturn V.
>
> >>Didn't one of the recent (or upcoming) astronomical scopes unfold
> >>itself after reaching orbit?
>
> >Yes, JWST is intended to do so.  And the fact that the unfolding
> >mirror wasn't regarded as the absolute greatest technical difficulty
> >of the project made it seem quite plausible (given also the Hubble
> >backstory) that NRO was using deployed mirrors already;
>

> Poppycock!  There's a difference between a telescope for IR and for
> visible light.
>
>
>
> >moreover
> >there'shttp://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=51980with a

> >segmented-mirror telescope made by Kodak and shipped to NPS because
> >NRO had no further use for it.
>

> And never flew it.  It was a 'technology demonstrator'.  And how big
> was the mirror when unfolded?  Around 3 meters.  In other words, it's
> barely larger than the one-piece mirrors already flown which can be
> precision ground ON THE GROUND so that you know they're right and you
> don't have to worry about one of hundreds of actuators failing and
> destroying your billion dollar recce satellite.

>
>
>
> >JWST is specified for about a 150nm RMS surface error, which is
> >quarter-wave quality at the 600nm shortest wavelength that its
> >instruments detect.  But the JWST mirror segments have seven actuators
> >and the SMT ones have 'more than 100'; that degree of active surface
> >control sounds to me like what would be required for optical surface
> >quality.  Note too
> >http://www.stsci.edu/stsci/meetings/nhst/talks/GaryMatthews1.pdfwhich
> >is a Kodak paper from 2003 describing a mostly-finished lightweight
> >actuated segmented mirror project.
>

> Yes, and one actuator out of hundreds failing makes your telescope
> junk.  And it's not significantly bigger than single piece mirrors
> being flown for years.
>
> As for the Kodak effort, "technology demonstrator" and "2.4 meter". In
> other words, it's not a real effort and it's not very big.

>
>
>
> >I would be unsurprised if the NRO used multi-metre unfolding
> >telescopes in Earth orbit at present;
>

> I would be amazed, since if they did that and they were appreciably
> bigger than 3 meters someone would have noticed.
>
> I would also be amazed because NRO has actually gone to slightly
> smaller mirrors than the largest ones they've launched because
> atmospheric speckle makes the larger mirror irrelevant to whether you
> can see or not.
>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
>  territory."
>                                       --G. Behn

Picture 2 sats in slightly different orbits both imaging the same
target. I have read that will dramatically enlarge the size of the
image.....

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:60ueu7htomoim3bdj...@4ax.com...

>
>"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com> wrote:
>

>>"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
>>news:bbucu7948huc3776s...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>bob haller <hal...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>is there any way to service hubble without the shuttle?
>>>>
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>>I realize when dealing with Bob that sometimes absolutes are better.
>>
>>That said, I believe the last servicing mission did add a docking target
>>and
>>grapple.
>>
>

>The total purpose of that was to allow them to robotically dock a
>deorbit engine to it.

Agreed. I should have been clear about its intended purpose. My point was
that it allows docking and could be used for other purposes.
>
>I mostly agree with all that. I think it would be very, very
>difficult to put together a servicing mission and I don't think NASA
>has the will.
>
The only real way it would happen is if SpaceX put enough pressure on NASA
and the politicos to make the resulting embarrassment worse if they don't do
anything. I could see SpaceX offering to do some sort of maintenance
mission free or at a discount, just to build some street cred.

It certainly couldn't be a complex one and I don't know how complicated
replacing a control gyro is. If it's simple enough, I could see SpaceX
trying to get the job done and then performing a reboost.

But, the timing before Hubble dies would mean a helluva tough sell.

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

"bob haller" wrote in message
news:da91646b-5528-4147...@a8g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...

>
>
>Picture 2 sats in slightly different orbits both imaging the same
>target. I have read that will dramatically enlarge the size of the
>image.....
>
>

Yes, astronomical optical interferometry. It's not as easy in the visual
wavelength range as it is in radio frequencies.

And it still isn't quite the same as building a bigger mirror.

[Thomas Womack]

In article <booeu7t2nflpc0ki2...@4ax.com>,

Fred J. McCall <fmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>moreover
>>there's http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=51980 with a
>>segmented-mirror telescope made by Kodak and shipped to NPS because
>>NRO had no further use for it.
>>
>

>And never flew it. It was a 'technology demonstrator'. And how big
>was the mirror when unfolded? Around 3 meters. In other words, it's
>barely larger than the one-piece mirrors already flown which can be
>precision ground ON THE GROUND so that you know they're right and you
>don't have to worry about one of hundreds of actuators failing and
>destroying your billion dollar recce satellite.

Kodak's more detailed documentation for the ASMD indicated that they'd
thought about that, the actuators are designed to act in such a way
that having one go wrong slightly reduces the figure control rather
than making the satellite useless.

What wasn't quite clear to me was whether the actuators were able to
provide enough force to assert a correct figure against 1G, which is
obviously useful for ground testing.

>As for the Kodak effort, "technology demonstrator" and "2.4 meter". In
>other words, it's not a real effort and it's not very big.

It's a technology demonstrator *from 2003* - generally once you've
built a successful technology demonstrator you'd go and build the real
thing - and you would only bother making a carefully hexagonal mirror
if you planned to tile them afterwards.

>I would also be amazed because NRO has actually gone to slightly
>smaller mirrors than the largest ones they've launched because
>atmospheric speckle makes the larger mirror irrelevant to whether you
>can see or not.

As you go to longer wavelengths the speckle gets a good deal less
severe (at least for astronomers looking down) and as you know you
need larger but lower-quality mirrors to get an appropriate
diffraction limit.

Tom

[Jeff Findley]

In article <sis7u7h361t1r66vh...@4ax.com>,
fjmc...@gmail.com says...
>
> bob haller <hal...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >whats the difference of the telescope orbiting earth with a dime
sized
> >resoluton, or the same telescope orbiting mars from roughly the same
> >distance?
> >
>
> No difference at all. Both are nonexistent.
>
> One more time, Bobbert. Pay attention.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_Kennan
>
> "Assuming a 2.4-meter mirror, the theoretical ground resolution with
> no atmospheric degradation and 50% MTF would be roughly 15 cm (6
> inches). Operational resolution would be worse due to effects of the
> atmosphere."
>
> Six inches is a pretty big fucking dime, even if these things could
> achieve the theoretical ground resolution (and they can't).
>
> Six inches is not a guess. It is the result of applying well known
> scientific laws to well known numbers.
>
> >
> >in both cases it should have dime sized resolution?
> >
>
> No, in both cases it has no resolution at all because it doesn't
> exist.

Bob must think that the KH-11 used alien tech to circumvent the known
laws of physics.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. ;) "
- tinker

[Jeff Findley]

In article <ba42c4a4-e4ec-4913-80ba-2fb1b1f362f9
@n33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...

>
> dime sized resolution by military spy sats has been common knowledge
> for many years........

"Common knowledge" is quite often wrong.

In this case, it is clearly not based on the facts because the laws of
physics limits resolution based on the diameter of the primary mirror.
Any spysat launched from the shuttle had to have had a primary mirror
about the size of the ones we're talking about. As a result, they could
not possibly have had dime sized resolution.

[Robert Clark]

On Jun 13, 2:31 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2:45 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > ...
> > >  Interesting articles here about the WISE capability to detect large
> > > unknown planets at the very fringes of the Solar System:
>
> > > Up telescope! Search begins for giant new planet.
> > > Tyche may be bigger than Jupiter and orbit at the outer edge of the
> > > solar system.
> > > BY PAUL RODGERS   SUNDAY 13 FEBRUARY 2011http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/up-telescope-search-begins-...
>
> > > About that Giant Planet Possibly Hiding in the Outer Solar System…
> > > by NANCY ATKINSON on FEBRUARY 16, 2011http://www.universetoday.com/83363/about-that-giant-planet-possibly-h...
>
> > >  The Hubble-class scopes could perform a much more sensitive search
> > > than WISE.
>
> > >  Another possible use would be the search for nomad or rogue planets,
> > > which are planets in the interstellar space between star systems:
>
> > > Researchers say galaxy may swarm with 'nomad planets'.
> > > [quote]A good count, especially of the smaller objects, will have to
> > > wait for the next generation of big survey telescopes, especially the
> > > space-based Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope and the ground-based
> > > Large Synoptic Survey Telescope, both set to begin operation in the
> > > early 2020s.
> > > A confirmation of the estimate could lend credence to another
> > > possibility mentioned in the paper – that as nomad planets roam their
> > > starry pastures, collisions could scatter their microbial flocks to
> > > seed life elsewhere.[/quote]
> > > February 23, 2012 BY ANDY FREEBERGhttp://phys.org/news/2012-02-galaxy-swarm-nomad-planets.html
>
> > >  Again the Hubble-class scopes would have much better sensitivity to
> > > detect them than the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope(WFIRST)
> > > scope mentioned.
> > >  It has been speculated such nomad planets could have life in
> > > subsurface water. Since some of these nomads are believed to be
> > > ejected from other star systems, nomads near to us or captured by our
> > > Solar System would provide a more near term route to search for life
> > > in other star systems.
> > >  Because of the interest in the search for extraterrestrial life, you
> > > could have another source for private funding for such scopes. One
> > > could have for example the scope named after a foundation or
> > > individual who provided a large portion of the funding, like the Keck
> > > telescope.
>
> > >    Bob Clark
>
> >  Discuss these points in a follow-up blog post:
>
> > Low cost development and applications of the new NRO donated
> > telescopes, Page 2.http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/06/low-cost-development-and-app...
>
> >   Bob Clark
>
>  Discussion of using distributed computing to allow the public to take
> part in the asteroid, new planet, and brown dwarf search:
>
> Low cost development and applications of the new NRO donated
> telescopes, Page 3.http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/06/low-cost-development-and-app...
>
>   Bob Clark

Planetary Resources, Inc. has asked for suggestions for getting
public involvement in their asteroid mining venture on their web site:

http://www.planetaryresources.com/2012/06/back-us-on-kickstarter/

The most common suggestion has been to use distributed computing or
crowd sourcing to find valuable asteroid targets.

Bob Clark

[Robert Clark]

On Jun 17, 8:50 pm, Robert Clark
< ...
>  In this post I discuss the fact that comparable ground scopes cost a
> fraction of the price charged for space scopes, and that off the shelf
> electronics can be used for the space scopes with only inexpensive
> modifications:

>
> Low cost development and applications of the new NRO donated

> telescopes, Page 4.http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/06/low-cost-development-and-app...
>
>   Bob Clark


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

[Me]

On Jun 28, 7:36 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 17, 8:50 pm, Robert Clark
> < ...
>
> >  In this post I discuss the fact that comparable ground scopes cost a
> > fraction of the price charged for space scopes, and that off the shelf
> > electronics can be used for the space scopes with only inexpensive
> > modifications:
>
> > Low cost development and applications of the new NRO donated
> > telescopes, Page 4.http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/06/low-cost-development-and-app...
>
> >   Bob Clark
>

And your are wrong in your assumptions

[Brad Guth]

Our moon seems perfectly worthy enough, although the extremely nearby
planet Venus isn't lacking any elements of value that we know of.