Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
SLS for launching large space telescopes (was Re: SLS alternatives)
13 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert Clark
Nov 1, 2012, 9:13:54 AM11/1/12
to
On Oct 30, 6:37 pm, Brian Thorn <bthor...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:55:56 -0700 (PDT), bob haller <hall...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >http://www.space.com/18275-nasa-sls-rocket-potential-missions.html
>
> So NASA is dreaming about SLS payloads, too...
>
> Brian
Very exciting astronomy missions become possible also with the SLS:
SLS Useful for Science Missions, Too, STScI Director Tells House
Panel.
Marcia S. Smith
Posted: 17-Sep-2012
[quote]
The new Space Launch System (SLS) NASA is developing is useful for
robotic science missions as well as human spaceflight according to the
director of the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI).
Testifying to a House subcommittee last week, Matt Mountain said that
SLS could enable launching telescopes much larger than the Hubble
Space Telescope or the upcoming James Webb Space Telescope (JWST).
STScI operates Hubble and will operate JWST after it is launched in
2018. Mountain described telescopes with primary mirrors 15-25
meters across -- three or four times the size of JWST -- that might be
able to detect life on planets around other stars that would be
enabled by a launch vehicle the size of SLS coupled with "human or
robotic infrastructure to assemble such a system in space." [/quote]
http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/sls-useful-for-science-missions-too-stsci-director-tells-house-panel
Telescopes with mirrors 15 to 25 meters across might be too ambitious
since we don't have those even for ground scopes yet. But we can
certainly imagine 10 meter telescopes. I looked up some costs of the
largest ground scopes and was surprised by how low cost they were
compared to typical space missions. The Keck 1 and Keck 2, which are
each 10 meter scopes, cost in the range of $100 million each in 1993
dollars. And the Large Binocular Telescope(LBT) whose twin 8.4 meter
mirrors give it the collecting power of a 11.9 meter scope cost only
$120 million in 2005 dollars. This compared to the likely billion
dollar launch costs of the SLS.
There would be additional costs at making these scopes space
qualified, but on the other hand you don't have the large costs of
constructing the buildings to house such large telescopes on the
ground.
The LBT case is especially interesting in that the twin mirrors if
they could be used together to create a single image they would have
the resolution of a 22.8 meter telescope. This would put it in the
range able to detect life on extrasolar planets. According to the
Wikipedia page on the LBT, this image synthesis mode has been tested
but has not been part of the regular use. Likely cost has been a
limiting factor. However, the National Reconnaissance Office has an
ever increasing need for better and better imaging resolution from
space. Reportedly they already have launched billion dollar
satellites. Then they could be a source for the funding to perfect the
image combining methods.
Bob Clark
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:55:56 -0700 (PDT), bob haller <hall...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >http://www.space.com/18275-nasa-sls-rocket-potential-missions.html
>
> So NASA is dreaming about SLS payloads, too...
>
> Brian
Very exciting astronomy missions become possible also with the SLS:
SLS Useful for Science Missions, Too, STScI Director Tells House
Panel.
Marcia S. Smith
Posted: 17-Sep-2012
[quote]
The new Space Launch System (SLS) NASA is developing is useful for
robotic science missions as well as human spaceflight according to the
director of the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI).
Testifying to a House subcommittee last week, Matt Mountain said that
SLS could enable launching telescopes much larger than the Hubble
Space Telescope or the upcoming James Webb Space Telescope (JWST).
STScI operates Hubble and will operate JWST after it is launched in
2018. Mountain described telescopes with primary mirrors 15-25
meters across -- three or four times the size of JWST -- that might be
able to detect life on planets around other stars that would be
enabled by a launch vehicle the size of SLS coupled with "human or
robotic infrastructure to assemble such a system in space." [/quote]
http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/sls-useful-for-science-missions-too-stsci-director-tells-house-panel
Telescopes with mirrors 15 to 25 meters across might be too ambitious
since we don't have those even for ground scopes yet. But we can
certainly imagine 10 meter telescopes. I looked up some costs of the
largest ground scopes and was surprised by how low cost they were
compared to typical space missions. The Keck 1 and Keck 2, which are
each 10 meter scopes, cost in the range of $100 million each in 1993
dollars. And the Large Binocular Telescope(LBT) whose twin 8.4 meter
mirrors give it the collecting power of a 11.9 meter scope cost only
$120 million in 2005 dollars. This compared to the likely billion
dollar launch costs of the SLS.
There would be additional costs at making these scopes space
qualified, but on the other hand you don't have the large costs of
constructing the buildings to house such large telescopes on the
ground.
The LBT case is especially interesting in that the twin mirrors if
they could be used together to create a single image they would have
the resolution of a 22.8 meter telescope. This would put it in the
range able to detect life on extrasolar planets. According to the
Wikipedia page on the LBT, this image synthesis mode has been tested
but has not been part of the regular use. Likely cost has been a
limiting factor. However, the National Reconnaissance Office has an
ever increasing need for better and better imaging resolution from
space. Reportedly they already have launched billion dollar
satellites. Then they could be a source for the funding to perfect the
image combining methods.
Bob Clark
Jeff Findley
Nov 1, 2012, 11:38:33 AM11/1/12
to
In article <5f61fc60-0036-4809-8d0d-ac4e0890a79e@
10g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>, rgrego...@yahoo.com says...
Your data just proves that terrestrial based telescopes are far cheaper
to build than space based. When you include development costs,
operational costs, and the cost of servicing missions for Hubble, it
becomes a very expensive program indeed. Wikipedia states that as of
2010, total Hubble costs are were about US $10 billion.
Assuming identical costs for an SLS launched telescope, even though it
could be far larger, or placed in an orbit further from earth, I'm not
sure Congress would be willing to cough up that kind of money. James
Webb Space Telescope costs are reportedly currently estimated to be
somewhere around $6.8 billion, and it's still many years away from being
launched (currently scheduled for 2018, but could slip).
NASA is establishing quite a track record for large space telescopes
whose schedule routinely slips and whose budget routinely balloons into
the multi-billion dollar range.
Still, even if an SLS launched space telescope is approved, I would
think it very unlikely that NASA would get funding to build more than
one copy. This will do little to boost SLS flight rate on a year to
year basis. The "build it and they will come" philosophy doesn't
necessarily mean that "they will come" in large quantities.
Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
10g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>, rgrego...@yahoo.com says...
to build than space based. When you include development costs,
operational costs, and the cost of servicing missions for Hubble, it
becomes a very expensive program indeed. Wikipedia states that as of
2010, total Hubble costs are were about US $10 billion.
Assuming identical costs for an SLS launched telescope, even though it
could be far larger, or placed in an orbit further from earth, I'm not
sure Congress would be willing to cough up that kind of money. James
Webb Space Telescope costs are reportedly currently estimated to be
somewhere around $6.8 billion, and it's still many years away from being
launched (currently scheduled for 2018, but could slip).
NASA is establishing quite a track record for large space telescopes
whose schedule routinely slips and whose budget routinely balloons into
the multi-billion dollar range.
Still, even if an SLS launched space telescope is approved, I would
think it very unlikely that NASA would get funding to build more than
one copy. This will do little to boost SLS flight rate on a year to
year basis. The "build it and they will come" philosophy doesn't
necessarily mean that "they will come" in large quantities.
Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
Robert Clark
Nov 11, 2012, 8:17:11 AM11/11/12
to
On Nov 1, 8:13 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 30, 6:37 pm, Brian Thorn <bthor...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:55:56 -0700 (PDT), bob haller <hall...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >http://www.space.com/18275-nasa-sls-rocket-potential-missions.html
>
> > So NASA is dreaming about SLS payloads, too...
>
> > Brian
>
> Very exciting astronomy missions become possible also with the SLS:
>
> SLS Useful for Science Missions, Too, STScI Director Tells House
> Panel.
> Marcia S. Smith
> Posted: 17-Sep-2012
> [quote]
> The new Space Launch System (SLS) NASA is developing is useful for
> robotic science missions as well as human spaceflight according to the
> director of the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI).
> Testifying to a House subcommittee last week, Matt Mountain said that
> SLS could enable launching telescopes much larger than the Hubble
> Space Telescope or the upcoming James Webb Space Telescope (JWST).
> STScI operates Hubble and will operate JWST after it is launched in
> 2018. Mountain described telescopes with primary mirrors 15-25
> meters across -- three or four times the size of JWST -- that might be
> able to detect life on planets around other stars that would be
> enabled by a launch vehicle the size of SLS coupled with "human or
> robotic infrastructure to assemble such a system in space." [/quote]http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/sls-useful-for-science-missions...
> On Oct 30, 6:37 pm, Brian Thorn <bthor...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:55:56 -0700 (PDT), bob haller <hall...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >http://www.space.com/18275-nasa-sls-rocket-potential-missions.html
>
> > So NASA is dreaming about SLS payloads, too...
>
> > Brian
>
> Very exciting astronomy missions become possible also with the SLS:
>
> SLS Useful for Science Missions, Too, STScI Director Tells House
> Panel.
> Marcia S. Smith
> Posted: 17-Sep-2012
> [quote]
> The new Space Launch System (SLS) NASA is developing is useful for
> robotic science missions as well as human spaceflight according to the
> director of the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI).
> Testifying to a House subcommittee last week, Matt Mountain said that
> SLS could enable launching telescopes much larger than the Hubble
> Space Telescope or the upcoming James Webb Space Telescope (JWST).
> STScI operates Hubble and will operate JWST after it is launched in
> 2018. Mountain described telescopes with primary mirrors 15-25
> meters across -- three or four times the size of JWST -- that might be
> able to detect life on planets around other stars that would be
> enabled by a launch vehicle the size of SLS coupled with "human or
satellite producers have brought prices down by an order of magnitude
by mass production and by using commercially available off the shelf
components:
Affordable space flight through mass production.
Posted by Michael Belfiore on Nov 6, 2012
http://michaelbelfiore.com/2012/11/spacecraft-mass-production.html
See also the argument here:
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
Brad Guth
Nov 11, 2012, 8:58:45 AM11/11/12
to
On Nov 1, 7:38 am, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> In article <5f61fc60-0036-4809-8d0d-ac4e0890a79e@
> 10g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>, rgregorycl...@yahoo.com says...
> In article <5f61fc60-0036-4809-8d0d-ac4e0890a79e@
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 30, 6:37 pm, Brian Thorn <bthor...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:55:56 -0700 (PDT), bob haller <hall...@aol.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.space.com/18275-nasa-sls-rocket-potential-missions.html
>
> > > So NASA is dreaming about SLS payloads, too...
>
> > > Brian
>
> > Very exciting astronomy missions become possible also with the SLS:
>
> > SLS Useful for Science Missions, Too, STScI Director Tells House
> > Panel.
> > Marcia S. Smith
> > Posted: 17-Sep-2012
> > [quote]
> > The new Space Launch System (SLS) NASA is developing is useful for
> > robotic science missions as well as human spaceflight according to the
> > director of the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI).
> > Testifying to a House subcommittee last week, Matt Mountain said that
> > SLS could enable launching telescopes much larger than the Hubble
> > Space Telescope or the upcoming James Webb Space Telescope (JWST).
> > STScI operates Hubble and will operate JWST after it is launched in
> > 2018. Mountain described telescopes with primary mirrors 15-25
> > meters across -- three or four times the size of JWST -- that might be
> > able to detect life on planets around other stars that would be
> > enabled by a launch vehicle the size of SLS coupled with "human or
> > robotic infrastructure to assemble such a system in space." [/quote]
> >http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/sls-useful-for-science-missions...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 30, 6:37 pm, Brian Thorn <bthor...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:55:56 -0700 (PDT), bob haller <hall...@aol.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.space.com/18275-nasa-sls-rocket-potential-missions.html
>
> > > So NASA is dreaming about SLS payloads, too...
>
> > > Brian
>
> > Very exciting astronomy missions become possible also with the SLS:
>
> > SLS Useful for Science Missions, Too, STScI Director Tells House
> > Panel.
> > Marcia S. Smith
> > Posted: 17-Sep-2012
> > [quote]
> > The new Space Launch System (SLS) NASA is developing is useful for
> > robotic science missions as well as human spaceflight according to the
> > director of the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI).
> > Testifying to a House subcommittee last week, Matt Mountain said that
> > SLS could enable launching telescopes much larger than the Hubble
> > Space Telescope or the upcoming James Webb Space Telescope (JWST).
> > STScI operates Hubble and will operate JWST after it is launched in
> > 2018. Mountain described telescopes with primary mirrors 15-25
> > meters across -- three or four times the size of JWST -- that might be
> > able to detect life on planets around other stars that would be
> > enabled by a launch vehicle the size of SLS coupled with "human or
> > robotic infrastructure to assemble such a system in space." [/quote]
market, and then put on the table anything that has directly benefited
humanity.
$20 billion invested for what exactly?
>
> Assuming identical costs for an SLS launched telescope, even though it
> could be far larger, or placed in an orbit further from earth, I'm not
> sure Congress would be willing to cough up that kind of money. James
> Webb Space Telescope costs are reportedly currently estimated to be
> somewhere around $6.8 billion, and it's still many years away from being
> launched (currently scheduled for 2018, but could slip).
>
> NASA is establishing quite a track record for large space telescopes
> whose schedule routinely slips and whose budget routinely balloons into
> the multi-billion dollar range.
>
> Still, even if an SLS launched space telescope is approved, I would
> think it very unlikely that NASA would get funding to build more than
> one copy. This will do little to boost SLS flight rate on a year to
> year basis. The "build it and they will come" philosophy doesn't
> necessarily mean that "they will come" in large quantities.
>
> Jeff
> --
> "the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
> magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
> than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
> and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
table, has fed and cared for how many regular people in need of food,
housing, medical care or basic freedoms?
bob haller
Nov 11, 2012, 8:58:50 AM11/11/12
to
>
> See also the argument here:
>
> Low cost development and applications of the new NRO donated
> telescopes, Page 4.http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/06/low-cost-development-and-app...
> See also the argument here:
>
> Low cost development and applications of the new NRO donated
>
> Bob Clark
fred mc call claims mass production wouldnt save money and his normal
drivel.......
Brad Guth
Nov 11, 2012, 9:03:58 AM11/11/12
to
>
> See also the argument here:
>
> Low cost development and applications of the new NRO donated
> telescopes, Page 4.http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/06/low-cost-development-and-app...
> See also the argument here:
>
> Low cost development and applications of the new NRO donated
>
> Bob Clark
What good is even $1000/kg in LEO if the mainstream of our Oligarch
and Rothschild status-quo has no intentions of allowing off-world
exploitations?
Just because an extremely nearby planet has made itself a little too
extra geothermal and solar hot, as having been too greenhouse nasty
for its own good, is not a sufficient reason for truly intelligent
folks to not go after those minerals of rare metals and raw elements.
Considering how depleted or terrestrial limited occurrence and thus
rare a number of metals and raw elements are getting right here on
Earth, and mow much human effort plus wars and environmental damage
takes place for exploiting, extracting and processing those, it might
not be such a bad idea of our going off-world once the all-inclusive
benefits are so easily understood by those of us that are not
terrestrial invested in such artificially made spendy items, that also
become social and political hot potatoes because of their growing
rareness or consumer value that’s so easily insider hoarded, and/or
traded via market speculation or manipulation in order to suit
whatever global inflation it can muster for the greater benefit of
Oligarchs and Rothschilds, that for the most part have never had to
actually work a day in their life.
So, as long as those of authority and wealth have no intentions of
improving our global infrastructure, so as to benefit the greater good
of the lower 99.9% caste, we might as well consider those off-world
exploitations as taboo or nondisclosure rated. But that doesn’t mean
others truly independent of our Oligarchs and warlords can’t manage to
proceed on their own w/o mainstream status quo benefits or privileges,
because it’ll just take a bit longer and remain spendy until those off-
world treasure troves are reached and their direct benefits start
paying off.
https://picasaweb.google.com/bradguth/BradGuth#5630418595926178146
https://picasaweb.google.com/bradguth/BradGuth#5629579402364691314
“Guth Venus”, at 1:1, then 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
Message has been deleted
0 new messages