Re: Could the Mars Rover Technology become Military Weapons?
Brian Gaff
though, that the moon is a little bit far away to use for such things aimed
at earth.
What is more worrying is the trend from man in the loop warfare to man
advisory warfare when the human only intervenes in an emergency and most of
the decisions are made autonomously.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Jonathan" <Ho...@Again.net> wrote in message
news:POOdnXzKDtE_Sm3X...@giganews.com...
>
>
> Just food for thought.
>
> Why put people on the Moon as part of a missile defense shield?
> When we could have a rover climb into some little bunker/crater
> and send back all kinds of infrared and radar tracking data.
> Safe, sound and cheap.
>
> This idea crossed my mind only because I ran into
> this website below, which curiously has a Mars Rover
> on the front page. Notice this agency specializes
> in spaced based radar and infrared capabilities.
> Why not Moon based too, someday?
>
>
> SPACE VEHICLES DIRECTORATE PRODUCT LINES
>
> Battlespace Environment - The mission of the Battlespace
> Environment Division is to detect and understand the threats
> in the aerospace environment to warfighting systems across
> the full range of natural and man-made sources, and to
> provide active and passive means to eliminate/mitigate
> such threats to support Air and Space Forces for
> America's Global Engagement."
> http://www.kirtland.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=7876
>
>
> Maybe someday Chinese and US rovers will be hiding, hunting
> and killing each other in a fight for the ultimate high ground.
> The Moon and it's glorious view of Battlespace Earth.
>
> Oh, and how much has the military contributed to the rovers?
>
>
> s
>
>
>
>
bob haller safety advocate
> Robots have and are being, used for military purposes. I'd like to think
> though, that the moon is a little bit far away to use for such things aimed
> at earth.
> What is more worrying is the trend from man in the loop warfare to man
> advisory warfare when the human only intervenes in an emergency and most of
> the decisions are made autonomously.
>
> Brian
>
> --
> Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
> in the display name may be lost.
>
> news:POOdnXzKDtE_Sm3X...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Just food for thought.
>
> > Why put people on the Moon as part of a missile defense shield?
> > When we could have a rover climb into some little bunker/crater
> > and send back all kinds of infrared and radar tracking data.
> > Safe, sound and cheap.
>
> > This idea crossed my mind only because I ran into
> > this website below, which curiously has a Mars Rover
> > on the front page. Notice this agency specializes
> > in spaced based radar and infrared capabilities.
> > Why not Moon based too, someday?
>
> > SPACE VEHICLES DIRECTORATE PRODUCT LINES
>
> > Battlespace Environment - The mission of the Battlespace
> > Environment Division is to detect and understand the threats
> > in the aerospace environment to warfighting systems across
> > the full range of natural and man-made sources, and to
> > provide active and passive means to eliminate/mitigate
> > such threats to support Air and Space Forces for
> > America's Global Engagement."
> >http://www.kirtland.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=7876
>
> > Maybe someday Chinese and US rovers will be hiding, hunting
> > and killing each other in a fight for the ultimate high ground.
> > The Moon and it's glorious view of Battlespace Earth.
>
> > Oh, and how much has the military contributed to the rovers?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
AI artificial intelligence is the future. stronger, more stamina, 24/7
work.
no loss of human life.
thats why it should be invested in by NASA, it has so many uses.
all NASA developments shouldnt be given away!!
everyone should pay a reasonable licensing fee no nasa to fund futher
research
dump...@hotmail.com
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/10/tt-tt/
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/11/black-knight/
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004408.html
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2008/October/Pages/Quality%20Sensors.aspx
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/10/robot-packs-hun/
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/05/video-irobot-rolls-out-one-pound-machine-ready-to-swarm/
Mars Rover technology is hardly needed.
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
> There are already quite a few ground robot projects out there:
>
> http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/10/tt-tt/
>
> http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/11/black-knight/
>
>
> http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004408.html
>
> http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2008/October/Pages/Qua...
>
> http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/10/robot-packs-hun/
>
> http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/05/video-irobot-rolls-out-one-po...
>
> http://www.defensereview.com/idfs-new-camouflaged-robotic-snake-aka-r...
>
> Mars Rover technology is hardly needed.
Hey maybe it can work the other direction. Like the Hubble is a spy
satellite with altered optics aimed out instead of in.
David E. Powell
Hubble wasn't a spy satellite but one of the more recent moon probes
was!
As for the rovers, rememeber they have to be self reliant on another
planet, many earth bound ones can use batteries that are replaced
frequently, be controlled by wire, etc. - not so the Mars rovers! ;)
But the tech can be applied in space as lessons are learned, so your
point is valid indeed!
hal...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
hubble was based on lacrosse spy satellite with different optics.
the platform was basically the same
Me
Incorrect. Lacrosse is a radarsat
Also the platform is not the same as other reconsats
hal...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
at the time of the launch its similarity to other sats was discussed.
Rusty Shackelford
Actually, I think the Hubble main mirror diameter was based on the size
of the blanks that Perkins was grinding to make the main mirrors used in
the Keyhole spy satellites of the era. Or at least that what a PhD type
that worked on the initial specs for Hubble told me. He was doing
research on what was the optimal mirror size given the likely launch
vehicles and the goals of the mission. He came up with a mirror size
that was not compatible with the 2 meter blanks (if memory serves) that
were being used for Keyhole satellites at the time. His boss tossed his
white paper back to him and explained that he *really* needed to
conclude that 2 meter was the right sized mirror. When he objected and
asked why his boss said - "I can't tell you but trust me, the answer is
2 meter".
Actually, I don't really have an issue with this. If you've got a
contractor that has been grinding a certain sized mirror repeatedly then
one would assume that this would take some cost and risk out of the
development. However, since elmer did not insist on a full up ground
test of the optical components which resulted in a near sighted Hubble
we managed to loose some or most of the benefits we should have reaped
from not re-inventing the wheel. But, it's the government we're talking
about here. Their job is to spend OPM (other people's money) on things
that do not directly impact them. You will never get efficiency out of
an arrangement like that. The more people understand this the better
off we will all be.
hal...@aol.com
> Rusty Shackelford <ru...@arlen.com> wrote:
>
> :
> :Actually, I think the Hubble main mirror diameter was based on the size
> :of the blanks that Perkins was grinding to make the main mirrors used in
> :the Keyhole spy satellites of the era. �Or at least that what a PhD type
> :that worked on the initial specs for Hubble told me. �He was doing
> :research on what was the optimal mirror size given the likely launch
> :vehicles and the goals of the mission. �He came up with a mirror size
> :that was not compatible with the 2 meter blanks (if memory serves) that
> :were being used for Keyhole satellites at the time. �His boss tossed his
> :white paper back to him and explained that he *really* needed to
> :conclude that �2 meter was the right sized mirror. �When he objected and
> :asked why his boss said - "I can't tell you but trust me, the answer is
> :2 meter".
>
> Odd, then, that it doesn't have a 2 meter mirror. �It has a 2.4 meter
> mirror (which is slightly larger than a KH-11 and smaller than a
> KH-12).
>
> --
> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
> �man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
> �all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
> � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � --George Bernard Shaw
perhaps it was a compromise in available spares, and structural
issues. besides with a spy sat who knows exactly what the optics were?
false public info was likely planted, so others didnt know exactly
what we were up to
Rusty Shackelford
> :the Keyhole spy satellites of the era. Or at least that what a PhD type
> :that worked on the initial specs for Hubble told me. He was doing
> :research on what was the optimal mirror size given the likely launch
> :vehicles and the goals of the mission. He came up with a mirror size
> :that was not compatible with the 2 meter blanks (if memory serves) that
> :were being used for Keyhole satellites at the time. His boss tossed his
> :white paper back to him and explained that he *really* needed to
> :conclude that 2 meter was the right sized mirror. When he objected and
> :asked why his boss said - "I can't tell you but trust me, the answer is
> :2 meter".
>
> Odd, then, that it doesn't have a 2 meter mirror. It has a 2.4 meter
> mirror (which is slightly larger than a KH-11 and smaller than a
> KH-12).
>
>
Don't be so picky Fred, I was rounding. Yes, the Hubble has a 2.4 meter
mirror. The KH-11 spysat was current technology at the time Hubble was
under development and had a very similar sized mirror, I've heard either
2.3 meter or 2.4 meter. The actual size is still classified I believe.
In any case, Perkins did indeed grind the mirrors for the Keyhole
satellites as well as Hubble and had equipment in place to handle blanks
capable of resulting in an approximately 2.4 meter finished mirror size.
I don't think these facts are really in doubt. Certainly Perkin's
experience, capability, and then current equipment was a factor in the
final mirror sized that was selected for Hubble.
Here's an extract from the KH-11 entry on Wikipedia:
"Nine or ten KH-11 satellites were launched between 1976 and 1990 aboard
Titan-3D and -34D rockets, with one launch failure. The KH-11 replaced
the KH-9 film return satellite, among others, the last of which was lost
in a liftoff explosion in 1986. It is believed to resemble the Hubble
Space Telescope in size and shape, as the satellites were shipped in
similar containers. Furthermore, a NASA history of the Hubble[3] states
about the reasons for switching from a 3 meter main mirror to a 2.4
meter design: 'In addition, changing to a 2.4-meter mirror would lessen
fabrication costs by using manufacturing technologies developed for
military spy satellites.' "
hal...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I wonder how much better pictures 3 meter mirror would of made ??
could a 3 meter have still been launched on shuttles?
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
you're an old-timer here you don't get a pass.
WTF? Do the math and get back to us.
<hal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2eedc8fa-b4bf-49cf...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
I wonder how much better pictures 3 meter mirror would of made ??
could a 3 meter have still been launched on shuttles?
--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
hal...@aol.com
<mooregr_delet3t...@greenms.com> wrote:
> Ok Bob, if you were a newbie, I'd give the question a pass. �But since
> you're an old-timer here you don't get a pass.
>
> WTF? �Do the math and get back to us.
>
>
> news:2eedc8fa-b4bf-49cf...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> I wonder how much better pictures 3 meter mirror would of made ??
>
> could a 3 meter have still been launched on shuttles?
>
> --
> Greg Moore
> Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
really serios questions, the mirror is very heavy, and hubble was the
heaviest load ever taken to orbit, so size wise it might not be a
problem but weight?/? espically in a return to launch site orbit? max
weight would of been with the heavier earlier tank and other upgrades
not available at the time of hubbles launch.
optics arent my area, no doubt larger is better.
but a even more intriguing question which i set up:)
could two hubbles or more work together in orbit well enough to mimick
a much larger telescope? would pointing have been good enough?
what ever happened to the original spare hubble mirror? is it still in
storage somewhere? or was it sent to a museumn or trashed.
assuming they decide to continue flying shuttles how hard would it be
to build hubble 2?
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
Weight has nothing to do it.
And no, Hubble wasn't the heaviest payload.
<hal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a66b4f5a-3906-4828...@p19g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 9, 5:40?pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
<mooregr_delet3t...@greenms.com> wrote:
> Ok Bob, if you were a newbie, I'd give the question a pass. ?But since
> you're an old-timer here you don't get a pass.
>
> WTF? ?Do the math and get back to us.
hal...@aol.com
<mooregr_delet3t...@greenms.com> wrote:
> Weight has nothing to do it.
>
> And no, Hubble wasn't the heaviest payload.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
wasnt hubble the heaviest payload to orbit till ISS came along?
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
<hal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bc23f43c-0baf-4979...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 9, 7:11?pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
Me
No, one of the lightest for its size. It was the highest orbit.
GRO, AXAF, any mission with an IUS were heavier.
SEN...@argo.rhein-neckar.de
> Don't be so picky Fred, I was rounding. Yes, the Hubble has a 2.4 meter
> mirror. The KH-11 spysat was current technology at the time Hubble was
> under development and had a very similar sized mirror, I've heard either
> 2.3 meter or 2.4 meter. The actual size is still classified I believe.
I think so too. But the Soviets got sold a Top Secret manual of the KH-11
around 1975 by a CIA guy. I would much like to read it, you too? ;)
> In any case, Perkins did indeed grind the mirrors for the Keyhole
> satellites as well as Hubble and had equipment in place to handle blanks
> capable of resulting in an approximately 2.4 meter finished mirror size.
> I don't think these facts are really in doubt. Certainly Perkin's
> experience, capability, and then current equipment was a factor in the
> final mirror sized that was selected for Hubble.
>
> Here's an extract from the KH-11 entry on Wikipedia:
>
> "Nine or ten KH-11 satellites were launched between 1976 and 1990 aboard
> Titan-3D and -34D rockets, with one launch failure. The KH-11 replaced
> the KH-9 film return satellite, among others, the last of which was lost
> in a liftoff explosion in 1986. It is believed to resemble the Hubble
> Space Telescope in size and shape, as the satellites were shipped in
> similar containers.
IIRC that was mentioned by Henry
>Furthermore, a NASA history of the Hubble[3] states
> about the reasons for switching from a 3 meter main mirror to a 2.4
> meter design: 'In addition, changing to a 2.4-meter mirror would lessen
> fabrication costs by using manufacturing technologies developed for
> military spy satellites.' "
Not just the outer dimensions, even the optics may had some similarities
with the KH-11. The USAF (may got rumours that Perkin Elmer screwed
the grind) offered NASA (MSFC) an end to end test for free on their
own optical test stand. MSFC declined the offer. I suspect the KH-11
did not use the hyperbolic Ritchey-Chretien System but a more simple
one to grind. Thats why PE needed a special test rig they screwed in
building.
Btw, the Solar panels were not from the KH-11 but ESA. The KH-11
people did know that the ESA panels wont work, but it was launched
anyway.
SENECA
## CrossPoint v3.12d R ##
Pat Flannery
>> Furthermore, a NASA history of the Hubble[3] states
>> about the reasons for switching from a 3 meter main mirror to a 2.4
>> meter design: 'In addition, changing to a 2.4-meter mirror would lessen
>> fabrication costs by using manufacturing technologies developed for
>> military spy satellites.' "
This all gets gone into in the book "The Hubble Wars".
>
> Not just the outer dimensions, even the optics may had some similarities
> with the KH-11. The USAF (may got rumours that Perkin Elmer screwed
> the grind) offered NASA (MSFC) an end to end test for free on their
> own optical test stand. MSFC declined the offer. I suspect the KH-11
> did not use the hyperbolic Ritchey-Chretien System but a more simple
> one to grind. Thats why PE needed a special test rig they screwed in
> building.
>
> Btw, the Solar panels were not from the KH-11 but ESA. The KH-11
> people did know that the ESA panels wont work, but it was launched
> anyway.
It wasn't that the ESA panels were suspected of being defective at the
time, it was the fact that the type the NRO was using on their reconsats
were significantly smaller and lighter for the same power output as the
ESA ones - but their composition was classified at the time.
It still really pissed off the HST team that the info on the panels
wasn't leaked to them.
Charles P. Vick has some "best guess" info on KH-12 here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/kh-12-schem.htm
Pat
SEN...@argo.rhein-neckar.de
It was not just a matter of size but the ESA panels had a more subtle
design failure. The heat cycles from day to night side of orbit caused
them to flap, to spring up and vibrate. I dont know the right english words.
Its not mentioned on Wikipedia. It was a thermal mechanical problem
inherent with the design they chosed.
Each spring up caused a vibration far beyond the pointing needs. Until
it was dumped out HST could not observe. That reduced the daily
observation time considerably. In "Hubble Wars" (IIRC) a very restricted
"conference" with people from NASA HST and a group from the "black world"
was mentioned. This guys (I called slightly wrong "KH-11 people" above)
were from CIA or at least worked under that control.
It was a presentation of the whole HST project so far (what year?) but
the CIA guys were mostly silent. At the moment they got the ESA solar
panels presented one guy said: "That will not work". Nothing more. IIRC
there were no ESA people (allowed) in the room.
The desgin failure was in such a subtle way that NASA and ESA missed
it so far. But this guy saw it immediately. I`m certain the CIA or NRO
had faced the very same problem before. Thats the only way he could have
known it. But NASA got no more hint what may be the problem and the
design went through ESA and NASA reviews without seeing it.
I dont know whether NASA/ESA this time had a fast frigerating/heating
chamber to test this large panels. Or it may come up only in weightlessnes.
With no hint and no official "Design wont work!" they had a too hard way
to find it.
I doubt that the CIA guys were already aware of the screwed mirror and
a planned servicing mission. Without the mirror problem the panels would
still be a serious problem worth an immediate repair mission. So the
CIA open eyed let NASA and ESA together drive against the wall. The US
secret space programs got about 10 to 100 times the founding of NASA
science. But they were not willing to allow even a small spin off to
NASA. Just a few words under 4 eyes may have helped: "I had a dream..."
Pat Flannery
>> Pat
>
> It was not just a matter of size but the ESA panels had a more subtle
> design failure. The heat cycles from day to night side of orbit caused
> them to flap, to spring up and vibrate. I dont know the right english words.
> Its not mentioned on Wikipedia. It was a thermal mechanical problem
> inherent with the design they chosed.
ESA had never built solar arrays of that size before, so they were
heading into unknown territory as far as design went.
The US and USSR both had lots of experience with large solar arrays, and
in retrospect something based on Skylab's arrays would have probably
made more sense.
>
> Each spring up caused a vibration far beyond the pointing needs. Until
> it was dumped out HST could not observe. That reduced the daily
> observation time considerably. In "Hubble Wars" (IIRC) a very restricted
> "conference" with people from NASA HST and a group from the "black world"
> was mentioned. This guys (I called slightly wrong "KH-11 people" above)
> were from CIA or at least worked under that control.
>
> It was a presentation of the whole HST project so far (what year?) but
> the CIA guys were mostly silent. At the moment they got the ESA solar
> panels presented one guy said: "That will not work". Nothing more. IIRC
> there were no ESA people (allowed) in the room.
They had a real problem in regards to that; the black world satellite
designers could tell them that something was a bad idea, but couldn't
tell them how to fix it or suggest a better idea.
>
> The desgin failure was in such a subtle way that NASA and ESA missed
> it so far. But this guy saw it immediately. I`m certain the CIA or NRO
> had faced the very same problem before. Thats the only way he could have
> known it. But NASA got no more hint what may be the problem and the
> design went through ESA and NASA reviews without seeing it.
>
> I dont know whether NASA/ESA this time had a fast frigerating/heating
> chamber to test this large panels. Or it may come up only in weightlessnes.
> With no hint and no official "Design wont work!" they had a too hard way
> to find it.
They were trying to make the solar arrays as light as possible, and
apparently went too far in that direction to the point where the arrays
weren't structurally sound enough remain rigid under orbital conditions.
>
> I doubt that the CIA guys were already aware of the screwed mirror and
> a planned servicing mission. Without the mirror problem the panels would
> still be a serious problem worth an immediate repair mission. So the
> CIA open eyed let NASA and ESA together drive against the wall. The US
> secret space programs got about 10 to 100 times the founding of NASA
> science. But they were not willing to allow even a small spin off to
> NASA. Just a few words under 4 eyes may have helped: "I had a dream..."
I like that! Yes, one night he dreamed he saw a Big Bird in orbit and
its wings were flapping...
Pat
Eric Chomko
I wonder if the spysats had the mirror problem that Hubble had? Or, if
the worst mirror was given to Hubble because they knew it would have
shuttle repair missions.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
suspect the military ones had the same issue.
And for the record, I still support a "Hubble II" fly the Kodak blank on a
new frame. I'm sure there are plenty of astronomers who'd love to take
advantage of it.
"Eric Chomko" <pne.c...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:f1a1d3bc-45ce-47c9-b2bc-