Mars NRO telescope Concept

[fredinno]

So, the NRO gave NASA 2 telescopes (without instruments and electronics) from a failed NRO program (+ enough spares for a 3rd.). They can be used for anything other than looking at Earth, and the first of these telescopes is supposed to be used for WFIRST. The 2nd (and 3rd) telescopes are not yet slated for use. One place we can send this thing to is Mars. http://www.space.com/21064-nasa-donated-spy-telescope-mars.html

These donated telescopes are also declassified, and are "wide-field" (the same diameter as the Hubble, but shorter.)

"As it's currently envisioned, MOST would have three main science instruments — an imaging spectral mapper, a high-resolution imager and an ultraviolet spectrometer — allowing it to make a broad range of detailed observations.

The mapper would have a spatial resolution of 0.7 feet (0.21 m) per pixel at an orbiting altitude of 250 miles (400 kilometers), McEwen said. That's about 100 times better than the resolution achieved by a similar instrument aboard NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO), which has been circling the Red Planet since 2006."

Edited February 21, 2016 by fredinno

[Shpaget]

Well, we could always use more telescopes. Hubble is on its last legs and I wouldn't mind securing another big big to replace it. As far as I know, other than HST, there are only small ones working in visible light.

[Findthepin1]

We're getting JWST in a couple years. 

[fredinno]

17 minutes ago, Shpaget said:

Well, we could always use more telescopes. Hubble is on its last legs and I wouldn't mind securing another big big to replace it. As far as I know, other than HST, there are only small ones working in visible light.

This can't be used as a HST replacement due to having too wide a field of view- it can't look as deep.

[Shpaget]

I realise that, but wide lens is better than no lens, and Hubble is way past the "getting old" phase. Yes it received an overhaul in 2009, ressurecting it from the brink of complete failure and making it fully functional once again, but that was 7 years ago. The new equipment installed is not so new any more.

I think we, the planet Earth, need not only a contingency, but also more telescope time. The waiting list for Hubble time is the proof itself. Only around one fifth of requests are approved, and even then the telescope can afford to spend only a fraction of a second to snap a photo, then it's time for somebody elses request.

Adding one more scope would not decrease the workload of Hubble, but would offer more total viewing time, even with much wider field of view and lower flexibility.

I'm not saying we shouldn't make a mapping sat out of it. It's certainly an option. We have two of them available after all.

[Bill Phil]

1 hour ago, Findthepin1 said:

We're getting JWST in a couple years. 

JWST isn't a replacement.

It's going out of Earth orbit. It's using a different part of the spectrum, and it's likely to study different objects, although perhaps not.

On topic: I think we should send one to Mars. Getting some great resolution photos would certainly be awesome.

[Shpaget]

Thinking more about this, sure, a Mars surface imaging scope could be made to look "up" as well as "down", but, if the thing is approximately the size of HST, how does it get to Mars? Can it even track both so close (Mars surface) and far (deep space, or even Solar system planets)? We know HST can't track targets on Earth surface. It's far too slow for that.

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, Bill Phil said:

JWST isn't a replacement.

It's going out of Earth orbit. It's using a different part of the spectrum, and it's likely to study different objects, although perhaps not.

On topic: I think we should send one to Mars. Getting some great resolution photos would certainly be awesome.

Getting one on Mars would make Mars 4K pictures a reality!

55 minutes ago, Shpaget said:

Thinking more about this, sure, a Mars surface imaging scope could be made to look "up" as well as "down", but, if the thing is approximately the size of HST, how does it get to Mars? Can it even track both so close (Mars surface) and far (deep space, or even Solar system planets)? We know HST can't track targets on Earth surface. It's far too slow for that.

It would get there via SEP for Mars insertion after launching on a Delta IV Heavy (in the original proposal), or via Falcon Heavy Expendable + Hypergol Insertion Stage. SLS is too big, these telescopes are actually around 5T, depending on how much stuff is added to them. 

And the telescope would concentrate on mapping Mars, with a secondary mission of looking "up". This telesope is unusable for precise astronomy (stars) so it can only look at things within the solar system- which need a lot less precision.

1 hour ago, Shpaget said:

I realise that, but wide lens is better than no lens, and Hubble is way past the "getting old" phase. Yes it received an overhaul in 2009, ressurecting it from the brink of complete failure and making it fully functional once again, but that was 7 years ago. The new equipment installed is not so new any more.

I think we, the planet Earth, need not only a contingency, but also more telescope time. The waiting list for Hubble time is the proof itself. Only around one fifth of requests are approved, and even then the telescope can afford to spend only a fraction of a second to snap a photo, then it's time for somebody elses request.

Adding one more scope would not decrease the workload of Hubble, but would offer more total viewing time, even with much wider field of view and lower flexibility.

I'm not saying we shouldn't make a mapping sat out of it. It's certainly an option. We have two of them available after all.

Only problem is that a "wide" lens cannot look "deep", so the two would be used for very different things. JWST is closer to a Hubble replacement- even though it concentrates on Infrared and red-light Optical instead of the Hubble's more balanced Optical and Near UV and Infrared. I'm not saying that it can't be used for similar things as Hubble (general purpose astronomy), it's more that nothing will truely replace Hubble in the near future- red and Infrared are generally more concentrated on as it has more potential, what with Infrared exoplanet detection and light being red-shifted.

Only the ATLAST proposal (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Technology_Large-Aperture_Space_Telescope) actually fully replaces Hubble, and it's 8m diameter size, though awesome, means it isn't going anywhere until the dust from JWST finally settles (at least).

[Scotius]

If NASA seriously is thinking about sending people to Mars in next 15-20 years, then yes - such "spy" telescope in Mars orbit would be a great asset. High-resolution imaging of potential landing sites alone would be invaluable.

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, Scotius said:

If NASA seriously is thinking about sending people to Mars in next 15-20 years, then yes - such "spy" telescope in Mars orbit would be a great asset. High-resolution imaging of potential landing sites alone would be invaluable.

If NASA changes its prority back to the moon, (likely) would a lunar NRO telesope be realistic to ask for?

[Scotius]

Considering how less expensive lunar one would be? I bet Senate would shell money for it in aheartbeat - of course at the expense of martian one

[fredinno]

20 minutes ago, Scotius said:

Considering how less expensive lunar one would be? I bet Senate would shell money for it in aheartbeat - of course at the expense of martian one

Technically, though, we have enough spare parts for yet another NRO-NASA telescope- it's really more likely things like asteroid and KBO detection (also proposed for the telescope) will just be considered higher priority.

BTW, the higher data rates from the Moon would make for even better pictures- though Mars is better scentifically. 8K Moon pics anybody?

 

Either way, you know what would be really awesome? Standardising these like the NRO does with its other telescopes, and launching these to Mercury, Mars, the Moon, Ceres, to Jupiter/Saturn/Uranus' moons.