wrote:
On Nov 6, 2:31�am, "David E. Powell" wrote:
On Nov 5, 9:40�am, |"





wrote:
On Nov 4, 3:38�pm, wrote:
There are already quite a few ground robot projects out the
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/10/tt-tt/
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/11/black-knight/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...obobug-goes-wa...
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004408.html
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...ober/Pages/Qua...
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008...bot-packs-hun/
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009...lls-out-one-po...
http://www.defensereview.com/idfs-ne...ic-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.
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!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

hubble was based on lacrosse spy satellite with different optics.

the platform was basically the same

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.