A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Towards routine, reusable space launch.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 18th 18, 09:36 PM posted to rec.arts.sf.science,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.policy
Steve Willner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,172
Default Towards routine, reusable space launch.

At least three observatories with seven telescopes in active use will
be surprised to learn [that making a 6.5-m primary mirror is impossible]


That should have been five observatories and ten telescopes. I
forgot some. I won't swear I'm not still forgetting others.

In article ,
Fred J. McCall writes:
You can do things with earthbound scopes that you cannot do with
something you're going to shoot into space.


How does that apply to the current discussion? Launching a 6.5-m
mirror monolithic should in principle be easier than having the same
size mirror deploy to the required precision. The problem is making
it fit into the payload fairing.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are "black" programs with the
same difficulty.


Nope. They use a mirror roughly the size of Hubble's.


The ones we know about used mirrors that size. Anyone who actually
knows the current situation -- I don't -- wouldn't be allowed to say.

Remember, they're looking at something relatively close as such
things go.


6.5-m mirrors would have advantages over smaller ones. (I don't see
what distance has to do with anything.) I've seen hints that some
have been built and deployed, but that may be salemanship. Companies
vying for the JWST contract would have had an incentive to drop such
hints whether true or not.

The point is that a balloon does NOT replace a 'first stage'.


We agree on that.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
  #2  
Old June 19th 18, 03:57 AM posted to rec.arts.sf.science,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Towards routine, reusable space launch.

(Steve Willner) wrote on Mon, 18 Jun 2018
20:36:35 -0000 (UTC):

At least three observatories with seven telescopes in active use will
be surprised to learn [that making a 6.5-m primary mirror is impossible]


That should have been five observatories and ten telescopes. I
forgot some. I won't swear I'm not still forgetting others.


And you're still talking about earthbound scopes.

In article ,
Fred J. McCall writes:
You can do things with earthbound scopes that you cannot do with
something you're going to shoot into space.


How does that apply to the current discussion? Launching a 6.5-m
mirror monolithic should in principle be easier than having the same
size mirror deploy to the required precision. The problem is making
it fit into the payload fairing.


Oversize fairings are easy.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are "black" programs with the
same difficulty.


Nope. They use a mirror roughly the size of Hubble's.


The ones we know about used mirrors that size. Anyone who actually
knows the current situation -- I don't -- wouldn't be allowed to say.


Of course they're allowed to say. You can see the bloody things from
Earth, after all. Past a certain point a bigger mirror doesn't help
you for Earth observation. Atmosphere speckle becomes the driving
parameter and a bigger mirror doesn't help that.



Remember, they're looking at something relatively close as such
things go.


6.5-m mirrors would have advantages over smaller ones.


No, they wouldn't. The next generation of recce satellites will use a
mirror right around 2.4 meters; the same size used since KH-11.


(I don't see
what distance has to do with anything.) I've seen hints that some
have been built and deployed, but that may be salemanship. Companies
vying for the JWST contract would have had an incentive to drop such
hints whether true or not.


Don't let them kid you. Distance has a lot to do with everything when
it comes to telescopes.

The point is that a balloon does NOT replace a 'first stage'.


We agree on that.


--
"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
  #3  
Old June 25th 18, 10:17 PM posted to rec.arts.sf.science,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.policy
Steve Willner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,172
Default Towards routine, reusable space launch.

In article ,
Fred J. McCall writes:
Oversize fairings are easy.


No doubt the JWST engineers wish you had told them that.

[mirror size of reconnaissance satellites]


You can see the bloody things from Earth, after all.


See some of them, sure. Why do you think the census is complete?
What observations (equipment) are needed to measure their sizes?

Past a certain point a bigger mirror doesn't help
you for Earth observation. Atmosphere speckle becomes the driving
parameter and a bigger mirror doesn't help that.


Are you assuming LEO and visible wavelengths? I don't see why either
one necessarily represents all reconnaissance satellites. And even
with those assumptions, what about temporal resolution? Taking short
exposures most certainly helps mitigate seeing effects.
("Atmospheric speckle" is only one of those effects.)

No, they wouldn't. The next generation of recce satellites will use a
mirror right around 2.4 meters; the same size used since KH-11.


Source? All of them or only some? Other than better sensors and
onboard processing, how do newer telescopes differ from the older
generation? (As you no doubt know but some readers may not, two of
those were declared surplus and delivered to NASA.)

Distance has a lot to do with everything when
it comes to telescopes.


What did you have in mind? I'd have said the key parameters are
angular resolution, temporal resolution, and sensitivity. Distance
affects requirements on those parameters, but I don't see that
distance _per se_ matters.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
  #4  
Old June 25th 18, 11:52 PM posted to rec.arts.sf.science,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Towards routine, reusable space launch.

(Steve Willner) wrote on Mon, 25 Jun 2018
21:17:06 -0000 (UTC):

In article ,
Fred J. McCall writes:
Oversize fairings are easy.


No doubt the JWST engineers wish you had told them that.


Well, someone should have if mirror size alone was the reason for
making it folding.

[mirror size of reconnaissance satellites]


You can see the bloody things from Earth, after all.


See some of them, sure. Why do you think the census is complete?
What observations (equipment) are needed to measure their sizes?


What do you think they hide them behind? I think it's complete
because lots of people put lots of effort into it. And it takes a
telescope and some time to measure their size. This may be rocket
science, but it's EASY rocket science.

Past a certain point a bigger mirror doesn't help
you for Earth observation. Atmosphere speckle becomes the driving
parameter and a bigger mirror doesn't help that.


Are you assuming LEO and visible wavelengths? I don't see why either
one necessarily represents all reconnaissance satellites. And even
with those assumptions, what about temporal resolution? Taking short
exposures most certainly helps mitigate seeing effects.
("Atmospheric speckle" is only one of those effects.)


You can only 'mitigate' so far. Are you one of those people who
believes the movies that you can make out faces from orbit and that
you can 'improve' an image with processing beyond the information that
it contains?

No, they wouldn't. The next generation of recce satellites will use a
mirror right around 2.4 meters; the same size used since KH-11.


Source? All of them or only some? Other than better sensors and
onboard processing, how do newer telescopes differ from the older
generation? (As you no doubt know but some readers may not, two of
those were declared surplus and delivered to NASA.)


Sources aren't hard to find. Here's one.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/05/0...ching-in-2018/

Distance has a lot to do with everything when
it comes to telescopes.


What did you have in mind? I'd have said the key parameters are
angular resolution, temporal resolution, and sensitivity. Distance
affects requirements on those parameters, but I don't see that
distance _per se_ matters.


'Temporal resolution' is difficult, given that both the satellite and
the Earth's surface are moving relatively rapidly with regard to each
other. Increased sensitivity means increased image noise. Distance
matters. That's why as newer satellites launch the older ones are
moved to lower orbits.


--
"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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall[_3_] Policy 125 August 22nd 18 06:43 PM
Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley[_6_] Astronomy Misc 5 June 19th 18 03:39 AM
Is anything on this new launch system reusable? Ron Bauer Policy 10 September 22nd 05 08:25 PM
Space becomes routine. Ian Stirling Policy 24 July 5th 04 11:21 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.