 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Space Forum » Could the Mars Rover Technology become Military... |
|
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Jonathan... |
 Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| bob haller safety advocate... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 3:55�am, "Brian Gaff" <bria... at (no spam) blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]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
--
Brian Gaff - bria... at (no spam) 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" <H... at (no spam) Again.net> wrote in message
news:POOdnXzKDtE_Sm3XnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d at (no spam) 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- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Brian Gaff... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
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
--
Brian Gaff - briang1 at (no spam) 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" <Home at (no spam) Again.net> wrote in message
news:POOdnXzKDtE_Sm3XnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
[quote]
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
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| trigonometry1972 at (no spam) gmail.com |... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| David E. Powell... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| hallerb at (no spam) aol.com... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 2:31�am, "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3... at (no spam) msn.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 9:40�am, "trigonometry1... at (no spam) gmail.com |"
trigonometry1... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 4, 3:38�pm, dumpst... at (no spam) hotmail.com wrote:
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.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-563786/Robobug-goes-wa....
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.
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 -
[/quote]
hubble was based on lacrosse spy satellite with different optics.
the platform was basically the same |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Me... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 8:43 am, "hall... at (no spam) aol.com" <hall... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 2:31 am, "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3... at (no spam) msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 9:40 am, "trigonometry1... at (no spam) gmail.com |"
trigonometry1... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 4, 3:38 pm, dumpst... at (no spam) hotmail.com wrote:
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.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-563786/Robobug-goes-wa...
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.
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
[/quote]
Incorrect. Lacrosse is a radarsat
Also the platform is not the same as other reconsats |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| hallerb at (no spam) aol.com... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 1:42�pm, Me <charliexmur... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 8:43�am, "hall... at (no spam) aol.com" <hall... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 2:31 am, "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3... at (no spam) msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 9:40 am, "trigonometry1... at (no spam) gmail.com |"
trigonometry1... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 4, 3:38 pm, dumpst... at (no spam) hotmail.com wrote:
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.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-563786/Robobug-goes-wa...
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.
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
Incorrect. �Lacrosse is a radarsat
Also the platform is not the same as other reconsats- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
at the time of the launch its similarity to other sats was discussed. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rusty Shackelford... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 12:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
hallerb at (no spam) aol.com wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 2:31�am, "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3... at (no spam) msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 9:40�am, "trigonometry1... at (no spam) gmail.com |"
trigonometry1... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 4, 3:38�pm, dumpst... at (no spam) hotmail.com wrote:
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.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-563786/Robobug-goes-wa...
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.
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
[/quote]
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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Fred J. McCall... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Rusty Shackelford <rusty at (no spam) arlen.com> wrote:
:
:Actually, I think the Hubble main mirror diameter was based on the size
 f 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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| hallerb at (no spam) aol.com... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 8:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 8, 1:34�am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Rusty Shackelford <ru... at (no spam) arlen.com> wrote:
:
:Actually, I think the Hubble main mirror diameter was based on the size
f 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
[/quote]
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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rusty Shackelford... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 11:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Fred J. McCall wrote:
[quote]Rusty Shackelford <rusty at (no spam) arlen.com> wrote:
:
:Actually, I think the Hubble main mirror diameter was based on the size
f 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).
[/quote]
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.' " |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| hallerb at (no spam) aol.com... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 9, 11:15�am, Rusty Shackelford <ru... at (no spam) arlen.com> wrote:
[quote]Fred J. McCall wrote:
Rusty Shackelford <ru... at (no spam) arlen.com> wrote:
:
:Actually, I think the Hubble main mirror diameter was based on the size
f 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).
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.' "- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
I wonder how much better pictures 3 meter mirror would of made ??
could a 3 meter have still been launched on shuttles? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| hallerb at (no spam) aol.com... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 1:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 9, 5:40�pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
<mooregr_delet3t... at (no spam) greenms.com> wrote:
[quote]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.
hall... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote in message
news:2eedc8fa-b4bf-49cf-b9fd-351b44722bf4 at (no spam) 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.
[/quote]
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? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 29, 2009 8:01 am
|
|