Mini-Hubble

Indirect proof that our eyes, or regular camera optics can not see stars or planets, or even the Moon from orbit?
ARKYD

The first publicly accessible space telescope! Take amazing photos of space or have your photo displayed above the Earth.

www.kickstarter.com...

As the project was so well supported by a public eager to be able to view the heavens from orbit, why has this never been done before? That Nikon or some other camera maker never thought about offering such a service seems odd, surely for a million dollars or so they should have jumped at the chance to show just what their cameras are capable of, a (tax deductible) advertising campaign that would have been very cost effective and popular.

Why is it only now that such a device is being constructed? Hmm, maybe this?

How do you bring technologies for the James Webb Space Telescope, exploration of Mars and the search for extrasolar planets, down to Earth? Put them in everyday products to benefit us Earthlings!

The NASA Goddard Flight Center, creator of marvelous and advanced optical technologies, is keenly focused on transferring its advanced wave front sensing, and related optical processing technologies, to the private sector. In 2011, that commitment has risen to a new level – the Can You See It Now? Campaign.

techtransfer.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Anyway, I'll be putting in my name for some observing time, though there will no doubt be a very long waiting list, but to finally get to see a good conjunction will be worth it. Wonder if it would look the same using a D2X though?

Originally posted by GaryN
why has this never been done before?

The cost of creating a space telescope, putting it into orbit, and operating it, might have something to do with this. If this were as easy and economically feasible as you say, all major companies and academic organisations would be doing it by now.

Space telescopes cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Plus the public can get time on a space telescope and guess wHich one? Hubble!

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Anyone can apply for time on the telescope; there are no restrictions on nationality or academic affiliation. [113] Competition for time on the telescope is intense, and only about one-fifth of the proposals submitted in each cycle earn time on the schedule. [114][115]

Calls for proposals are issued roughly annually, with time allocated for a cycle lasting about one year. Proposals are divided into several categories; 'general observer' proposals are the most common, covering routine observations. 'Snapshot observations' are those in which targets require only 45 minutes or less of telescope time, including overheads such as acquiring the target; snapshot observations are used to fill in gaps in the telescope schedule that cannot be filled by regular GO programs. [116]

Astronomers may make 'Target of Opportunity' proposals, in which observations are scheduled if a transient event covered by the proposal occurs during the scheduling cycle. In addition, up to 10% of the telescope time is designated Director's Discretionary (DD) Time. Astronomers can apply to use DD time at any time of year, and it is typically awarded for study of unexpected transient phenomena such as supernovae. [117]

Other uses of DD time have included the observations that led to the production of the Hubble Deep Field and Hubble Ultra Deep Field, and in the first four cycles of telescope time, observations carried out by amateur astronomers.

reply to post by wildespace

The cost of creating a space telescope, putting it into orbit, and operating it, might have something to do with this.

@BriGuyTM90

Space telescopes cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Did you even look at the kickstarter project? They are going to do it on the cheap, a megabuck for the basic system, 2 megs gets all the frills.

@wildespace

If this were as easy and economically feasible as you say, all major companies and academic organisations would be doing it by now.

It's only 2 years since Goddard licensed the wave front sensor technology, early days. And there are more on the way, this one for a Moon based device.

About the size of a shoe-box with a mass of about 2kg, the ILO-X uses innovative optical technology in combination with advanced software and microminiaturised electronics to deliver dramatic deep-space images of objects inside and outside the Milky Way. ILO-X technology could also help with the detection of dangerous asteroids and the search for planetary resources.

www.engadget.com...

reply to post by GaryN


So you keep implying that the "wave front sensor technology" is the key in this matter, but I don't see any evidence of this. The 1 million on the kickstarter is just part of the cost. A space telescope really is very expensive to create and operate.

I'm not familiar with what this wave front sensor technology is about, but by the looks of it it's more about adaptive optics, compensating for abberations, and other stuff to do with the actual lens and mirrors, and image quality. Quoted from a medical paper: "Wave-front sensor technology allows an accurate and objective characterization of the eye's optics."

Basically, this technology allows for clearer and sharper imaging of space.

Ok so the sensors cost $1,000,000 and weigh 2 kg. Well its around $10,000 to launch a lb so about $20,000 per kg. So just your camera cost $40,000 to launch into space. Then you have your other optical equipment. Large perfectly shaped mirrors are not cheap to make and even less cheap to launch them. Then you need gyroscopic stablizers and reaction weels so you can point it. You need a power source and someone to develop the hardwear and softwear the telescope will use. You have to test all systems in a multitude of environments.Than you have to assemble it and put it on top of a giant rocket and launch it into space. And it might exploded during launch annd than you loose everything. You also need a ground support team and a radio antenna to send commands to the space craft and get you data back. So you not going to get an operational space telescope right now for a couple of million dollars although in the future when materials become less expensive and launching is also less expensive it could be a possibility.

Originally posted by GaryN
Indirect proof that our eyes, or regular camera optics can not see stars or planets, or even the Moon from orbit?

Are you still going with that BS claim seriously!!!

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by GaryN
Indirect proof that our eyes, or regular camera optics can not see stars or planets, or even the Moon from orbit?

Are you still going with that BS claim seriously!!!

Let him, it's one of the most interesting alternative views I've come across. And the subjects raised lead to some interesting research. For example, I've never heard of wavefront sensing technology before.

Wavefront sensor
Wavefront sensor and reconstruction techniques
Wavefront sensors: the ultimate optical diagnostic tool?

reply to post by wildespace


It may be an alternative view but there are pictures to show he is wrong.