PDA

View Full Version : If we put Hubble to Mars orbit...



yaohua2000
2003-Dec-28, 10:16 PM
Is it possible to see Beagle 2 directly? What's the resolution?

Musashi
2003-Dec-28, 10:17 PM
You mean move the Hubble into an orbit around Mars?

Glom
2003-Dec-28, 10:23 PM
Yes and no. Beagle would be within the resolution of Hubble, but Hubble has limited tracking ability. It is doubtful it could track fast enough to cleanly capture an image of Beagle as it orbits over Mars at a high speed.

Welcome to the board.

freddo
2003-Dec-28, 11:26 PM
What Glom said.

Then there's the unfortunate issue of getting it there...

Jack Higgins
2003-Dec-28, 11:42 PM
Why does everyone always think of hubble when they want to see really small detail like landers etc on the Moon or Mars?!! :) There are dozens of smaller, cheaper spy satellites, even the QuickBird one which spaceimaging.com use- and if upgraded a bit they could be used over the Moon or Mars!

Open your minds... Theres a lot more up there than just hubble...

freddo
2003-Dec-28, 11:49 PM
MGS has 1.5m per pixel max resolution so close but no cigar...

Amadeus
2003-Dec-29, 03:24 AM
I keep hearing how the CIA has satalites that can see a golf ball from orbit. What I'am wondering is how come NASA etc dont use that same technology on a mars orbiter?

freddo
2003-Dec-29, 03:33 AM
With a failure rate like they have getting Mars probes out there, would you make everything you sent totally state of the art?

It's a by-product of better-faster-cheaper(picktwo). Perhaps one day.

Amadeus
2003-Dec-29, 03:45 AM
With a failure rate like they have getting Mars probes out there, would you make everything you sent totally state of the art?

It's a by-product of better-faster-cheaper(picktwo). Perhaps one day.

How about we buy a second hand one? I cant believe they still use old ones from the 80's

Swift
2003-Dec-29, 01:58 PM
I keep hearing how the CIA has satalites that can see a golf ball from orbit.
I have to admit my ignorance here, but is that true? I've heard stories for years (and seen all the James Bond movies) where they have satellites that can read license plates from orbit. The declassified pictures are impressive (such as the pre-Iraq war pictures), but they show large missles and trailers from orbit, which is about 100x bigger. I kind of find it a little hard to believe. You still have to look through about 100 miles of atmosphere.

And no "I could tell you but I'd have to kill you", the answer is not worth my life. :)

ToSeek
2003-Dec-29, 03:18 PM
I keep hearing how the CIA has satalites that can see a golf ball from orbit. What I'am wondering is how come NASA etc dont use that same technology on a mars orbiter?

1. Getting it there. These spy satellites are not small (keep in mind that Hubble is basically a spy satellite redesigned for astronomy). I doubt we have a booster that could lift one out of Earth orbit.

2. If we get it there, handling the data. That degree of resolution would result in a flood of data that would overwhelm the Deep Space Network.

3. What's the point? From a geologic perspective, wider angles are more useful than imaging every rock. MGS's top resolution is (I think) about 1.5 meters per pixel, which is plenty for most purposes.

Eroica
2003-Dec-29, 03:24 PM
You mean move the Hubble into an orbit around Mars?
No need to. The Mars Express Orbiter (Beagle 2's "mothership") has a camera that is able to resolve objects just 2 metres across. After 4 January, when it's finally in its correct orbit, it should be able to locate Beagle's parachutes, and so indicate the whereabouts of the lander. I don't think it will be able to see the lander itself, though.

Tuckerfan
2003-Dec-29, 03:32 PM
I keep hearing how the CIA has satalites that can see a golf ball from orbit.
I have to admit my ignorance here, but is that true? I've heard stories for years (and seen all the James Bond movies) where they have satellites that can read license plates from orbit. The declassified pictures are impressive (such as the pre-Iraq war pictures), but they show large missles and trailers from orbit, which is about 100x bigger. I kind of find it a little hard to believe. You still have to look through about 100 miles of atmosphere.

And no "I could tell you but I'd have to kill you", the answer is not worth my life. :)Swift, I had a teacher in high school who was in the Naval Reserve. His job was to study spy satellite images, and he had only a low level security clearance. After GW I, I happened to run into him and got to talking about the image quality of the French images (if you recall, the French were not exactly in favor of the first Gulf War either) that were being shown in the media. He said that those were better than most of the ones he got to see while in the service (he got out just before the war). He did agree with the assesment that the top level images could resolve things to the point where one could read a newspaper from orbit. He also told me that the infrared birds were capable of detecting a 2 degree temperature change in the surface of the Earth. For fun, he claimed that they would watch magma as it flowed inside volcanos.

dvb
2003-Dec-30, 02:53 AM
I keep hearing how the CIA has satalites that can see a golf ball from orbit.
I have to admit my ignorance here, but is that true? I've heard stories for years (and seen all the James Bond movies) where they have satellites that can read license plates from orbit. The declassified pictures are impressive (such as the pre-Iraq war pictures), but they show large missles and trailers from orbit, which is about 100x bigger. I kind of find it a little hard to believe. You still have to look through about 100 miles of atmosphere.

And no "I could tell you but I'd have to kill you", the answer is not worth my life. :)Swift, I had a teacher in high school who was in the Naval Reserve. His job was to study spy satellite images, and he had only a low level security clearance. After GW I, I happened to run into him and got to talking about the image quality of the French images (if you recall, the French were not exactly in favor of the first Gulf War either) that were being shown in the media. He said that those were better than most of the ones he got to see while in the service (he got out just before the war). He did agree with the assesment that the top level images could resolve things to the point where one could read a newspaper from orbit. He also told me that the infrared birds were capable of detecting a 2 degree temperature change in the surface of the Earth. For fun, he claimed that they would watch magma as it flowed inside volcanos.

Looking at volcanos for fun? What a waste of taxpayers money. We're so busy spending money spying on each other, and we could be using that money towards more space stuff. :roll:

It's a paranoid world we live in :(

tuffel999
2003-Dec-30, 03:25 AM
Just a word here. Yes some of the spy satelites have a image resolution of less than what you would think. Some much less.

Edit: I edited out the size after looking at the posters location. Sorry but if it is true i am not leaving the figure there. No offense but it would be less than a good idea.

dvb
2003-Dec-30, 03:34 AM
The poster from China? If what's true? :-?

tuffel999
2003-Dec-30, 03:37 AM
Yes. I know a few people who are still active and yes I am afraid of eschelon.

tuffel999
2003-Dec-30, 03:42 AM
If you don't understand why ask Lurker.

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=10097&postdays=0&postorder=asc&sta rt=25

I don't want to end up under a microscope for something stupid like that. Unlikely, yes. Unheard of, no.

dvb
2003-Dec-30, 03:53 AM
what is this world coming to. :roll:

tuffel999
2003-Dec-30, 03:56 AM
Not "coming to" for members of the various services and agencies it has been this way for a long time. I dealt with the DOD folks enough in my life for myself and I have answered their fun little questions when they call for references on friends who have gone to work for certain agencies. I don't want to deal with them anymore.

Edit: I am kind of anal on this subject which is why I phrase things the way I do. For instance when I started this thread.

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=9744&highlight=

dvb
2003-Dec-30, 04:15 AM
I see your perspective. It makes more sense. Thanks :)

tuffel999
2003-Dec-30, 04:20 AM
I am glad you see where I am coming from. It may be a little paranoid but I just don't want to put anyone I know in an uncomfortable position for any reason, no matter how remote the chance. I really shouldn't have ever posted a number to begin with. It wasn't very bright on my part I just had something to share.

Amadeus
2003-Dec-30, 07:02 AM
I think we can make an guess that you can pretty much get any resolution you wanted its just a matter of optics and software. Good enough lens to get the raw data and software to filter out stuff like heat shimmer and dust. I also heard that the pictures used in our (british) report on iraq had the images degraded so not to tip off the Iraqi millitary on the capability.

But I would asume that most goverments pretty much know what the others are capable of.

As for project Echelon, it's proberbly the worst kept secrect there is. What worries me about is claims last year from the Eurpean Comunity of it being used by American buisneses to get and unfair advantage over their competitors.

yaohua2000
2003-Dec-30, 11:18 AM
The poster from China? If what's true? :-?

Yes, I'm from 39.2 degree east, 117.2 degree north in People's Republic of China. But what does
I edited out the size after looking at the posters location. Sorry but if it is true i am not leaving the figure there. No offense but it would be less than a good idea. mean?

Eroica
2003-Dec-30, 12:37 PM
Yes, I'm from 39.2 degree east, 117.2 degree north in People's Republic of China.
I think you mean 39.2 degrees north, 117.2 degrees east.

Ni hao and Welcome to the board! :D

ToSeek
2003-Dec-30, 03:07 PM
I think we can make an guess that you can pretty much get any resolution you wanted its just a matter of optics and software.

Well, there's a theoretical limit given the size of the lens. I was wondering what sort of resolution Hubble would get at the Earth's surface if it were (and could be) pointed in that direction.

EDIT: I worked it out and got a figure of 7.5 inches. So a Hubble-equivalent spy satellite would have that resolution as a theoretical maximum. Doing any better would require an even larger mirror.

Swift
2003-Dec-30, 04:18 PM
I worked it out and got a figure of 7.5 inches. So a Hubble-equivalent spy satellite would have that resolution as a theoretical maximum. Doing any better would require an even larger mirror.
So Hubble would do fine to look for weapons (or finding Beagle if it was in Mars orbit), but it couldn't read newspapers.