5 ms·

For one Hubble, something like a dozen of Keyhole spy telescopes have been launched [0]. Just imagine the kind of science we would have gotten if we launched a

For one Hubble, something like a dozen of Keyhole spy telescopes have been launched [0]. Just imagine the kind of science we would have gotten if we launched a dozen of Hubbles instead... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_Kennen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_Kennen

hirundo 6y ago
So about the ratio of non-selfies to selfies.
Yetanfou 6y ago
Imagine if those satellites were never made, we wouldn't have had the Hubble space telescope either.
- RobertoG 6y ago
  What that says about us, I'm not sure if I want to know.
  - xwdv 6y ago
    We’re more interesting.
  - vibrolax 6y ago
    Having large rockets to launch anything for non-military purposes is a byproduct of the requirement by the military of several nations for the capability to deliver thermonuclear warheads on their adversaries.
  - Yetanfou 6y ago
    It says that we're part predators, part prey animals and as such are more interested in defending our territory and possibly gaining some new territory than we are in gazing at the skies for some purpose which neither the predator nor the prey would recognise. Hard science is a new thing in evolutionary terms, the purpose for which those KH satellites were launched is as old as our species.
jessriedel 6y ago
The science output of a given device usually shows heavily diminishing returns. I would say 12 Hubbles would have had at most twice the impact of 1 Hubble, probably less.
- sephamorr 6y ago
  Definitely agree. However, the long tail will likely include discovering some more 'improbably' results. For example, the researchers who ultimately discovered Phosphine on Venus this week had early requests for observation time on telescopes denied and seemed to have to have been extremely persistent to finally get their chance.
  - dwaltrip 6y ago
    There is definitely a very long, fat tail with scientific research. I think this one of the most under-appreciated aspects of science. That and the countless unexpected insights and connections between seemingly unrelated pieces of knowledge that can happen long after an initial discovery.
- jniedrauer 6y ago
  The famous "deep field" image from Hubble almost didn't happen, at least for many more years, due to limited time availability[0]. > “The telescope allocation committee would never have approved such a long, risky project,” Other similar "high risk" experiments would be more likely to occur if time constraints were not such a concern. [0]: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/phenomena/2015/04/24/when-hubble-stared-at-nothing-for-100-hours/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/phenomena/2015/04...
  - ISL 6y ago
    Agreed. I suspect that the impact of added Hubbles would be roughly linear in the number of satellites for at least three or four more satellites. The bigger question is whether the requisite resources could have a larger combined impact elsewhere by delivering similar advances in astrophysical missions, for which I suspect the answer was correctly judged to be "yes".
ISL 6y ago
I think one can readily argue (and I'm a physicist, so I really love outward-looking telescopes) that reconnaissance satellites will tend to make the world a more-peaceful place. Uncertainty can lead humans to make decisions to handle a worst-case scenario that isn't actually taking place. High-quality imaging makes it difficult for nation-states to bluff or to understate the scale of decay/disaster and allows for finer-grained control of military escalation. We are seeing the next evolution of these effects as ordinary citizens can now get access to imaging systems that were once the realm of the Keyholes. They are journalists and free press in the sky. The internment camps of Xinjiang can't be hidden: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alison_killing/satellite-images-investigation-xinjiang-detention-camps https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alison_killing/satellit... We must, of course, be wary of the societal effects of these imaging systems. If only some have access to orbital imaging, the asymmetry in power can be substantial and the norms for privacy can erode.
- codezero 6y ago
  Also, often times science instruments do sit on those satellites, they just aren't as cool as Hubble. I worked on a satellite that was outward facing above a Navy satellite. We wouldn't have got in space w/o the military subsidy, and I think it'll take society a long time to pay off that debt/slough off the infrastructure, but we're starting to make progress.
- java-man 6y ago
  I do not disagree with this. I wanted to point out an order of magnitude difference between science, and politics (of fear?). We built nuclear power plants not because we needed electricity, but because we needed plutonium for the bomb. We went to the moon in part because "it is hard", but mainly as a way to stick it to the Russkies. We built space telescopes to spy on the "opponent". Yes, that did indeed kept the world in a balance for quite some time, amazingly, but imagine if we, collectively, were just a tad smarter and instead of this, directed our efforts to science.
  - admissionsguy 6y ago
    You could extend the argument to intra-national competition. What if instead of competing with each other, we were all aligned towards common goals. Unfortunately and sadly, such is human nature that we are hardly motivated by much else than one-upping each other.
beamatronic 6y ago
There’s so many high energy events out there, to observe.
snowwrestler 6y ago
It's funny when you see people ask things like "if we ever pointed Hubble at Earth, how much detail could we see?" Ask the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency!
- mikeyouse 6y ago
  Or refer to that picture Trump printed out of the Iranian (Pakistani?) rocket failure that was apparently being watched with a keyhole satellite..
Rebelgecko 6y ago
How many Hubbles could we have made if we didn't have to spend billions of dollars after it launched to fix manufacturing fuckups?
- java-man 6y ago
  How many?
  - Rebelgecko 6y ago
    If the subsequent Hubbles cost as much as the first one was supposed to cost: about 10 Hubbles If the subsequent Hubbles cost as much as the first one actually cost: about 0.5 Hubbles It's not totally on apples to apples comparison. There would probably be some cost reductions if you made ten hubbles. On the other hand, some of the servicing missions upgrade or even added instruments, so I suppose you'd need to take that into account
sterlind 6y ago
The NRO actually donated a couple suspiciously Hubble-like satellites to NASA a few years ago. They'd removed all the electronics, of course, and the lenses are shaped to better capture terrestrial images, but still! Loose pocket change from the intelligence agencies. Of course, I'm sure Hubble got funded because of Keyhole in the first place.
- KMag 6y ago
  > the lenses are shaped to better capture terrestrial images, Hubble's optics don't use lenses. Do you have any evidence that KH-11 satellites use lenses? Also, I could be wrong, but I thought that the orbits of Keyhole satellites are high enough relative to the primary mirror diameters that the difference between focusing something on the earth's surface and focusing at infinity (columated light) is within the mirror polishing tolerances, so for all intents an purposes both Earth observation and astronomical telescopes have mirrors shaped to focus at infinity. Am I wrong? Is sharper focus what you mean by "better capture terrestrial images"? I thought that the main difference in the mirrors was that image intelligence satellites generally have lower magnification / wider field of view than orbiting astronomical telescopes. If you were to point Hubble at Earth (and not burn out its instruments due to the brightness), I don't think you'd get a less sharp image than you'd get from a mirror ground for image intelligence (assuming same manufacturing tolerances/technology). My understanding is that diffraction and atmospheric distortion dominate the image clarity issues for image intelligence satellites, so there's little to nothing to gain for going narrower field of view / higher magnification.
microcolonel 6y ago
If we did that, we would not have the luxury of science, having forgotten the necessity of sovereignty.
browserface 6y ago
maybe we did launch that many outward looking satellites. but their images are classified... you wouldn't know, would you?
Zenst 6y ago
Imagine what an array of such camera's could do if pointed at one spot in space.

hirundo 6y ago

So about the ratio of non-selfies to selfies.

Yetanfou 6y ago

Imagine if those satellites were never made, we wouldn't have had the Hubble space telescope either.

RobertoG 6y ago
What that says about us, I'm not sure if I want to know.
- xwdv 6y ago
  We’re more interesting.
- vibrolax 6y ago
  Having large rockets to launch anything for non-military purposes is a byproduct of the requirement by the military of several nations for the capability to deliver thermonuclear warheads on their adversaries.
- Yetanfou 6y ago
  It says that we're part predators, part prey animals and as such are more interested in defending our territory and possibly gaining some new territory than we are in gazing at the skies for some purpose which neither the predator nor the prey would recognise. Hard science is a new thing in evolutionary terms, the purpose for which those KH satellites were launched is as old as our species.

jessriedel 6y ago

The science output of a given device usually shows heavily diminishing returns. I would say 12 Hubbles would have had at most twice the impact of 1 Hubble, probably less.

sephamorr 6y ago
Definitely agree. However, the long tail will likely include discovering some more 'improbably' results. For example, the researchers who ultimately discovered Phosphine on Venus this week had early requests for observation time on telescopes denied and seemed to have to have been extremely persistent to finally get their chance.
- dwaltrip 6y ago
  There is definitely a very long, fat tail with scientific research. I think this one of the most under-appreciated aspects of science. That and the countless unexpected insights and connections between seemingly unrelated pieces of knowledge that can happen long after an initial discovery.
jniedrauer 6y ago
The famous "deep field" image from Hubble almost didn't happen, at least for many more years, due to limited time availability[0]. > “The telescope allocation committee would never have approved such a long, risky project,” Other similar "high risk" experiments would be more likely to occur if time constraints were not such a concern. [0]: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/phenomena/2015/04/24/when-hubble-stared-at-nothing-for-100-hours/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/phenomena/2015/04...
- ISL 6y ago
  Agreed. I suspect that the impact of added Hubbles would be roughly linear in the number of satellites for at least three or four more satellites. The bigger question is whether the requisite resources could have a larger combined impact elsewhere by delivering similar advances in astrophysical missions, for which I suspect the answer was correctly judged to be "yes".

ISL 6y ago

I think one can readily argue (and I'm a physicist, so I really love outward-looking telescopes) that reconnaissance satellites will tend to make the world a more-peaceful place. Uncertainty can lead humans to make decisions to handle a worst-case scenario that isn't actually taking place. High-quality imaging makes it difficult for nation-states to bluff or to understate the scale of decay/disaster and allows for finer-grained control of military escalation. We are seeing the next evolution of these effects as ordinary citizens can now get access to imaging systems that were once the realm of the Keyholes. They are journalists and free press in the sky. The internment camps of Xinjiang can't be hidden: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alison_killing/satellite-images-investigation-xinjiang-detention-camps https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alison_killing/satellit... We must, of course, be wary of the societal effects of these imaging systems. If only some have access to orbital imaging, the asymmetry in power can be substantial and the norms for privacy can erode.

codezero 6y ago
Also, often times science instruments do sit on those satellites, they just aren't as cool as Hubble. I worked on a satellite that was outward facing above a Navy satellite. We wouldn't have got in space w/o the military subsidy, and I think it'll take society a long time to pay off that debt/slough off the infrastructure, but we're starting to make progress.
java-man 6y ago
I do not disagree with this. I wanted to point out an order of magnitude difference between science, and politics (of fear?). We built nuclear power plants not because we needed electricity, but because we needed plutonium for the bomb. We went to the moon in part because "it is hard", but mainly as a way to stick it to the Russkies. We built space telescopes to spy on the "opponent". Yes, that did indeed kept the world in a balance for quite some time, amazingly, but imagine if we, collectively, were just a tad smarter and instead of this, directed our efforts to science.
- admissionsguy 6y ago
  You could extend the argument to intra-national competition. What if instead of competing with each other, we were all aligned towards common goals. Unfortunately and sadly, such is human nature that we are hardly motivated by much else than one-upping each other.

beamatronic 6y ago

There’s so many high energy events out there, to observe.

snowwrestler 6y ago

It's funny when you see people ask things like "if we ever pointed Hubble at Earth, how much detail could we see?" Ask the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency!

mikeyouse 6y ago
Or refer to that picture Trump printed out of the Iranian (Pakistani?) rocket failure that was apparently being watched with a keyhole satellite..

Rebelgecko 6y ago

How many Hubbles could we have made if we didn't have to spend billions of dollars after it launched to fix manufacturing fuckups?

java-man 6y ago
How many?
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  If the subsequent Hubbles cost as much as the first one was supposed to cost: about 10 Hubbles If the subsequent Hubbles cost as much as the first one actually cost: about 0.5 Hubbles It's not totally on apples to apples comparison. There would probably be some cost reductions if you made ten hubbles. On the other hand, some of the servicing missions upgrade or even added instruments, so I suppose you'd need to take that into account

sterlind 6y ago

The NRO actually donated a couple suspiciously Hubble-like satellites to NASA a few years ago. They'd removed all the electronics, of course, and the lenses are shaped to better capture terrestrial images, but still! Loose pocket change from the intelligence agencies. Of course, I'm sure Hubble got funded because of Keyhole in the first place.

KMag 6y ago
> the lenses are shaped to better capture terrestrial images, Hubble's optics don't use lenses. Do you have any evidence that KH-11 satellites use lenses? Also, I could be wrong, but I thought that the orbits of Keyhole satellites are high enough relative to the primary mirror diameters that the difference between focusing something on the earth's surface and focusing at infinity (columated light) is within the mirror polishing tolerances, so for all intents an purposes both Earth observation and astronomical telescopes have mirrors shaped to focus at infinity. Am I wrong? Is sharper focus what you mean by "better capture terrestrial images"? I thought that the main difference in the mirrors was that image intelligence satellites generally have lower magnification / wider field of view than orbiting astronomical telescopes. If you were to point Hubble at Earth (and not burn out its instruments due to the brightness), I don't think you'd get a less sharp image than you'd get from a mirror ground for image intelligence (assuming same manufacturing tolerances/technology). My understanding is that diffraction and atmospheric distortion dominate the image clarity issues for image intelligence satellites, so there's little to nothing to gain for going narrower field of view / higher magnification.

microcolonel 6y ago

If we did that, we would not have the luxury of science, having forgotten the necessity of sovereignty.

browserface 6y ago

maybe we did launch that many outward looking satellites. but their images are classified... you wouldn't know, would you?

Zenst 6y ago

Imagine what an array of such camera's could do if pointed at one spot in space.