Why abandon top shelf surveillance telescopes?

Quiller

New Member
As a defense analyst I focus primarily on offensive military systems, weapons and strategies. As a defense enthusiast, I also like to follow the big picture... and get a better view of the forest (not just the trees.)

So when the US National Reconnaisance Office "gifted" two large surveillance telescopes to NASA to use in research, I was immediately intrigued. The news stories seem to focus on how fortunate NASA will be to get not one, but two of them. These space telescopes are touted at being better and more sophisticated than the Hubble telescope. The small print in the articles said something like: "since the NRO no longer needs them, they are presenting them to NASA."

That seeemed the much more intriguing story. "No longer needs them?" What, exactly, does that mean? These telescopes were designated for military earth surveillance. If they are both no longer needed... does this mean the NRO (and perhaps even the NSA) have developed significantly more advanced surveillance capabilities that these offer? Or is the NRO abandoning such surveillance? Or are military budgets kicking these scopes to the curb?

Anybody out there have a notion on why NRO would drop two extremely high end telescopes... in favor of what?
 

Smokin' Joe

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
As a defense analyst I focus primarily on offensive military systems, weapons and strategies. As a defense enthusiast, I also like to follow the big picture... and get a better view of the forest (not just the trees.)

So when the US National Reconnaisance Office "gifted" two large surveillance telescopes to NASA to use in research, I was immediately intrigued. The news stories seem to focus on how fortunate NASA will be to get not one, but two of them. These space telescopes are touted at being better and more sophisticated than the Hubble telescope. The small print in the articles said something like: "since the NRO no longer needs them, they are presenting them to NASA."

That seeemed the much more intriguing story. "No longer needs them?" What, exactly, does that mean? These telescopes were designated for military earth surveillance. If they are both no longer needed... does this mean the NRO (and perhaps even the NSA) have developed significantly more advanced surveillance capabilities that these offer? Or is the NRO abandoning such surveillance? Or are military budgets kicking these scopes to the curb?

Anybody out there have a notion on why NRO would drop two extremely high end telescopes... in favor of what?
Take the next two peices of information and let your imagination run wild.

"Neither NASA nor the NRO would explain exactly why the telescopes hadn’t been used, much less why they had been built in the first place, citing classified information."

"Although NRO gifted NASA its hardware free of charge, the telescopes presently lack the cameras, sensors and other scientific instruments necessary for turning them into civilian eyes in the sky, which NASA would have to outfit, as The Washington Post noted."

Source: NASA Gets Two Formerly Secret Spy Telescopes More Powerful Than Hubble | TPM Idea Lab
 

johnnyU

New Member
is interesting

I myself am also quite surprised, having moved from a NASA support program now into a DOD (non NASA) one. Why move these items to an agency that can barely support itself with all the waste they endure? NASA can't complete the budget busting JWST in any timely manner, and Hubble servicing is out of the current equation. Adding two other satellites that cannot be serviced is strange BUT the fact Hubble cannot be repaired any longer (and it has time limited hardware), perhaps the two satellites being offered are taking Hubble's ultimate demise into consideration. There are probably 400 or so Hubble jobs at stake. Perhaps they are planning a cancellation of JWST and don't wish to lose the people and experience in that area? I almost find my latter question injecting otherwise intelligent decision making into an agency that has made some pretty dumb decisions of late.
 

Quiller

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
it is based on 70's technology of that class of satellite. correct./
The question remains....why doesn't NRO need these two telescopes? Budget cuts, or replacement with something even better?
 

My2Cents

Active Member
The question remains....why doesn't NRO need these two telescopes? Budget cuts, or replacement with something even better?
Probably some of both.

The satellites most likely were spares for quick replacement of ones in orbit if/when one stopped functioning. You cannot afford to wait a year or more for one to be built after the fact.

Budget wise, the biggest cost is not the satellite, it is putting it into orbit. There has been tremendous pressure to ‘make do’ with existing satellites in order to save money.
 

Lostfleet

New Member
It is good to see military hardware used for scientific purposes,

Do the satellites have an expiration date even if they are in storage? hardware wise?

better give it away then let it go sour ?
 

My2Cents

Active Member
Do the satellites have an expiration date even if they are in storage? hardware wise?
The batteries certainly have expiration dates, probably other components as well, including possibly the wiring and some of the valves. Also, no matter how well you pack it, some oxygen will get in and contaminate components (remember it is designed to operate in the vacuum of space, not sit on the ground for years). After all this time there may also be components that are impossible to get replacement parts for. One problem the F-22 had was that by the time it was going operational 80486 chips were no longer being manufactured.

But it is likely that one reason for getting rid of the satellites was the storage cost, because of the special security requirements. Giving them to NASA saves them the cost of scrapping them (which is another security problem).
 

johnnyU

New Member
The batteries certainly have expiration dates, probably other components as well, including possibly the wiring and some of the valves. Also, no matter how well you pack it, some oxygen will get in and contaminate components (remember it is designed to operate in the vacuum of space, not sit on the ground for years). After all this time there may also be components that are impossible to get replacement parts for. One problem the F-22 had was that by the time it was going operational 80486 chips were no longer being manufactured.

But it is likely that one reason for getting rid of the satellites was the storage cost, because of the special security requirements. Giving them to NASA saves them the cost of scrapping them (which is another security problem).
NASA though now needs to configure and build control centers, train personnel etc. This isnt something that is done quickly. I'd also venture to guess some NASA centers could use the work with Shuttle and support for said Shuttle being tossed away. Many Engineer types have already left and found work elsewhere. (me included)
 

My2Cents

Active Member
NASA though now needs to configure and build control centers, train personnel etc. This isnt something that is done quickly. I'd also venture to guess some NASA centers could use the work with Shuttle and support for said Shuttle being tossed away. Many Engineer types have already left and found work elsewhere. (me included)
If they are getting rid of the spares satellites, then the program is probably winding down and there might be some ex-NRO types that know all about that on the market they could snap up.

You can beat a sword into a plowshare, but you usually want the former soldier for manpower to use it.
 
Top