Space-based Rent-a-Scopes?

[JD2439975]

Just a passing thought...

With the advent of commercial launch vehicles & space tourism just how long do you think it will be before someone bolts a 16" RCOS to the side of the space station?
Or a seperate platform/satellite covered in roboscopes...mini Hubbles for all...who can pay.

Quality imaging like no other scope that's for sure. :D

[koputai]

Great idea, and an interesting thought.

I wonder would it actuall be worth putting something like a 16" or 20" amateaur/semi-pro telescope in space?
Would its performance be considerably better than the same instrument at a premium site here on Earth?
Probably.

Cheers,
Jason.

[Terry B]

And imagine how many cosmic ray hits there would be.

[JD2439975]

I think the biggest advantage would be seeing conditions, even a 10" scope has a theoretical max resolving power of 0.45 arcsecs, 0.3 for a 16" & 0.22 for a 20".
Even at ESO's favourite hangout in the Atacarma desert with some of the best seeing in the world it's approx 1 - 1.5 arcsecs (correct me if needed).
True that adaptive optics can help for sure, but just how effective are they? beyond the range of my knowledge.

No atmospheric extinction of UV & other wavelengths may be an advantage to some also.

As for the cosmic rays, unshielded would make for an interesting piece of modern art. :lol:
Radiation & thermal shielding would be a must have, certainly not "off the shelf" scopes these ones but the complexity of Hubble wouldn't be necessary.

Not cheap I'll admit, especially in the maintainance side of things but given 10, 20 or even 50 years it would have to become a viable enterprise.

Can you imaging what Mr Bird could do with Jupiter through one of these...

[DavidTrap]

I agree it sounds like a nice idea, but I think the costs of putting something in "orbit" would be beyond comprehension. I remember seeing a documentary about what NASA has to do to something to make certain it can withstand the stresses of lauching, eg. vibration & acoustic testing.

It will be fascinating to see what commercial space flight does to the cost of getting something into orbit, but to my humble understanding, there is a finite amount of energy that has to be expended to achieve escape velocity...

DT

[koputai]

Escape velocity is only needed if you want to leave Earth orbit.
It takes somewhat less energy to get into Earth orbit. Not an
inconsequential amount, but a lot less than needed for escape.

Cheers,
Jason.

[Ric]

I wonder when Hubble is replaced if they would allow amateurs to use that.

I'm sure it would still be capable of producing great images but I'd hate to think what the hourly rental cost would be.

[Steffen]

Amateur radio hams have had their satellites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSCAR) for half a century, there must be a viable way of getting a piece of gear into orbit (and keeping it there).

Cheers
Steffen.

[JD2439975]

Might need a collimation ya reckon. :lol:

Ric, nice idea on buying a secondhand Hubble, they're literally giving the Shuttles away so might get it at a good price.

[JD2439975]

That's very interesting Steffen, didn't know OSCAR's were amateur sats, learn something every day.
Looking on that list there's a awful lot of non-operationals, guess what we really need is a giant space-hoover. :lol: