DARPA Developing Telescope 8x Larger Than Hubble Which Could Look for Alien Life But Won't

That's a lot of nice information permeated with your political schtick. Congrats on the former. So you want this super duper telescope to peer into space to find civilizations thousand or more light years away from Earth for what, precisely? We could send them a message they would receive, perhaps, in thousands of years. That would be cool. We could bask in the glow that we know there are some other planets out there in the Goldilocks zone that might harbor life, or that maybe we could get to in a 100,000 years of space travel. That would be cool. We could say, "Gee! We found a planet 100 light years away and if only we had warp drive we could get to it and start over!" and that would be cool, too.

There are any number of science projects we could all think up that could "advance science" along the lines we think might be interesting and that fit our personal agendas. How nice that DARPA figured out that it could perhaps be done. That's all they've done, of course. All DARPA does is fund "proof of concept" designs that may or may not be useful. Most of their studies never amount to anything. Saying it "could be done" is a far cry from funding such a venture.

So if the DoD decides this is a worthwhile project to be able to read the newspaper over your shoulder, then they can run the gamut of their funding sources and make their case for how important this is to national defense. And if they can make their case that it's really really important to be able to count the hairs on a fly from outer space, then they might get funding.

Now you can make that case, too. Just go to kickstarter and explain how very very very important it is to point a super duper telescope into outer space because you might find a planet out there and, if you are very clever, be able to "detect life" on it. And if you can make the case, perhaps people will fund it because you always have such good ideas and this would, you know, "advance science" and all.

So if you get it funded the DoD can fume about you and if the DoD can get theirs funded you can fume at them because they are pointing this super duper telescope at Earth instead of where you think they ought to point it and WOULD point it if you were God.

I know! What we need is a "national debate" on the issue so we can collectively decide what is the most useful course of action to take.

originally posted by: Bedlam
From geosynchronous orbit, you might get a meter resolution, maybe a bit better.

I'm also not sure you could do LEO with a membrane telescope due to it being subject to tidal distortions from masscons. Which is probably why they're talking about putting this thing in geosynch.

The OP does say it would have a meter resolution, so maybe geosynchronous orbit is a good guess, and I'm not sure why there was so much speculation about the resolution when it's already stated in the OP.

The project doesn't make much sense to me though if they can get 6" resolution from low Earth orbit using non-membrane technology that's more stable, unless they planned to put lots of them on geosynchronous orbit to get better coverage.

So maybe we can finally get some photos of that American flag up on the moon? Oh wait its not allowed to point in any other direction other than Earth. Oh well then, maybe one day.

There is an Amazing, Amazing upside to this.

When I want to Moon the Man... he's going to get a better shot of my kiester than I ever I pulled off even to a car in the lane next to me....

lol, sorry, kind of know once this thing is launched i'm going to go in the yard a couple of times and pray my timing is right...

Seriously though, great thread, absolutely correct on all points, at the very least... Nasa should get one too, I can't say I honestly can't see why the military would want this, real time down to the mole sightings of Lil Kim from orbit could prove quite handy, so long as no one loans this thing to oh.... I dunno Sheriff Joe in Arizona lol, but realistically, if we have these abilities there is no way in hell this should be denied to Nasa.

Meh, 1 meter resolution is a bit lousy for spying, it will only resolve large structures but no cars or groups of people going somewhere to commit a terrorist act.

Besides, there are no "enemy countries" for the USA, no one is going to war with them. These "enemies" are created largely through paranoia, desire for domination, and the dubious tactics America employs in its international dealings.

Indeed, such a telescope is much better off being pointed at space. Even if pointed at Earth, it would be used for science, such as monitoring the environment and weather.

They spend millions of dollars to make a huge telescope.Then they found a new planet/star... with that.
Can we cure cancer with that planet ? I dont think so. Can we feed the world ? Noo.
So what is the point to spend millions of dollars for a huge telescope to find something that it will not help you in any way?

originally posted by: Nicusor
So what is the point to spend millions of dollars for a huge telescope to find something that it will not help you in any way?

Oddly enough, mankind can do more than one thing at a time. And basic research alwats pays off.

originally posted by: Nicusor
They spend millions of dollars to make a huge telescope.Then they found a new planet/star... with that.
Can we cure cancer with that planet ? I dont think so. Can we feed the world ? Noo.
So what is the point to spend millions of dollars for a huge telescope to find something that it will not help you in any way?

Big improvements in early breast cancer detection (which helps cure it and prevent death) have been the result of space technologies. www.space.com...
Robotic technologies connected to the International Space Station also help with cancer detection. www.nasa.gov...

Scientific and technological improvements in one area affect us as a whole.

a reply to: JadeStar

Sorry to burst your bubble but first it's a concept which might not work still going through testing and the resolution has already been given.

From GEO, it is believed, a satellite using MOIRE optics could see approximately 40 percent of the earth’s surface at once. The satellite would be able to focus on a 10 km-by-10 km area at 1-meter resolution, and provide real-time video at 1 frame per second.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: JadeStar

Sorry to burst your bubble but first it's a concept which might not work still going through testing and the resolution has already been given.

From GEO, it is believed, a satellite using MOIRE optics could see approximately 40 percent of the earth’s surface at once. The satellite would be able to focus on a 10 km-by-10 km area at 1-meter resolution, and provide real-time video at 1 frame per second.

We all know that things which may be used by intelligence agencies always have their true capabilities such as resolution revealed in the public. 1 meter resolution is so 1980s.

When the James Webb will be launched, rest assured there will again be many voices heard about "how money is wasted"...while a vast majority of those people won't ever be aware that DARPA has a telescope 3x this size in development...and since it's a "black budget" project no-one will know about the costs either ...

The tax-payer, entirely unaware actually, is PAYING crazy sums so the NSA etc. can better spy on them...hilarious...

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: JadeStar

Sorry to burst your bubble but first it's a concept which might not work still going through testing and the resolution has already been given.

From GEO, it is believed, a satellite using MOIRE optics could see approximately 40 percent of the earth’s surface at once. The satellite would be able to focus on a 10 km-by-10 km area at 1-meter resolution, and provide real-time video at 1 frame per second.

We all know that things which may be used by intelligence agencies always have their true capabilities such as resolution revealed in the public. 1 meter resolution is so 1980s.

REALLY while I agree with lots of your post BUT don't fall for the 50yrs ahead BS!!!
1mtr from 22,000 miles is good so what do you think it could do

Since resolving power is proportional to the diameter of a telescope objective, 20 meters should yield about 6 milliarc second resolution, in principle. That works out to about 35 centimeters on the ground, from geosynchronous orbit, if my figuring is correct.
Of course this neglects the limits imposed by atmospheric turbulence. Even a telescope in space must look through the atmosphere, if it is used to observe Earth.
The rule of thumb is that atmospheric turbulence limits resolution to about 500 to 1000 milliarc seconds. Adaptive optics should better that by about 20 fold-- in the range of 25 to 50 milliarc seconds, affording resolutions of about 1.2 meters, at best, which is about what is being claimed for the proposed instrument.
I gather that it is not extraordinary resolution that is expected here, but the ability to have any small part of 40 percent of the Earth's surface available for view by a single instrument, at any time.

The article says it can image the earth for a "relatively low cost", is that "low" for black budget projects or low for regular guys like NASA as well?

a reply to: JadeStar

Great OP Jade. You touched on an important point.

But it's not just about money. It's also about tech.

If NASA just got some of the cast-off technology from Joint Space Command - even 2 or 3 generations old - they'd still be so much further ahead in the game than they are today. But the tech is classified and no amount of money can overcome that.

And it's not like many people at NASA don't know this as it's probably one of the worst kept general secrets out there (by design). But accurate specifics are *very* hard to come by. At the senior levels within NASA they tend to be more political & practical about these things but I'm sure there are some hard-core science types that gnash their teeth over this thus keeping their dentists happy.

originally posted by: schuyler
So if the DoD decides this is a worthwhile project to be able to read the newspaper over your shoulder, then they can run the gamut of their funding sources and make their case for how important this is to national defense. And if they can make their case that it's really really important to be able to count the hairs on a fly from outer space, then they might get funding.

Now you can make that case, too. Just go to kickstarter and explain how very very very important it is to point a super duper telescope into outer space because you might find a planet out there and, if you are very clever, be able to "detect life" on it. And if you can make the case, perhaps people will fund it because you always have such good ideas and this would, you know, "advance science" and all.

So if you get it funded the DoD can fume about you and if the DoD can get theirs funded you can fume at them because they are pointing this super duper telescope at Earth instead of where you think they ought to point it and WOULD point it if you were God.

I know! What we need is a "national debate" on the issue so we can collectively decide what is the most useful course of action to take.

Something is really wrong when cutting edge science is dependant on door to door begging and pan handling via Kickstarter or Indiegogo campaign while the Military Intelligence crowd gets a gourmet dinner every night at the taxpayer's expense.

That's what you're advocating here.


While the cutting edge science will be revealed for everyone, the results from such spending by the military/intelligence crowd will be classified.



By the way, as far as what you're advocating, it has been done.

Seattle based (yay!) Asteroid Mining company, Planetary Resources launched just such a campaign to get a publically accessible, Exoplanet hunting space telescope advocated by Sara Seager built. (Not sure if they reached the goal that allows it to be used for planet hunting)

SEE: ARKYD: A Space Telescope for Everyone





Or in Klingon if you prefer:



Keep in mind, just developing, building and launching a small space telescope costs more than $1.5 million dollars raised on Kickstarter to fund the ARKYD.

Something the size of the telescope being talked about in this thread would take a Kickstarter campaign many, many magnitudes larger than the one for the Arkyd, making such a telescope that size (or even Hubble Size) nearly impossible to be crowd funded in reality.

Big science, still requires big dollars.

originally posted by: JadeStar

Something is really wrong when cutting edge science is dependant on door to door begging and pan handling via Kickstarter or Indiegogo campaign while the Military Intelligence crowd gets a gourmet dinner every night at the taxpayer's expense.


While the cutting edge science will be revealed for everyone, the results from such spending by the military/intelligence crowd will be classified.

Sadly, the military is about the only thing in the US that funds basic scientific research. At least they share the most of it with you.

They say that it will be used to look down on Earth. The military knows more about space than the civilian scientific community.

If they are announcing this from DARPA, you can be sure that there is something even better already in use to spy on the people of Earth.

No, I have a feeling it *will* be used to do deep space research, but the findings will be kept very top secret. Isn't it kind of weird to anyone else how "discoveries" are seeming to happen left and right these days? I have a hunch that we've known about all these planets we're just now "discovering" because the military is "letting" our scientists find them.

The military puts more rockets into space than anyone -- all of those launches can't be sats....

If anything, it might be part of an early-warning telescope system to monitor for alien activity headed toward Earth.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
They say that it will be used to look down on Earth. The military knows more about space than the civilian scientific community.

If they are announcing this from DARPA, you can be sure that there is something even better already in use to spy on the people of Earth.

Why, whatever would give you THAT idea?

You should be asking instead - what's the actual purpose/tasking for this? Why do we need a geo-synch optical observation satellite? Why are we going to put up a big, ungainly, new technology optical imaging satellite in a coveted geosynch slot that has less ground resolution than 3 dozen other LEO or near LEO sats we've already got up?

Why not drop this into a near Earth orbit instead, and see a lot more detail?

No, I have a feeling it *will* be used to do deep space research, but the findings will be kept very top secret. Isn't it kind of weird to anyone else how "discoveries" are seeming to happen left and right these days? I have a hunch that we've known about all these planets we're just now "discovering" because the military is "letting" our scientists find them.

Most of these new planet discoveries are being done by civilians, I'm not sure how much the military can stop them from finding them or no. On the other hand, it is going to be hard to explain eventually when the RTs start spotting standard radio traffic coming back from some of them. I'd say that'll set the hard limit on when 'disclosure' happens to the public.

The military puts more rockets into space than anyone -- all of those launches can't be sats....

Sure they can. What do you think they would be? LEO spy satellites use up their maneuvering fuel quickly, after that, you drop them in the drink and put up another.

If anything, it might be part of an early-warning telescope system to monitor for alien activity headed toward Earth.

Here is a pic...

originally posted by: Bedlam

Sadly, the military is about the only thing in the US that funds basic scientific research. At least they share the most of it with you.

Sadly, that's mostly true. But sharing the science and sharing the tech are two *very* different things as you know.

The science: when they have to, or when the benefits greatly outweigh the perceived military returns and even then they can be cagey as hell. But of the two, they are much more forthcoming with the science.

The tech: varies widely but at a minimum only when they are ahead by at least 2-3 subsequent generations of new tech already in place for the task, and often not even then.

What would really drive people nuts if they knew are the discoveries that are made by accident or that were initially tangential to the project at hand, but which are eye-popping in their own right - and that the military doesn't even know what to do with - but which may have some military value in the future and is therefore also totally kept under wraps.

People don't even to know to ask about this because, well, they don't know what they don't know...

Ain't life grand?