NASA Seeks Members for NRO Hardware Study Group
>Notice of Intent to Solicit Science Definition Team for National Reconnaissance Orbiter Optical Hardware via Dear Colleague Letter
– NRO Gives NASA Two Hubble-Class Telescopes (Shh!), earlier post
– NASA’s Stubby Hubbles and Fumbled PR
– Are NASA’s New Telescopes NRO Future Imagery Architecture Leftovers?, earlier post
Keith’s 20 Aug note: According to this NASA notice, “NRO” stands for either “National Reconnaissance Observatory” or “National Reconnaissance Orbiter”. Nice way to say thank you to NRO.
Keith’s 21 Aug update: They fixed it.
Notice of Intent to Solicit Science Definition Team for National Reconnaissance Office Optical Hardware via Dear Colleague Letter
“NOTE added August 21, 2012: This community announced is being reissued to (a) clarify the nature of the parallel coronagraph study, (b) correct the export-control driven eligibility requirement from U.S. citizens to U.S. persons, (c) announce a wider survey for potential uses of the telescope assets that will be undertaken later in 2012, and (d) correct some typographical errors (including what NRO stands for).”
Use it!
… but you need to have significant clearance to be able to understand what “as is” really means with these things.
Even if it is just a stack of uncoated mirrors … shrug .
The PDF goes into more detail about the hardware. http://science.nasa.gov/med…
One key comment is ambiguous, at least to me:
NRO telescope system has a 2.4-m f/1.2 primary with a 20% obscuration secondary that produces a 1/20 wave near-IR optical system at about f/8 _assembled and tested_. (underlined in original)
Does that mean the hardware is already assembled and tested, or that it will perform like that once it has been assembled and tested?
It appears to be provided as a series of subsystems that are to be built into a new spacecraft. This is better that I thought would be supplied.
It was tested already to perform to those specs. If assembled into a new spacecraft, the means to test and qualify the optics post integration, shaker, vacuum, and prior to encapsulation for launch will have to validate to achieve that – a significant cost factor, thus called out so it can be budgeted for.
The “suggestions” of the components “pictured is that of something that can be launched on a medium EELV with a 5 meter shroud – the short ones. Fairly lightweight.
The avionics, data handling, and software are the cost/schedule “long poles”. You don’t really want Hubble or JWST components for this, they’d be a poor fit.
Nothing on the pointing you’ll note. There are some new technologies in development that might suit such a short, lightweight unit.
Very provocative.