NASA Researches Dark Energy with Spy Satellite

[Marshall Honorof]

NASA Researches Dark Energy with Spy Satellite

An unused reconnaissance satellite could shed light on the expanding universe.

If the favorite toy [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/117233-Blockbuster-Defends-Used-Games] is about to break. NASA recently found itself in such a position, but the National Reconnaissance Office was there to help. Two space telescopes - just as big as the Hubble, but with better hardware - came into NASA's hands via the American intelligence organization. Instead of documenting the Earth below it, one of the telescopes will turn heavenwards to research dark energy, the theoretical substance that keeps the universe expanding at an accelerating pace.

John Grunsfeld, a physicist and astronaut best known for spacewalking to repairing the Hubble Telescope, came across the two telescopes with staggering 94" mirrors in January 2011. "We can't say what they were used for," says Grunsfeld, although a colleague of his added that they were designed to monitor the Earth's surface, not the distant stars. Astronomers have been lobbying for a powerful telescope to study dark energy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy] since 2010, but budget restrictions at NASA put the project on hold until at least 2024. NASA estimates that the acquisition of the two spy satellites (which are twice as large as the one initially proposed) saved American taxpayers over $250 million and moved the project ahead for a tentative 2020 launch date, provided that NASA can lobby for the necessary funds.

Adam Riess [http://www.stsci.edu/~ariess/], astronomy professor at Johns Hopkins University and recent Nobel Prize winner, advises caution, however. While a $250 million savings sounds good on paper, Riess believes that the project is still too far-off and speculative to make any meaningful financial estimations. He adds, though, that, "When someone hands you a hand-me-down like that, you have to be excited. They're not sitting around at Walmart."

Whether one or both telescopes will even get off the ground will very much depend on the political and economic climate of the United States over the next ten years or so. That said, learning more about one of the most mysterious and fundamental forces in the universe seems well worth the cost of investment. The study of dark energy should be of particular interest to Mass Effect 3 fans, who may recall that the game's original ending [http://www.oxm.co.uk/39736/revealed-the-mass-effect-3-ending-bioware-canned-before-release/] relied upon it as a major plot point. It's worth thinking about: Will NASA discover how the universe ends, or call forth the Reapers and cause that ending themselves?

Source: The New York Times [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/05/science/space/repurposed-telescope-may-explore-secrets-of-dark-energy.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&hp]

Image: HubbleSite [http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2012/10/full/]

Permalink

 

[DioWallachia]

Crap, Yog-Sothoth is going to get pissed off if someone tries to harness him.

Let the poor bubble-soap-thing eat the universe alone!

 

[BehattedWanderer]

More evidence we need to get NASA back up and running. The proposed savings would have been less than a dollar a person. If someone told you that your five dollar contribution would help further science's understanding of the universe but keeping NASA alive, you'd balk at them. If they told you that you and the other 310 million people just in your country were also giving up five bucks, half a movie ticket (or a matinee that's not 3D), you'd want to.

Give us back the pinnacle of human endeavor, dammit!

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

I'd be worried, but we all know that dark matter will be ultimately pointless, and will only distract us from the real threat of star children who lack greatly in the logic department.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Y'know, if you guys need some rockets on the cheap, I got a guy who get you some UR-500K rockets. Russia's space agency is having troubles of their own, they might be willing to cut you a deal.

 

[Evil Smurf]

Y'know, if you guys need some rockets on the cheap, I got a guy who get you some UR-500K rockets. Russia's space agency is having troubles of their own, they might be willing to cut you a deal.

Ooooo being cheap.....in SPAAAAAAAACE!

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Ooooo being cheap.....in SPAAAAAAAACE!

I got this mental image of scientist clipping coupons, and astronauts only having the lights on for a certain amount of time to conserve power.

 

[Treblaine]

That feel, when I realise we as a species have to spend more resources looking out for insane suicide bombers or nuclear-weapon proliferation than discovering the origins and wonders of the universe.

It's a not the best feel.

I'm not objecting to the reconnaissance, I'm objecting to the sate of the world that recon is so needed.

 

[Vivi22]

That feel, when I realise we as a species have to spend more resources looking out for insane suicide bombers or nuclear-weapon proliferation than discovering the origins and wonders of the universe.

It's a not the best feel.

I'm not objecting to the reconnaissance, I'm objecting to the sate of the world that recon is so needed.

The real kick in the nuts is that the amount of money spent on defense by the US alone is pretty unnecessary. Particularly when the most prevalent threat is terrorism and not state vs. state warfare.

I'm sure F22's and F35's are very useful for infiltrating terrorist networks and gathering intelligence and that money couldn't be better spent on exploring the Universe.

 

[Treblaine]

That feel, when I realise we as a species have to spend more resources looking out for insane suicide bombers or nuclear-weapon proliferation than discovering the origins and wonders of the universe.

It's a not the best feel.

I'm not objecting to the reconnaissance, I'm objecting to the sate of the world that recon is so needed.

The real kick in the nuts is that the amount of money spent on defense by the US alone is pretty unnecessary. Particularly when the most prevalent threat is terrorism and not state vs. state warfare.

I'm sure F22's and F35's are very useful for infiltrating terrorist networks and gathering intelligence and that money couldn't be better spent on exploring the Universe.

Actually I'm afraid they are. People who are prepared to end their life to kill thousands are such a huge yet elusive threat.

And many people seem to think since the Cold War is over suddenly nukes aren't a problem. No. They are. Imminent nuclear war may not be as likely but there are still thousands of nuclear weapons still in active deployment and worse of all is how they are proliferating. Of particular concern is how Extremist elements in Pakistan may be able to steal or otherwise gain control of their nuclear weapons. Even an extremist revolution seizing control of the government or an already extremist government procuring their own nuclear weapons.

PS: F22 has been mostly abandoned as too expensive. F35 is in deployment as a pseudo-stealth fighter is needed with proliferation of cheap radar-warning technology. F-35 orders have been comparatively small compared to the previous generations. The main military aircraft investment is in unmanned high-endurance aircraft precisely for hunting down terrorist and monitoring nuclear proliferation.

 

[Vivi22]

Actually I'm afraid they are. People who are prepared to end their life to kill thousands are such a huge yet elusive threat.

You don't uncover terrorist plots with fighter jets, nor do you generally combat them with fighter jets either. Jets only have a role in actual combat, or in bombing enemy targets. The former isn't anti-terrorism, the latter can be accomplished with unmanned drones.

And many people seem to think since the Cold War is over suddenly nukes aren't a problem. No. They are. Imminent nuclear war may not be as likely but there are still thousands of nuclear weapons still in active deployment and worse of all is how they are proliferating. Of particular concern is how Extremist elements in Pakistan may be able to steal or otherwise gain control of their nuclear weapons. Even an extremist revolution seizing control of the government or an already extremist government procuring their own nuclear weapons.

Legitimate, all out Nuclear war makes conventional war not only obsolete, but unnecessary. You also don't combat a nuclear threat with traditionally styled warfare. You fight it with politics, intelligence, and special operations forces. Not fighter jets and large scale invasion.

PS: F22 has been mostly abandoned as too expensive. F35 is in deployment as a pseudo-stealth fighter is needed with proliferation of cheap radar-warning technology. F-35 orders have been comparatively small compared to the previous generations. The main military aircraft investment is in unmanned high-endurance aircraft precisely for hunting down terrorist and monitoring nuclear proliferation.

This is really neither here nor there anyway. You combat terrorism with security and intelligence. Not with conventional military forces and combat tactics. Fighter jets are largely unnecessary because there are no dog fights anymore and no one has the capacity to project power into the US who might actually try. Drones are better and cheaper for the tasks requiring air support now. 11 aircraft carriers or whatever the number is now are unnecessary because no other country has a Navy even worth the investment to defend against. American controlled waters could easily be defended with less. Moreover, the idea that the US is going to end up at war with any actual nation state with a professional army is fairly laughable these days. The only reason it's still happened in the last few years is because America wanted it to, not because it had to.

But this is getting way off topic, so perhaps we should let the matter rest.

 

[Treblaine]

Actually I'm afraid they are. People who are prepared to end their life to kill thousands are such a huge yet elusive threat.

You don't uncover terrorist plots with fighter jets, nor do you generally combat them with fighter jets either. Jets only have a role in actual combat, or in bombing enemy targets. The former isn't anti-terrorism, the latter can be accomplished with unmanned drones.

And many people seem to think since the Cold War is over suddenly nukes aren't a problem. No. They are. Imminent nuclear war may not be as likely but there are still thousands of nuclear weapons still in active deployment and worse of all is how they are proliferating. Of particular concern is how Extremist elements in Pakistan may be able to steal or otherwise gain control of their nuclear weapons. Even an extremist revolution seizing control of the government or an already extremist government procuring their own nuclear weapons.

Legitimate, all out Nuclear war makes conventional war not only obsolete, but unnecessary. You also don't combat a nuclear threat with traditionally styled warfare. You fight it with politics, intelligence, and special operations forces. Not fighter jets and large scale invasion.

PS: F22 has been mostly abandoned as too expensive. F35 is in deployment as a pseudo-stealth fighter is needed with proliferation of cheap radar-warning technology. F-35 orders have been comparatively small compared to the previous generations. The main military aircraft investment is in unmanned high-endurance aircraft precisely for hunting down terrorist and monitoring nuclear proliferation.

This is really neither here nor there anyway. You combat terrorism with security and intelligence. Not with conventional military forces and combat tactics. Fighter jets are largely unnecessary because there are no dog fights anymore and no one has the capacity to project power into the US who might actually try. Drones are better and cheaper for the tasks requiring air support now. 11 aircraft carriers or whatever the number is now are unnecessary because no other country has a Navy even worth the investment to defend against. American controlled waters could easily be defended with less. Moreover, the idea that the US is going to end up at war with any actual nation state with a professional army is fairly laughable these days. The only reason it's still happened in the last few years is because America wanted it to, not because it had to.

But this is getting way off topic, so perhaps we should let the matter rest.

OK, I agree fighter jets are not used to track Terrorist. I never said they were nor anyone else and it's not related to this story on this thread which is to do with reconnaissance satellites. How did fighter-jets even get brought up?

The issue is how when spending on advanced observing satellites there is such a great demand for tracking nukes and terrorist killers and not enough for learnign science of discovery.

But on the topic of fighter jets.

I did note how the F22's cancellation and reduced and delayed orders of F35 show what low priority fighter jets have nowadays. But they aren't obsolete and definitely don't compete with NASA resources or other aspects in the study of science. Conventional warfare is not Obsolete as from the following examples:
-Falkland Islands Conflict
-Prevention of Genocide in Balkans Wars
-Operation Barras
-Somali Pirates
-Intervention in Libyan Revolution
-Possible intervention in Syria

Fighter jets would be vital for such operations quickly entering airspace with high-weight guided bombs, avoiding any air defences then quickly leaving the area again. F35 is NOT a pure dog-fighter, it has agility and speed typical of a dogfighter to allow it to avoid the great proliferation of cheap yet highly effective surface-to-air missiles around the world. It's speciality is quickly entering a hostile airspace, dropping a high yield munition and escaping. That is very different from the role of drone aircraft which is loitering over an airspace that has already been cleared, usually by fighters.

Drones do not yet have the capability to entirely take on roles like were needed to assist in the Libyan Revolution such as enforcing a no-fly zone. Maybe the next generation after this (20 years after F35 and the Reaper drones).

The "No Fly Zone" was a key part in stopping Gadaffi from crushing the rebellion and leading to him being overthrown from power. You need fighter jets for that. You need aircraft carriers for that unless you can somehow secure a reliable and safe airport (not in that region).

Realise the US Navy is unlike other navies as it has responsibilities to defend other countries. For example Japan by its constitution has an extremely limited ability to defend itself militarily, it is extremely dependent on the United States to defend from China, North Korea and so on. Similar situation with Taiwan/ROC and many Pacific Islands. America could topple not from being invaded but by its trading partners being merely attacked. Invade Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and cut off their oil supply. Cripple Japan and electrical consumer good trade is sabotaged. Control the north Atlantic (like the Kriegsmarine did in WWII) and America will wither on the vine.

For the many decades since the end of the Cold War there have been political negotiations for America's protectorates to be more self-sufficient in terms of defence but it is slow progress. Many elements in Japan are extremely wary of having a strong military power again, they are happy with a comparatively small self-defence force and dependence on the United States.

"the idea that the US is going to end up at war with any actual nation state with a professional army is fairly laughable these days."

That is precisely BECAUSE the United States has 11 aircraft carriers! You can't take away the aircraft carriers and conclude the same thing. And many groups are gunning for America and it's allies that it has sworn to protect. And realise USA has a huge sea border, right up and down the West Coast, out to Hawaii, the whole Gulf of Mexico, Florida, And up the East coast and with shared defence of Greenland and Iceland. Two aircraft Carriers were needed for the Falklands War and that was pushing things to the limit on what was a comparatively minor conflict (compared to something like a PRC invasion of Taiwan). America HAS been at war with a professional army in very recent history, twice with the Iraqi Army which was one of the top-5 largest armies in the world.

 

[bladester1]

I KNEW IT. I fucking new that would be the ending. Its a shame Drew quit half way through.

 

[tangoprime]

I think after recent events, we all know how this dark energy thing is going to turn out... they'll get their funding cut when they're not producing scientific results in time for a deadline, and they'll just put out a series of 3 reports saying it's caused by space magic. The reports are all very similar, however, the only true difference being the color of the cover sheet.

 

[MortisLegio]

I think after recent events, we all know how this dark energy thing is going to turn out... they'll get their funding cut when they're not producing scientific results in time for a deadline, and they'll just put out a series of 3 reports saying it's caused by space magic. The reports are all very similar, however, the only true difference being the color of the cover sheet.

Hey one of those reports stated that with an arbitrary amount of resources mankind could be saved.

OT: Using spy satellites to look into space. Seems like a good idea but I get the feeling NASA is just looking through the windows of Asari.

 

[Namehere]

That feel, when I realise we as a species have to spend more resources looking out for insane suicide bombers or nuclear-weapon proliferation than discovering the origins and wonders of the universe.

It's a not the best feel.

I'm not objecting to the reconnaissance, I'm objecting to the sate of the world that recon is so needed.

The real kick in the nuts is that the amount of money spent on defense by the US alone is pretty unnecessary. Particularly when the most prevalent threat is terrorism and not state vs. state warfare.

I'm sure F22's and F35's are very useful for infiltrating terrorist networks and gathering intelligence and that money couldn't be better spent on exploring the Universe.

Actually I'm afraid they are. People who are prepared to end their life to kill thousands are such a huge yet elusive threat.

And many people seem to think since the Cold War is over suddenly nukes aren't a problem. No. They are. Imminent nuclear war may not be as likely but there are still thousands of nuclear weapons still in active deployment and worse of all is how they are proliferating. Of particular concern is how Extremist elements in Pakistan may be able to steal or otherwise gain control of their nuclear weapons. Even an extremist revolution seizing control of the government or an already extremist government procuring their own nuclear weapons.

PS: F22 has been mostly abandoned as too expensive. F35 is in deployment as a pseudo-stealth fighter is needed with proliferation of cheap radar-warning technology. F-35 orders have been comparatively small compared to the previous generations. The main military aircraft investment is in unmanned high-endurance aircraft precisely for hunting down terrorist and monitoring nuclear proliferation.

I'm sorry. I'm not interested in starting a flame war, but everything you've stated regarding the need for reconnaissance, the presence of hostile insurgents and their detection through space based surveillance, is ridiculous. It is no less spurious then the CNN reports about the great successful defence of Israel by the Patriot missile. I would further add that the future of the F-35 is just as certain as that of Greece in the Euro Zone. And the F-35 is not presently deployed its still in its production/delivery phase. Its hard to comment on however given the way in which the plane was designed to be developed, phasing in new technology as it becomes available. Unfortunately there are serious concerns with under performance due to the weight of such technology among many other distinct concerns from likewise distinct interested parties.

As for terrorists... Just stop. You don't use fighter jets to get a terrorist. Terrorists move and weave among us, but they are not militant insurgents and don't act like them making a fighter jet strike a ridiculous waste of both resources and money in collateral damage, particularly in the western world. If you're referring to strikes on training camps and 'terrorist compounds' in places like Yemen, of late these have been conducted by unmanned air craft launching guided missiles. And comparing the sorts you see getting killed in these camps to anything in or around America, at the moment, is obtuse. Give it time though, Mexico's going to hell in a hand basket. Of course that won't lead to terrorism, it will lead to gorilla warfare along the US/Mexico border as cartels start killing the so-called 'minute men' and the military moves in more and more to attempt to curb their access. This will be unsuccessful of course, the cartels aren't fighting the military their running drugs. They don't need to destroy the lines, just punch a hole in them.

The US intelligence community as a whole owes a great deal to its citizens. And quite obviously such high powered surveillance-satellites being even discussed suggests either they have better or intend to replace it and their using this time to advertise that they had it. I'm simply pleased they chose to advertise by handing over this technology to NASA rather then warning fishermen away from where it crashes into the ocean after its expected lifespan.

Frankly just tanking the satellite in the drink would be a waste of money. This way NASA gets some - for it at least - new equipment and the intelligence agencies of the US get good propaganda, from look how cool our tech is to look how benevolent we are.

EDIT:
SORRY. Sorry. I didn't realize you'd gone on. I saw the first post and assumed - admittedly making me and you look like asses - that you were just banging the drum. I won't amend my post any really. But I realize you don't think fighter jets are the answer to terrorists. As for them being used in 'no fly zones,' for quite a few decades air power, fighters/fighter bombers/bombers have been in an economic 'death spiral' with each generation costing at least three times as much as the previous. Air power is a lazy general's crutch, compared to anti-air technologies like SAM sites. Perhaps you think everyone has radar stealth planes, but they don't. Gadafi wasn't poor but he fought poor enemies, his standards of weapons were no where near current never mind future standards of air power. And I assure you, not one of the few F-22s produced by the US was used in that conflict. The plane is financial disaster. As for the F-35, it wasn't there either, I missed Woodstock, it missed Libya. All of this suggests to me that when handling conflict in poorer nations, one need invest less in high technology. So unless you think China's about to declare ? and it ain't it wants you to be its economic slave because it had a good teacher at that sort of thing ? there isn't a great deal of point in investing in new planes. New guns though... A good infantry weapon and body armour? Maybe an effective APC/Battle Vehicle? Cheaper heavy air lift capacity and cheaper choppers for aid/medical/supply missions? These would be interesting avenues of study.