Well...we already did...a lot...not with the Hubble, but with a whole series of advanced KH-11/12 imaging spy satellites that were all based on pretty much exactly the same telescope as the Hubble...except optimized for taking images of the ground and not the sky. This video should definitely be talking about that. Edit...yup, they got it in right at the end. LOL
The HST was built for the same contractors for the KH satellites, Lockheed Martin for the spacecraft and Perkin Elmer for the optics, so there is some connection. But one of the next NASA missions, the Roman Space Telescope, will have a stronger connection due to be one of two telescopes the NRO donated to NASA. But neither of those telescopes can't be use for terrestrial observation due to a condition at the moment of the donation.
The KH satellites were first. They based the design of the Hubble on the KH-11. But I think the forgot to correct for the mirror sag due to gravity when aiming that design the other way.
Without having watched the video yet, wasn't the Hubble essentially just the US intelligence community going - "Hey NASA, we have this spare mirror/telescope that we don't need, guys want it for a space telescope"
Well the saturation of radiation detectors led to the discovery of the Van Allen belts, because there were regions of the orbit of one early satellite where the detectors dropped count to zero, and they thought they were faulty, but Van Allen realised that they actually were being saturated, proven on the next version by having Geiger tubes that were incredibly insensitive, and they showed the high radiation level in those belts were not an instrument malfunction.
I hope you cover the new BobbiBroccoli documentary on Cold Fusion - "The Men Who Promised the Impossible: Unlimited Energy". Part 1 released 4-5 days ago. Not sure when Part 2 will come out, or how many parts there will be in this series. But I would think seeing your insights and takes on this topic would be immensely interesting!
7:50 non-electricity generating nuclear reactors are often used to make medical isotopes. There is one under construction that advertises generating medical isotopes as its main function.
He knows that. He specifically said a nuclear _power plant._ Power plants are much bigger than the small reactors used for that, hence why he said it would be overkill.
You need to review Helion! One of the fusion reactor companies that are close to making a commercially viable reactor! Helion is what got me to choose nuclear physics as a career choice! And you of course, love your channel!
Using something hubble like as spy sat probably works better at high orbit but lower than geostationary and not over the equator. That way it can still scan the most of the whole earth but at very low relative groundspeeds.
I predict at the start of the video, that if the Hubble Telescope were aimed at the earth, all its photocells would be blasted. A minute later: okay, I'm probably wrong.
Even though the starfield is pretty stationary with regards to the Earth's orbital track, the fact that Hubble is an object in orbit has implications. That is to say the the Hubble, like mentioned, has to swivel as it orbits to stay pointed at a certain target. It sounds like it isn't crazy out of the ability but may fail like 10^2 magnitude.
the major difference between hubble and "earth observation" satellites, both spy satellites and those used for mapping, isnt (exclusively) tracking, its orbits. most are in polar/sun-synchronous so their relative motion to the surface is significantly reduced. weather satellites are usually in geostationary orbits, which is obviously even better. problem is that higher and more complex are more expensive, hubble is on basically the cheapest orbit because its not relevant to its mission.
Sun synchronous orbits aren't particularly slower over the surface compared to other low orbits. The point is that they're at just the right altitude and inclination that orbital precession rotates the plane of the orbit around the earth once per year, so that the satellite can always be over some portion of the earth where the sun is setting or rising, meaning it isn't wasting time on the night side of the planet where it's too dark to take any pictures. This is doubly nice for scientists because it means that the illumination conditions for all observations are the same. On the other hand, it's a disadvantage for spy satellites since if the enemy realizes that you're only taking pictures around sunrise and sunset, they can more easily hide things. Geostationary is useful in that it gives you 24/7 coverage of a specific portion of the planet, useful for weather or broadcasting television, but has the disadvantage of distance, being almost 100 times further from the ground than low orbit, and so it becomes pretty useless if you want high resolution imagery.
This one just made me wonder what the theoretical max resolution would be for a satellite image... I found lots of discussion about the max allowed resolution.. But theoretically what is the best they could do? What physics limits would they run into? I'm betting they could get really good if they use modern "super zoom" algorithms along with wicked tracking and lenses..
Is it possible to rotate a mirror in front of the aperture to reflect light towards it so you don't have to rotate the entire telescope? I imagine this would fail for some reason beyond my smooth brain.
The imaging satellites are managed and operated by the National Reconnaissance Office. As far as I know, the NSA does not operate any satellites...but of course, they could do so secretly...but even the big SIGINT satellites like Orion and Mentor are technically operated by the NRO, even though almost all of the product of those satellites probably ends up at the NSA anyway.
@@iKvetch558 The NRO keeps several organizations, including the NSA, up to date in real time. They even release/declassify a lot of the information and data to the public on a regular basis. Google Earth/maps, and similar mapping and satellite imagery software and sites get a large chunk of their data from the NRO, and its international equivalents.
I recommend a reaction to the ant walkers of Hiroshima. Obviously about nuclear weapons not power but worth the reaction. It's a very harrowing video though. Truly the aftermath is an affront to God if you believe in one.
If I have a video recommendation and it gets ignored, should I repost it on the new video or would it be annoying? I found a funny short: ua-cam.com/users/shortsoXef1Ew_ZfA?si=EFy2OTixrXSMKCck
Jeez, it's almost like this guy's a nuclear engineer the way he talks about nuclear reactors so much
That's mean, I demand an Apollo G
@@jabbra1837I see what you did there
I think he has a little over 10 years in the commercial nuclear power industry.
@@reclaimer2019 he doesn’t claim to know everything nuclear power but he can certainly share some knowledge
@@GoTurboi am mad you didn't say I see Watt you did there
Well...we already did...a lot...not with the Hubble, but with a whole series of advanced KH-11/12 imaging spy satellites that were all based on pretty much exactly the same telescope as the Hubble...except optimized for taking images of the ground and not the sky. This video should definitely be talking about that.
Edit...yup, they got it in right at the end. LOL
The HST was built for the same contractors for the KH satellites, Lockheed Martin for the spacecraft and Perkin Elmer for the optics, so there is some connection. But one of the next NASA missions, the Roman Space Telescope, will have a stronger connection due to be one of two telescopes the NRO donated to NASA.
But neither of those telescopes can't be use for terrestrial observation due to a condition at the moment of the donation.
The KH satellites were first. They based the design of the Hubble on the KH-11. But I think the forgot to correct for the mirror sag due to gravity when aiming that design the other way.
Without having watched the video yet, wasn't the Hubble essentially just the US intelligence community going - "Hey NASA, we have this spare mirror/telescope that we don't need, guys want it for a space telescope"
Well the saturation of radiation detectors led to the discovery of the Van Allen belts, because there were regions of the orbit of one early satellite where the detectors dropped count to zero, and they thought they were faulty, but Van Allen realised that they actually were being saturated, proven on the next version by having Geiger tubes that were incredibly insensitive, and they showed the high radiation level in those belts were not an instrument malfunction.
I hope you cover the new BobbiBroccoli documentary on Cold Fusion - "The Men Who Promised the Impossible: Unlimited Energy". Part 1 released 4-5 days ago. Not sure when Part 2 will come out, or how many parts there will be in this series. But I would think seeing your insights and takes on this topic would be immensely interesting!
7:50 non-electricity generating nuclear reactors are often used to make medical isotopes. There is one under construction that advertises generating medical isotopes as its main function.
He knows that. He specifically said a nuclear _power plant._ Power plants are much bigger than the small reactors used for that, hence why he said it would be overkill.
I love that you’ve been taking on XKCD. You always have good input.
New plan: use a nuclear reactor to make tea.
Call it an energy drink ... just go a bit light on what TYPE of energy
I mean... If your power comes from a nuclear power plant, you kinda do whenever you boil water?
Unless you have a gas stove, I guess.
You need to review Helion! One of the fusion reactor companies that are close to making a commercially viable reactor! Helion is what got me to choose nuclear physics as a career choice! And you of course, love your channel!
Using something hubble like as spy sat probably works better at high orbit but lower than geostationary and not over the equator.
That way it can still scan the most of the whole earth but at very low relative groundspeeds.
I predict at the start of the video, that if the Hubble Telescope were aimed at the earth, all its photocells would be blasted. A minute later: okay, I'm probably wrong.
now i wonder what we'd see if one of the best spy satellites were pointed at Pluto
might be very blurry, sort of a nearsighted thing
XKCD forgot about exposure time adding to the motion blur. The motion blur would be washed out by overexposure.
Not very explicitly, but it was glossed over in his wording. 2:40 "any reasonable length exposure"
Even though the starfield is pretty stationary with regards to the Earth's orbital track, the fact that Hubble is an object in orbit has implications. That is to say the the Hubble, like mentioned, has to swivel as it orbits to stay pointed at a certain target. It sounds like it isn't crazy out of the ability but may fail like 10^2 magnitude.
the major difference between hubble and "earth observation" satellites, both spy satellites and those used for mapping, isnt (exclusively) tracking, its orbits. most are in polar/sun-synchronous so their relative motion to the surface is significantly reduced. weather satellites are usually in geostationary orbits, which is obviously even better. problem is that higher and more complex are more expensive, hubble is on basically the cheapest orbit because its not relevant to its mission.
Sun synchronous orbits aren't particularly slower over the surface compared to other low orbits. The point is that they're at just the right altitude and inclination that orbital precession rotates the plane of the orbit around the earth once per year, so that the satellite can always be over some portion of the earth where the sun is setting or rising, meaning it isn't wasting time on the night side of the planet where it's too dark to take any pictures. This is doubly nice for scientists because it means that the illumination conditions for all observations are the same. On the other hand, it's a disadvantage for spy satellites since if the enemy realizes that you're only taking pictures around sunrise and sunset, they can more easily hide things.
Geostationary is useful in that it gives you 24/7 coverage of a specific portion of the planet, useful for weather or broadcasting television, but has the disadvantage of distance, being almost 100 times further from the ground than low orbit, and so it becomes pretty useless if you want high resolution imagery.
This one just made me wonder what the theoretical max resolution would be for a satellite image... I found lots of discussion about the max allowed resolution.. But theoretically what is the best they could do? What physics limits would they run into? I'm betting they could get really good if they use modern "super zoom" algorithms along with wicked tracking and lenses..
I want to learn more about this germanium detector.
Ooh cant wait
Is it possible to rotate a mirror in front of the aperture to reflect light towards it so you don't have to rotate the entire telescope? I imagine this would fail for some reason beyond my smooth brain.
There are several Hubble type telescopes pointed at earth operated by the NSA
The imaging satellites are managed and operated by the National Reconnaissance Office. As far as I know, the NSA does not operate any satellites...but of course, they could do so secretly...but even the big SIGINT satellites like Orion and Mentor are technically operated by the NRO, even though almost all of the product of those satellites probably ends up at the NSA anyway.
However, those are designed for the task. No argument, just adding to your comment. 😊
@@iKvetch558 The NRO keeps several organizations, including the NSA, up to date in real time. They even release/declassify a lot of the information and data to the public on a regular basis. Google Earth/maps, and similar mapping and satellite imagery software and sites get a large chunk of their data from the NRO, and its international equivalents.
What if a telescope was orbiting the moon aimed at the earth…..?
Day 2 of asking Tyler to cover the soccer team that got uranium poisoning!
I recommend a reaction to the ant walkers of Hiroshima. Obviously about nuclear weapons not power but worth the reaction. It's a very harrowing video though. Truly the aftermath is an affront to God if you believe in one.
Have a great watch!😊
We would see that the earth is flat!!!!
Lmao
Day 2 of asking mr. Folse to react to “I did a thing”
If I have a video recommendation and it gets ignored, should I repost it on the new video or would it be annoying?
I found a funny short: ua-cam.com/users/shortsoXef1Ew_ZfA?si=EFy2OTixrXSMKCck
39 min
Damn not first.