Hacker News Reader

Comment by mr_overalls | Hacker News Reader

Prime example: the NRO donated two unused spy satellites to NASA, each more powerful than the Hubble Telescope.

https://www.space.com/16000-spy-satellites-space-telescopes-...

I read an interview with an NRO scientist, who described his group as following carefully the progress of the Hubble team who were independently solving many of the same problems their teams had solved earlier. From a national security perspective, they had to sit on their hands and not offer any help, but from an engineering perspective, they valued having another team do it to see if they would validate their design by coming up with similar solutions.

Sounds super interesting, do you have a link?

Is there an overview of the differences in design choices made?

Probably shaping the lens/mirror correctly?

I love this story. Reminds me of Contact, one of my favorite movie quotes of all time:

'First rule of government spending: why build one when you can have two for twice the price?'

One of my favourite movie quotes ever. Up there with “the only winning move is not to play” from WarGames.

Cut from the same cloth my friend!

Unless they also donated launch costs, and $90 million per year to run it[1], it's no surprise that they're not actually using it. It's small compared to the overall budget, but not free.

[1] https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy_2018...

Has anybody asked Elon Musk if he wants to show off what a Falcon Heavy can do and maybe get some other billionaire to pitch in for operating capital?

Those were mirror and optics/satellite body assemblies, not two fully completed unused spy satellites. The electronics, power systems and communications systems were entirely absent.

Aren't those more or less off the shelf parts these days? NASA should have the know-how to finish the final details on a satellite like that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com