LRO has a nominal resolution of 0.5m from a 50 km orbit. This compares to the KH-7 series of spy satellites that had a resolution of 1.2m from 150km.
LRO weighs 1000kg, of which 600 kg is fuel, and only 100kg is payload (ALL the instruments). The primary mirror diameter is 19.5 cm, and the camera consumes <10W of power, with a mass of 16.4 kg. Total spacecraft power is 400W
KH-7 weighed 2000kg (but did have to enable a re-entry capsule to carry film back to earth).
More modern spy satellites are digital and make better comparisons. For example the KH-11 series acheived a resolution of 0.15m, but have a primary mirror 2.3m in diameter. Wikipaedia reports that this was similar in size and layout to the Hubble Space telescope (11,110kg, 5680W)!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spy_satellite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope
If NASA had the budget to put a Hubble-class telescope into orbit around the moon, you bet it would kick ass.
Moral of the story - alweays compare apples with apples, and check facts before opening mouth...
Space/Science » in reply to LRO, another Nasa failure?
A big telescope is always better than a little telescope.
The whole thread (26 posts)
- Apollo 14 landing site with Cone Crater and a trail ! From LRO
- re: Apollo 14 landing site with Cone Crater and a trail ! From LRO
- Shepard and Mitchell missed Cone Crater.
- A question regarding TO from the lunar surface.
- Half a Gee
- Wow. Thanks. (n/t)
- Half a Gee
- and the "man did not walk on the Moon" con artists are laughing all the way to the bank
- LRO, another Nasa failure?