Starfire Tracking Telescope Details

Bradbury Stamm ^

[MichaelP]

StarFire Telescope Housing

The Starfire Optical Range (SOR) at Kirtland Air Force Base has installed the world's largest telescope capable of tracking low earth-orbiting satellites. The telescope has a 3.5-meter diameter primary mirror and is protected by a unique retracting cylindrical enclosure that allows the telescope to operate in the open air. The SOR is a world-class optical research facility located on a hilltop site 6,240 feet above sea level in the southeastern portion of Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico.

A unique feature of the 3.5-meter telescope is the protective enclosure (or dome) consisting of three 9-foot high cylinders each 70 feet in diameter that collapse around the telescope through a 35-foot diameter shuttered opening in the roof. The telescope, gimbal, optics, and support structures weigh more than 100 tons. The telescope sits on a massive steel-reinforced concrete pier weighing more than 700 tons, which is isolated from the rest of the facility and anchored in the bed rock with long steel rods. Bradbury Stamm had to build the facility and concrete pier to extremely exacting standards.

Location	Kirtland AFB, New Mexico
Cost	$ 5.8 million
Area	21,600 SF
Completion	1992

---

About Bradbury Stamm | Project Categories | Subcontractor Information
News | Employment | Contact Us | Home

 

DESIGNED AND POWERED BY MIS, INC.
©2001 BRADBURY STAMM, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

 

[MichaelP]

FYI

[Joe Hadenuf]

bttt

[billorites]

I want one.

[First_Salute]

Bump.

[Tijeras_Slim]

Walk over the Manzano Mountains about 5 miles directly east and have a beer at Slim's house.

I've seen them strobing a big green laser skyward at times. I've seen it up close too, doing some unrelated work at that end of the base.

[Wright is right!]

"I want one."

Heck, at THAT price, why not get a matched pair so they could keep each other company.

Heck, even back in the 70's, NASA had tracking cameras that could track a golf ball at 60 miles. Said so publicly, and many a launch was televised with 'em.

Michael

[coloradan]

3.5 meters aperture is 35 times larger than the 10 cm aperture need to get 1 arcsecond of angular resolution, so its diffraction-limited resolution is 1/35 arcsecond. Suppose the orbiter flew directly overhead at an altitude of 210,000 feet, or 70,000 yards. As rifle shooters know, 1 minute of arc is about 1" at 100 yards, and a second being 1/60 of a minute, would be an inch at 60 x 100 = 6000 yards. 1/35 of a second would be an inch at 35 x 6000 = 210,000 yards. Since the orbiter was three times closer, "only" 70,000 yards away, the picture should contain details to 1/3 inch scale.

In fact, the orbiter was not overhead and also not as low as 210,000 feet, so the distance was greater. Even three times greater, the resolution would still be on the 1" scale, assuming no atmospheric distortions. Typically, the best atmosphere limits resolution to about 0.1 arc seconds, 3.5 times worse than the 1/35 second just calculated. So the picture would then show details down to 3.5" size scale, which is smaller than the size of a single tile.

[Squantos]

Wow.....Has anyone seen these pics posted yet ? Where ? Link ? .......BTTT !!

Stay Safe !

[Blueflag]

Now, just for grins, do it the other way. Suppose you have a roughly 3.5m aperture and an 80+ inch focal length, what would the resolution be from space to earth? Assume low earth orbit, polar trajectory... wink wink

[coloradan]

The photos are probably classified, having come from military sources. I understand the Challenger pics were supposed to be classified but made it on the evening news anyway. But my post contains high-school-level physics arguments, which are probably unknown only to those who came from gummit skools.

[Squantos]

Our EOD range right below that site has a 3000 pound demo limit. We used to knock that puppy off kilter and get our butts chew royal. We had to add em to our checklist and inform them so they could lock it down when we detonated a shot of that size.......

You remember hearing those little booms don't ya Slim ?......that was me :o)

Stay Safe !

[lepton]

Typically, the best atmosphere limits resolution

If they're used for taking pictures of objects in space, they undoubtedly have a reactive lens which would compensate for most atmospheric distortion.

[coloradan]

F.L. doesn't matter and the resolution looking down is the same as the resolution looking up - mere inches. Not counting digital resolution enhancement, nor adaptive-optic turbulence compensation.

[Squantos]

LOL !......Stay Safe !

[coloradan]

Undoubtedly.

[balrog666]

Also, by combining several frames of video with mapped reference points, the resolution can be substantially improved and even smaller features can be displayed.

[Kay Soze]

Amazing considering the lousy web cam corders NASA uses to document their launches!

My kid is 10 and is quite good at video cam work with my little Sony.

NASA should hire him to setup a series of cameras to document Shuttle launches as their PHDs seem incapable of doing it!

[The_Victor]

Don't forget though, the resolution calculation is best case. Add the moving target, plasma plume, tracking mechanism vibrations, and the "resolution" goes down.

[Tijeras_Slim]

So it was you introducing the occasional "variable" into my data. I used to do some seismic testing at the FACT site.

Regards, Slim

[ConservativeLawyer]

Great info. Thanks for posting this. Where, but FreeRepublic can you find all this usful info so quickly.