Paolo Amoroso
Sep 5 2008, 03:03 PM
Back in the early 1980s I read somewhere, possibly in Sky & Telescope, about the Amateur Space Telescope project. I sent an inquiry and got back some copies of a brochure. I still have them somewhere, but so far I was unable to find them.
The project, run by a group of Troy University (New York) students named Independent Space Research Group, also with international members, called for building a 50 cm space telescope with auxiliary equipment such as cameras and a photometer. It was expected to have a resolution of 0.02". It was to be launched in 1985 by a Shuttle flight and operated by amateur astronomers. Images would have been received with some sort of antenna/radio equipment connected to a TV set. The project was funded by donations and private money.
Since I never heard about the project later, I assume it failed. But I always wondered why. Technological issues? Funding? Or maybe the digital revolution in amateur astronomy imaging made it largely obsolete?
Paolo Amoroso
stevesliva
Sep 5 2008, 05:01 PM
By "Troy University" you mean RPI, now less acronymically preferring Rensselaer. And of course once you get the name of the college correct, you can Google it a bit easier.
http://astro.umsystem.edu/atm/ARCHIVES/SEP96/msg00197.html
Del Palmer
Sep 5 2008, 05:59 PM
QUOTE (Paolo Amoroso @ Sep 5 2008, 04:03 PM)

It was expected to have a resolution of 0.02".
A resolution of 20 milliarcsecs?! No wonder the project failed -- their expectations were set a little too high.
Paolo Amoroso
Sep 5 2008, 06:17 PM
QUOTE (stevesliva @ Sep 5 2008, 07:01 PM)

By "Troy University" you mean RPI, now less acronymically preferring Rensselaer. And of course once you get the name of the college correct, you can Google it a bit easier.
http://astro.umsystem.edu/atm/ARCHIVES/SEP96/msg00197.htmlIf I recall correctly, the brochure only mentioned Troy, not Rensselaer. Thanks for the info.
Paolo Amoroso
Toma B
Sep 5 2008, 08:51 PM
I can still remember how happy I was when I first saw this.
Maybe it was not such a bad idea....but...
ISS-AT or
ISS-AT