<p>Yes, but not in the exact way you think of.</p>
<p>To avoid light pollution it is better to go sideways.  If you are in a light-polluted city, there would still be light pollution at an altitude of 400ft (the maximum operating altitude of drones) And, moreover, amateur drones are not powerful enough to carry a telescope of any useful size. So you will find that driving a few miles out of town will be much more effective, and much cheaper.</p>
<p>On the other hand, water vapour in the atmosphere absorbs infra-red light. If you can take a &quot;drone&quot; up to 40000 ft, you would have a good location for infra-red astronomy.  You would just need a big &quot;drone&quot;. . . A 747 would be big enough. <a href="https://www.sofia.usra.edu/multimedia/image-gallery/gallery/observatory#1" rel="noreferrer">SOFIA</a> is just that: a telescope mounted on a jumbo jet to get above the water vapour in the lower atmosphere.</p>
<p>So, it's not practical to use an amateur drone to get above light pollution. It is practical to put a telescope on a plane but only for quite specialist observations.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-16T20:45:57.857Z
400 feet is the maximum altitude for drones?! Mavic Mini can fly at 3 km above sea level ([specs](https://www.dji.com/ru/mavic-mini/specs)), more powerful drones may be able to fly even higher. The optical payload is another question, of course: amateur drones aren't designed for such heavy palyoads.
Ruslan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-16T21:02:08.463Z
It is the legal limit in the UK, EU and USA.
James K
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-16T21:27:09.663Z
Hovering with a 747 is not quite possible yet :-) - some airplanes can do that though, see [Cobra maneuver](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_maneuver#Cobra_Hover).
B--rian
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-16T21:35:15.720Z
You don't really need to hover in order to operate a telescope for observing astronomical objects, a directional stability is enough. You may as well find it beneficial to fly in certain direction (e.g. west) so you have longer night.
fraxinus
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-17T00:07:38.407Z
`-1` for **a sweeping generalization leading to a misleading** if not incorrect answer. See for example answers to [How unusual is it for remotely piloted aircraft fly through commercial or general aviation airspace?](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/52599/14213) and [What is this NASA UAV, and what is its function?](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/49888) OP said "high quality drone" and you replaced it with "amateur toy quadcopter" because it was easier to answer that question than to take the OP's actual question seriously.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-17T13:37:48.540Z
@uhoh: James K *did* address putting a telescope on a plane. Most people's idea of "high-quality drone" is not a hundred-million-dollar repurposed military surveillance aircraft like that Global Hawk you linked. People who can afford that have much better options for avoiding light pollution anyway.
user2357112
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-17T15:18:42.077Z
@user2357112supportsMonica *and if one checks, one sees that I didn't say otherwise!* The question asks if it would work but the question does not ask about practicality. "Would it be possible...?" is simply that. If the question is "What is the capital of Assyria?" and one answers "Once you allow division by zero, all of your following results are suspect", it will get plenty of votes because people know that hidden divide-by-zeros is a common issue, and they will forget all about the question being about the capital of Assyria.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-17T15:21:43.660Z
@user2357112supportsMonica Some folks use questions as *opportunities* to write the answers they'd like to write, others see them as opportunities to answer the question as asked, and most folks are somewhere in the middle which is probably the right place to be if one has to be in one place. But in this case OP specified "high quality drone" and answering as if they hadn't said that is *suboptimal.*
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-17T16:37:52.993Z
@uhoh Of course "drone" can mean any remotely piloted aircraft.  It is probably possible to fly a 747 as a drone.  However I understand "high quality drone" as something like a DJI Matrice 210 RTK (retails for £10000) However these are still subject to regulations and a a 400ft ceiling, even if they can go higher.  I've addressed "would it work" taking into account the aim to get better star shots.  My conclusion is "no, it would not" because "for the same mone/effort put into going sideways you can get much better results".  But mentioned when getting on a plane is useful. Good answer.
James K
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-17T20:05:15.953Z
In Aviation SE the OP can ask "Would it be legal..." but here they've only asked *in toto* "*Would it be possible* to mount a telescope on a high quality drone and fly above the light pollution to get better star shots (if the wind allows it of course)?" and nobody has asked the OP for any clarification. NASA's Ikhana (see [here](https://phys.org/news/2018-06-nasa-flies-large-unmanned-aircraft.html) and [here](https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-075-DFRC.html) from [here](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/52599)) flew to 20,000 feet.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-17T20:12:01.030Z
NASA also flies a [Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/49888) The'd have to use a turret [like NASA did here](https://space.stackexchange.com/q/22411) or similar if the telescope were long, but something like the Dragonfly (see [here](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/18074) and references therein) which would really benefit from low sky brightness at 20,000 feet) would fit in a turret quite nicely! I find your quadcopter and 400 foot limit answer dismissive of reality and an incorrect answer. This is Stack Exchange, folks disagree sometimes.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-17T20:32:54.103Z
I've gone ahead and posted some of this as a new answer, thanks for the stimulating engagement!
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-16T06:32:26.610Z
2021-05-16T06:32:26.610Z
James K
<p>&quot;Above the light pollution&quot; is really high and the stratosphere is a good starting point, because most of the atmospheric light scattering happens in the troposphere. Quite a few technical and regulatory obstacles here.</p>
<p>On the other hand, directional instability (down to motor vibration) and astrophotography don't really play well. You need to maintain the direction of the optical system stable down to its angular resolution for the time of exposition. How about few micro-arc-seconds for like 15 minutes?</p>
<p>On a big, heavy airplane one can probably use some variation of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_optics" rel="noreferrer">adaptive optics</a> in addition to a really good pilot. Of course, this will make the telescope more complex and heavier, likely doubling the mass. Assuming you start with 20-40cm telescope, this puts quite a requirements on the drone specs.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=space%20telescope%20vibration%20control" rel="noreferrer">Space telescopes carry quite a deal of engineering effort in regard to vibrational control.</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-17T00:09:30.997Z
regulator addressed in  [How unusual is it for remotely piloted aircraft fly through commercial or general aviation airspace?](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/52599/14213) and obliquely in [What is this NASA UAV, and what is its function?](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/49888) As far as astronomy from planes than [SOFIA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_Observatory_for_Infrared_Astronomy), see answer(s) to [Why the thermal imaging of Mercury's surface requires a telescope on a jet flying through an eclipse?](https://space.stackexchange.com/q/22411/12102)
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-17T00:12:31.877Z
also see [Skyglow: a retrieval of the approximate radiant intensity function of ground-based light sources](https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/439/4/3405/1150977) found in comments at [Why (actually) is the night sky so bright in the city? How far up is that happening?](https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/q/8795)
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-16T22:08:58.457Z
2021-05-16T22:08:58.457Z
fraxinus
<p>I won't discuss the utility of doing this or if there are better ways to make observations with dark skies, but to your question, as asked,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Would it be possible to mount a telescope on a high quality drone and fly above the light pollution to get better star shots (if the wind allows it of course)?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>the answer is</p>
<h1>Yes, certainly!</h1>
<p><em>and don't let folks tell you otherwise!</em></p>
<hr />
<p>The Dragonfly is a beautiful instrument that is suited to image very low surface brightness objects because it uses specially coated lenses instead of mirrors with their surface roughness, and has no central obstructions and vanes which diffract light. It would benefit particularly from being above light pollution.</p>
<p>You can (and should probably) just put it on a mountain or on a balloon like the ASTHROS telescope as discussed in</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://space.stackexchange.com/q/45563">Would it have been cheaper and/or faster to put a James Webb-like Space Telescope on a balloon instead of a rocket?</a> (no, ASTHROS is fine but JWST is better in space; different wavlength ranges, sizes, etc.)</li>
</ul>
<p><em><strong>but you could</strong></em> put a telescope on a high quality drone, and that's all you asked!</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/6RZ1e.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/6RZ1em.jpg" alt="Firefly telescope" /></a> <a href="https://i.sstatic.net/eefC0.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/eefC0m.jpg" alt="Firefly telescope" /></a></p>
<p>click for larger</p>
<p>NASA has several drones that fly quite high. Their Ikhana, see</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://phys.org/news/2018-06-nasa-flies-large-unmanned-aircraft.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">NASA flies large unmanned aircraft in public airspace without chase plane for first time</a> from 2018</li>
<li><a href="https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-075-DFRC.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">NASA Armstrong Fact Sheet: Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration in the National Airspace System</a></li>
<li><a href="https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/52599">How unusual is it for remotely piloted aircraft fly through commercial or general aviation airspace?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/49888">What is this NASA UAV, and what is its function?</a></li>
</ul>
<p>flies to 20,000 feet in commercial airspace.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/x0AoH.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/x0AoHm.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a> <a href="https://i.sstatic.net/6pSdj.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/6pSdjm.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>click for larger</p>
<p>For telescopic observations from smallish NASA aircraft (i.e. not something big like SOFIA) they use a turret. See</p>
<ul>
<li><strong><a href="https://space.stackexchange.com/q/22411">Why the thermal imaging of Mercury's surface requires a telescope on a jet flying through an eclipse?</a></strong></li>
</ul>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/3lEHu.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/3lEHu.jpg" alt="NASA Jet with telescope turret" /></a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-18T22:40:32.600Z
Maybe I should ask it as a separate question: Do you know more about the [NASA’s WB-57F Jets](https://airbornescience.nasa.gov/aircraft/WB-57_-_JSC) and their role for astronomy? The telescopes at the nose of the jets is a very curious thing I have not heard about... Thanks for the hint!
B--rian
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-18T23:28:05.093Z
That's a great question! I don't know anything about this aircraft nor am I 100% sure it belongs to NASA. It's not every day that there's a solar eclipse of course, the infrared imaging system in it must have a "day job" as well. I don't know if there is also a visible light imaging system in it as well.Perhaps  it's was a prototype for [FLIR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward-looking_infrared) development and bought used? Please ask! Aviation SE is helpful identifying specific aircraft and the Space SE community is great at tracking down sources on all things related to NASA.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-18T23:34:08.633Z
Aviation: [What is this NASA UAV, and what is its function?](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/49888/14213) and [How did NASA Langley end up with the first 737?](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/64582/14213) and Space: [Why the thermal imaging of Mercury's surface requires a telescope on a jet flying through an eclipse?](https://space.stackexchange.com/q/22411/12102) and [What are the “NASA research assets” at Thule that were not recently destroyed by a meteor?](https://space.stackexchange.com/q/29878/12102) etc.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-18T23:38:37.763Z
and [How did the X-15 control attitude above the Kármán line?](https://space.stackexchange.com/q/31412/12102). But of course questions purely about astronomy (e.g. "*What observational astronomy was done with this airplane besides taking the temperature of Mercury?*") You'll have to explain that in the infrared SOFIA can do better and this one was used in this case [only because SOFIA looks to the side, not up](https://space.stackexchange.com/a/22412/12102). More history about NASA astronomy from air planes in [this excellent answer](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/27634/7982).
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-17T20:32:21.390Z
2021-05-17T20:43:30.873Z
2021-05-17T20:43:30.873Z
uhoh
<p>Would it be possible to mount a telescope on a high quality drone and fly above the light pollution to get better star shots (if the wind allows it of course)?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-16T02:23:40.290Z
Different, and in Space Exploration SE, but related: [Would it have been cheaper and/or faster to put a James Webb-like Space Telescope on a balloon instead of a rocket?](https://space.stackexchange.com/q/45563/12102) For the required altitude, see [How high does light pollution reach into the sky?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/14486/7982) and in Earth Science SE [Why (actually) is the night sky so bright in the city? How far up is that happening?](https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/q/8795/6031)
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-17T10:57:23.980Z
In some jurisdictions it is strictly illegal to fly drones at night (with hefty penalties if caught).
Evariste
<observational-astronomy><telescope><light-pollution>
Telescope on drones to escape light pollution?
K P
# Telescope on drones to escape light pollution?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-05-16)

Would it be possible to mount a telescope on a high quality drone and fly above the light pollution to get better star shots (if the wind allows it of course)?

**Tags:** observational-astronomy, telescope, light-pollution
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Different, and in Space Exploration SE, but related: [Would it have been cheaper and/or faster to put a James Webb-like Space Telescope on a balloon instead of a rocket?](https://space.stackexchange.com/q/45563/12102) For the required altitude, see [How high does light pollution reach into the sky?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/14486/7982) and in Earth Science SE [Why (actually) is the night sky so bright in the city? How far up is that happening?](https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/q/8795/6031)  
> **username_2**: In some jurisdictions it is strictly illegal to fly drones at night (with hefty penalties if caught).  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2021-05-16. Score: 26

Yes, but not in the exact way you think of.

To avoid light pollution it is better to go sideways. If you are in a light-polluted city, there would still be light pollution at an altitude of 400ft (the maximum operating altitude of drones) And, moreover, amateur drones are not powerful enough to carry a telescope of any useful size. So you will find that driving a few miles out of town will be much more effective, and much cheaper.

On the other hand, water vapour in the atmosphere absorbs infra-red light. If you can take a "drone" up to 40000 ft, you would have a good location for infra-red astronomy. You would just need a big "drone". . . A 747 would be big enough. [SOFIA](https://www.sofia.usra.edu/multimedia/image-gallery/gallery/observatory#1) is just that: a telescope mounted on a jumbo jet to get above the water vapour in the lower atmosphere.

So, it's not practical to use an amateur drone to get above light pollution. It is practical to put a telescope on a plane but only for quite specialist observations.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: 400 feet is the maximum altitude for drones?! Mavic Mini can fly at 3 km above sea level ([specs](https://www.dji.com/ru/mavic-mini/specs)), more powerful drones may be able to fly even higher. The optical payload is another question, of course: amateur drones aren't designed for such heavy palyoads.  
> **username_3**: It is the legal limit in the UK, EU and USA.  
> **username_5**: Hovering with a 747 is not quite possible yet :-) - some airplanes can do that though, see [Cobra maneuver](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_maneuver#Cobra_Hover).  
> **username_6**: You don't really need to hover in order to operate a telescope for observing astronomical objects, a directional stability is enough. You may as well find it beneficial to fly in certain direction (e.g. west) so you have longer night.  
> **username_1**: `-1` for **a sweeping generalization leading to a misleading** if not incorrect answer. See for example answers to [How unusual is it for remotely piloted aircraft fly through commercial or general aviation airspace?](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/52599/14213) and [What is this NASA UAV, and what is its function?](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/49888) OP said "high quality drone" and you replaced it with "amateur toy quadcopter" because it was easier to answer that question than to take the OP's actual question seriously.  
> **username_7**: @uhoh: James K *did* address putting a telescope on a plane. Most people's idea of "high-quality drone" is not a hundred-million-dollar repurposed military surveillance aircraft like that Global Hawk you linked. People who can afford that have much better options for avoiding light pollution anyway.  
> **username_1**: @user2357112supportsMonica *and if one checks, one sees that I didn't say otherwise!* The question asks if it would work but the question does not ask about practicality. "Would it be possible...?" is simply that. If the question is "What is the capital of Assyria?" and one answers "Once you allow division by zero, all of your following results are suspect", it will get plenty of votes because people know that hidden divide-by-zeros is a common issue, and they will forget all about the question being about the capital of Assyria.  
> **username_1**: @user2357112supportsMonica Some folks use questions as *opportunities* to write the answers they'd like to write, others see them as opportunities to answer the question as asked, and most folks are somewhere in the middle which is probably the right place to be if one has to be in one place. But in this case OP specified "high quality drone" and answering as if they hadn't said that is *suboptimal.*  
> **username_3**: @uhoh Of course "drone" can mean any remotely piloted aircraft.  It is probably possible to fly a 747 as a drone.  However I understand "high quality drone" as something like a DJI Matrice 210 RTK (retails for £10000) However these are still subject to regulations and a a 400ft ceiling, even if they can go higher.  I've addressed "would it work" taking into account the aim to get better star shots.  My conclusion is "no, it would not" because "for the same mone/effort put into going sideways you can get much better results".  But mentioned when getting on a plane is useful. Good answer.  
> **username_1**: In Aviation SE the OP can ask "Would it be legal..." but here they've only asked *in toto* "*Would it be possible* to mount a telescope on a high quality drone and fly above the light pollution to get better star shots (if the wind allows it of course)?" and nobody has asked the OP for any clarification. NASA's Ikhana (see [here](https://phys.org/news/2018-06-nasa-flies-large-unmanned-aircraft.html) and [here](https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-075-DFRC.html) from [here](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/52599)) flew to 20,000 feet.  
> **username_1**: NASA also flies a [Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/49888) The'd have to use a turret [like NASA did here](https://space.stackexchange.com/q/22411) or similar if the telescope were long, but something like the Dragonfly (see [here](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/18074) and references therein) which would really benefit from low sky brightness at 20,000 feet) would fit in a turret quite nicely! I find your quadcopter and 400 foot limit answer dismissive of reality and an incorrect answer. This is Stack Exchange, folks disagree sometimes.  
> **username_1**: I've gone ahead and posted some of this as a new answer, thanks for the stimulating engagement!  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2021-05-16. Score: 5

"Above the light pollution" is really high and the stratosphere is a good starting point, because most of the atmospheric light scattering happens in the troposphere. Quite a few technical and regulatory obstacles here.

On the other hand, directional instability (down to motor vibration) and astrophotography don't really play well. You need to maintain the direction of the optical system stable down to its angular resolution for the time of exposition. How about few micro-arc-seconds for like 15 minutes?

On a big, heavy airplane one can probably use some variation of [adaptive optics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_optics) in addition to a really good pilot. Of course, this will make the telescope more complex and heavier, likely doubling the mass. Assuming you start with 20-40cm telescope, this puts quite a requirements on the drone specs.

[Space telescopes carry quite a deal of engineering effort in regard to vibrational control.](https://www.google.com/search?q=space%20telescope%20vibration%20control)

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: regulator addressed in  [How unusual is it for remotely piloted aircraft fly through commercial or general aviation airspace?](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/52599/14213) and obliquely in [What is this NASA UAV, and what is its function?](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/49888) As far as astronomy from planes than [SOFIA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_Observatory_for_Infrared_Astronomy), see answer(s) to [Why the thermal imaging of Mercury's surface requires a telescope on a jet flying through an eclipse?](https://space.stackexchange.com/q/22411/12102)  
> **username_1**: also see [Skyglow: a retrieval of the approximate radiant intensity function of ground-based light sources](https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/439/4/3405/1150977) found in comments at [Why (actually) is the night sky so bright in the city? How far up is that happening?](https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/q/8795)  

---

### Answer by username_1 on 2021-05-17. Score: 2

I won't discuss the utility of doing this or if there are better ways to make observations with dark skies, but to your question, as asked,

> Would it be possible to mount a telescope on a high quality drone and fly above the light pollution to get better star shots (if the wind allows it of course)?

the answer is

# Yes, certainly!

*and don't let folks tell you otherwise!*

---

The Dragonfly is a beautiful instrument that is suited to image very low surface brightness objects because it uses specially coated lenses instead of mirrors with their surface roughness, and has no central obstructions and vanes which diffract light. It would benefit particularly from being above light pollution.

You can (and should probably) just put it on a mountain or on a balloon like the ASTHROS telescope as discussed in

* [Would it have been cheaper and/or faster to put a James Webb-like Space Telescope on a balloon instead of a rocket?](https://space.stackexchange.com/q/45563) (no, ASTHROS is fine but JWST is better in space; different wavlength ranges, sizes, etc.)

***but you could*** put a telescope on a high quality drone, and that's all you asked!

[![Firefly telescope](https://i.sstatic.net/6RZ1em.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/6RZ1e.jpg) [![Firefly telescope](https://i.sstatic.net/eefC0m.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/eefC0.jpg)

click for larger

NASA has several drones that fly quite high. Their Ikhana, see

* [NASA flies large unmanned aircraft in public airspace without chase plane for first time](https://phys.org/news/2018-06-nasa-flies-large-unmanned-aircraft.html) from 2018
* [NASA Armstrong Fact Sheet: Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration in the National Airspace System](https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-075-DFRC.html)
* [How unusual is it for remotely piloted aircraft fly through commercial or general aviation airspace?](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/52599)
* [What is this NASA UAV, and what is its function?](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/49888)

flies to 20,000 feet in commercial airspace.

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/x0AoHm.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/x0AoH.jpg) [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/6pSdjm.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/6pSdj.jpg)

click for larger

For telescopic observations from smallish NASA aircraft (i.e. not something big like SOFIA) they use a turret. See

* **[Why the thermal imaging of Mercury's surface requires a telescope on a jet flying through an eclipse?](https://space.stackexchange.com/q/22411)**

[![NASA Jet with telescope turret](https://i.sstatic.net/3lEHu.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/3lEHu.jpg)

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: Maybe I should ask it as a separate question: Do you know more about the [NASA’s WB-57F Jets](https://airbornescience.nasa.gov/aircraft/WB-57_-_JSC) and their role for astronomy? The telescopes at the nose of the jets is a very curious thing I have not heard about... Thanks for the hint!  
> **username_1**: That's a great question! I don't know anything about this aircraft nor am I 100% sure it belongs to NASA. It's not every day that there's a solar eclipse of course, the infrared imaging system in it must have a "day job" as well. I don't know if there is also a visible light imaging system in it as well.Perhaps  it's was a prototype for [FLIR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward-looking_infrared) development and bought used? Please ask! Aviation SE is helpful identifying specific aircraft and the Space SE community is great at tracking down sources on all things related to NASA.  
> **username_1**: Aviation: [What is this NASA UAV, and what is its function?](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/49888/14213) and [How did NASA Langley end up with the first 737?](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/64582/14213) and Space: [Why the thermal imaging of Mercury's surface requires a telescope on a jet flying through an eclipse?](https://space.stackexchange.com/q/22411/12102) and [What are the “NASA research assets” at Thule that were not recently destroyed by a meteor?](https://space.stackexchange.com/q/29878/12102) etc.  
> **username_1**: and [How did the X-15 control attitude above the Kármán line?](https://space.stackexchange.com/q/31412/12102). But of course questions purely about astronomy (e.g. "*What observational astronomy was done with this airplane besides taking the temperature of Mercury?*") You'll have to explain that in the infrared SOFIA can do better and this one was used in this case [only because SOFIA looks to the side, not up](https://space.stackexchange.com/a/22412/12102). More history about NASA astronomy from air planes in [this excellent answer](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/27634/7982).  

---

