3 ms·

This is outdated model regarding space telescopes. With radically cheaper launches, it's becoming quite possible - not now, but somewhat soon - to actually ser

by avmich 7y ago

This is outdated model regarding space telescopes. With radically cheaper launches, it's becoming quite possible - not now, but somewhat soon - to actually service telescopes, with conditions superior to those under which the Hubble was serviced by Shuttle teams. With radically cheaper launches, it's not necessary to ensure the 'scope runs 24/7 for decades without regular maintenance. It can even be replaced regularly; including by bringing it to Earth, servicing it and sending back. Launch prices are going to drop, but so is the necessity to be extremely reliable for the space equipment, for the same two reasons: 1) it's comparatively easy to get to it for a service and 2) it's comparatively easy to just send a replacement if needed. With space manufacturing advancements still ahead of us - we didn't really experimented with making telescopes in orbit - it's not clear if space telescopes won't outperform terran ones. Space telescopes are going to have advantages like "atmosphere doesn't block part of the spectrum" and "there is no need to make a big structure capable withstanding 1g gravity". It's still crucially important to be able to do terran-based astronomy, and that's a problem, but there is no doubt that the astronomy revolution which started with Hubble still has major advancements to have in the near future.

nickik 7y ago
Also we are gone move into types of systems where its not one thing anymore. We increasingly telescopes that are consistent of multiple parts sometimes including things like a sun shade that operates far away from the rest of the parts. All of these things are only gone be possible once launch prices are cheaper and Starlink (or something like it) is a major part of how that can happen.
Rebelgecko 7y ago
Radically cheaper launches will still be significantly more expensive than current maintenance contracts. Even if we have infinitely reusable rockets in the future, you're still looking at millions of $ in fuel costs for a servicing trip. I am personally not as optimistic about "soon". If you send a technician out to the Earth-Sun L2 point (where JWST will be) so that she can throw some grease on a gear or spray WD-40 on a reaction wheel, she'll be 4 times further from Earth than any human has ever gone. Although there may be some synergy with future Lunar/Martian missions, there's a lot of work that needs to be done to figure out how to do that safely. I think L2 is the safest Lagrange point w.r.t radiation, but it's still potentially deadly. >"there is no need to make a big structure capable withstanding 1g gravity". While the overall structure may not need to withstand 1g continuously, you still need to design it to as much as 6 Gs of acceleration during launch (as well as significant lateral acceleration, and occasional shocks in the dozens or hundreds of gs).

by avmich 7y ago

nickik 7y ago

Also we are gone move into types of systems where its not one thing anymore. We increasingly telescopes that are consistent of multiple parts sometimes including things like a sun shade that operates far away from the rest of the parts. All of these things are only gone be possible once launch prices are cheaper and Starlink (or something like it) is a major part of how that can happen.

Rebelgecko 7y ago

Radically cheaper launches will still be significantly more expensive than current maintenance contracts. Even if we have infinitely reusable rockets in the future, you're still looking at millions of $ in fuel costs for a servicing trip. I am personally not as optimistic about "soon". If you send a technician out to the Earth-Sun L2 point (where JWST will be) so that she can throw some grease on a gear or spray WD-40 on a reaction wheel, she'll be 4 times further from Earth than any human has ever gone. Although there may be some synergy with future Lunar/Martian missions, there's a lot of work that needs to be done to figure out how to do that safely. I think L2 is the safest Lagrange point w.r.t radiation, but it's still potentially deadly. >"there is no need to make a big structure capable withstanding 1g gravity". While the overall structure may not need to withstand 1g continuously, you still need to design it to as much as 6 Gs of acceleration during launch (as well as significant lateral acceleration, and occasional shocks in the dozens or hundreds of gs).