7 ms·
If we can make space travel cheap enough to get more Hubble-like telescopes up there, then yes, this. I believe that's part of the goal of SpaceX
by marcus_holmes 6y ago
If we can make space travel cheap enough to get more Hubble-like telescopes up there, then yes, this.
I believe that's part of the goal of SpaceX
- wbronitsky 6y agoYes, but the point is that we should do that first before polluting the night sky. There are also reasons for humans and animals to not want new, moving stars for reasons other than pure utility. At the very least, these shiny beacons are an insulting advertisement for Musk. Next, people will be defending a Pepsi ad on the moon or something. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/04/pepsi-advertisement-space/587608/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/04/pepsi-ad...
- simion314 6y agoI am sure we will not have the space tech soon that can build giant telescopes in space, Hubble is small compared with the larger telescopes on the ground, and from what we can see today it takes decades to send a new telescope in space because you can't go and tweak it. I just hope the benefits are larger then the costs and we the public will not have to pay SpaceX to send telescopes in space to fix the issue SpaceX created.
- Alupis 6y agoHubble costs are estimated around $10 billion USD in 2010[1]. The cost to put the thing into orbit is minuscule compared to the equipment and operation itself. Put another way - SpaceX isn't solving any problems here. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope#Challenger_disaster.2C_delays.2C_and_eventual_launch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope#Challen...