4 ms·

You are forgetting that the telescope has to work in space. Big thermal swings, no easy air cooling, no AC outlet to get your power from, no convenient anchorin

You are forgetting that the telescope has to work in space. Big thermal swings, no easy air cooling, no AC outlet to get your power from, no convenient anchoring point for your telescope to push against to point a certain direction, no just bolting several racks full of off-the-shelve electronics to the telescope (none of them work in vacuum), no possibility to repair or upgrade anything, ... Having to use lightweight materials is the least of your worries (and not even that expensive - and sometimes done for ground-based instruments as well).

valuearb 6y ago
I didn’t say it was easy, just easier.
TeMPOraL 6y ago
With much cheaper launch costs, you can afford to send a couple more robust telescopes. That's the vicious cycle of space mission costs put in reverse. The missions are expensive today, because launches are expensive, meaning you have one shot at doing your decade-long project, so you need to max out on risk mitigation - increasing your project length, labor costs, and launch mass. Significant drops in launch costs and increases in cadence translate to ability to launch much less robust mission (and launch a replacement if/when it fails), which drops the costs all across the board. > Big thermal swings, no easy air cooling, no AC outlet to get your power from, no convenient anchoring point for your telescope to push against to point a certain direction, no just bolting several racks full of off-the-shelve electronics to the telescope While by no means easy, that's still table stakes for space missions, and something there's decades of experience in around the world. > none of them work in vacuum Nobody is, nor was, sending the equivalent of a ground telescope installation upwell. You only send the looking part, with a downlink bolted on them. You do control and data processing planetside. > no possibility to repair or upgrade anything Cheap launches = you can replace. Even cheaper launches = you can try to repair. We'll need to develop that capability anyway, if we want a cislunar space economy.
- simion314 6y ago
  >The missions are expensive today, because launches are expensive I do not believe that. The hardware and software is expensive because regular stuff will fail in space and you can't call some guy to just go and replace parts. I know it was done but it was expensive and risky. There are many existing communication and navigation satellites but not that many space telescopes so I think this proves that launching shit is not prohibitive expensive but I will read any claim that proves you right.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    > I do not believe that. The hardware and software is expensive because regular stuff will fail in space and you can't call some guy to just go and replace parts. I know it was done but it was expensive and risky. Radhard stuff is expensive, but not that expensive. Also space missions don't need all that much compute - they carry only as much as is needed to operate the hardware and maintain a radio link with Earth. You don't use more than you absolutely need to, because more compute = more power demands = more waste heat => need more thermal management => heavier satellite => need to cut down mass (or power demands) somewhere else => ballooning R&D costs => ... Look, I'm not making this up. It's widely known in the industry. See e.g. [0] and [1] for the first two references I could find. I actually learned about this concept from some NASA report that featured a beautiful flowchart, but I can't find it now for the life of me. But the phenomenon is real, and that's why SpaceX has been a big deal in space circles for years now. More and cheaper launches translate to a qualitative difference in how we approach space systems. > There are many existing communication and navigation satellites but not that many space telescopes so I think this proves that launching shit is not prohibitive expensive Communication satellites pay back for themselves in rent the owners can extract from the users. Navigation satellites are first and foremost military projects with huge implications for national security of the states that own them - which gives them almost infinite budgets. Space telescopes are research platforms funded by taxpayers, most of whom don't understand the importance and don't care to. Astronomy can't afford space telescopes at current prices. -- [0] - https://www.thespacereview.com/article/1121/1 https://www.thespacereview.com/article/1121/1 [1] - https://www.thespacereview.com/article/1918/1 https://www.thespacereview.com/article/1918/1

valuearb 6y ago

I didn’t say it was easy, just easier.

TeMPOraL 6y ago

With much cheaper launch costs, you can afford to send a couple more robust telescopes. That's the vicious cycle of space mission costs put in reverse. The missions are expensive today, because launches are expensive, meaning you have one shot at doing your decade-long project, so you need to max out on risk mitigation - increasing your project length, labor costs, and launch mass. Significant drops in launch costs and increases in cadence translate to ability to launch much less robust mission (and launch a replacement if/when it fails), which drops the costs all across the board. > Big thermal swings, no easy air cooling, no AC outlet to get your power from, no convenient anchoring point for your telescope to push against to point a certain direction, no just bolting several racks full of off-the-shelve electronics to the telescope While by no means easy, that's still table stakes for space missions, and something there's decades of experience in around the world. > none of them work in vacuum Nobody is, nor was, sending the equivalent of a ground telescope installation upwell. You only send the looking part, with a downlink bolted on them. You do control and data processing planetside. > no possibility to repair or upgrade anything Cheap launches = you can replace. Even cheaper launches = you can try to repair. We'll need to develop that capability anyway, if we want a cislunar space economy.

simion314 6y ago
>The missions are expensive today, because launches are expensive I do not believe that. The hardware and software is expensive because regular stuff will fail in space and you can't call some guy to just go and replace parts. I know it was done but it was expensive and risky. There are many existing communication and navigation satellites but not that many space telescopes so I think this proves that launching shit is not prohibitive expensive but I will read any claim that proves you right.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  > I do not believe that. The hardware and software is expensive because regular stuff will fail in space and you can't call some guy to just go and replace parts. I know it was done but it was expensive and risky. Radhard stuff is expensive, but not that expensive. Also space missions don't need all that much compute - they carry only as much as is needed to operate the hardware and maintain a radio link with Earth. You don't use more than you absolutely need to, because more compute = more power demands = more waste heat => need more thermal management => heavier satellite => need to cut down mass (or power demands) somewhere else => ballooning R&D costs => ... Look, I'm not making this up. It's widely known in the industry. See e.g. [0] and [1] for the first two references I could find. I actually learned about this concept from some NASA report that featured a beautiful flowchart, but I can't find it now for the life of me. But the phenomenon is real, and that's why SpaceX has been a big deal in space circles for years now. More and cheaper launches translate to a qualitative difference in how we approach space systems. > There are many existing communication and navigation satellites but not that many space telescopes so I think this proves that launching shit is not prohibitive expensive Communication satellites pay back for themselves in rent the owners can extract from the users. Navigation satellites are first and foremost military projects with huge implications for national security of the states that own them - which gives them almost infinite budgets. Space telescopes are research platforms funded by taxpayers, most of whom don't understand the importance and don't care to. Astronomy can't afford space telescopes at current prices. -- [0] - https://www.thespacereview.com/article/1121/1 https://www.thespacereview.com/article/1121/1 [1] - https://www.thespacereview.com/article/1918/1 https://www.thespacereview.com/article/1918/1