3 ms·
We've only built a tiny number of things in orbit and haven't yet built something that then gets sent off somewhere like a shipyard. It's all been stations that
by rtkwe 6y ago
We've only built a tiny number of things in orbit and haven't yet built something that then gets sent off somewhere like a shipyard. It's all been stations that are then left basically where they [0] are so we don't really have the experience of how to do that yet. Also that takes a long time because it's just slow to move around in space.
It does need to support it's own mass through during maneuvering and pointing operations as well so it can't be completely flimsy. Also you'd want to get further from the earth to avoid all that drag from a huge mirror in LEO.
[0] Beyond periodic small orbit boosting burns
- abecedarius 6y agoPointing needn't be at all quick, as long as you're not trying to catch a gamma-ray burst in the act or the like. Agreed about the badness of LEO. Another problem: a very large mirror is a significant target for micrometeoroids. It'd need to be made able to keep going after losing little patches.
- rtkwe 6y agoStiffness is a big problem too, it has to perfectly hold it's shape or the image will be distorted.
- rtkwe 6y agoTo expand the error that almost doomed Hubble was an error of 1/50th the width of a human hair on the main mirror. https://www.nasa.gov/content/hubbles-mirror-flaw https://www.nasa.gov/content/hubbles-mirror-flaw
- abecedarius 6y agoOf course. I was fantasizing some form of active control, without the speed demand of in-atmosphere adaptive optics. This might be needed anyway after micrometeoroid damage.