3 ms·

A lot of the cost for space based missions is also in instrument design. When you make a telescope, you don’t need to just design the mirror and the stuff that

A lot of the cost for space based missions is also in instrument design. When you make a telescope, you don’t need to just design the mirror and the stuff that holds it up, and a camera with a series of filters. You need to design spectrographs and other complex systems that need to be “space-hardened” and extremely well tested. A “sensor package” doesn’t really cut it. See for example this spectrograph: https://www.eso.org/public/images/ann13071c/ https://www.eso.org/public/images/ann13071c/ Huge instruments like these that actually power today’s science is another reason why ground based astronomy is required, and why we can’t just move all observation to space if satellite clusters ruin the night sky.

_ph_ 6y ago
Hubble is mainly a set of cameras attached to the telescope, it doesn't have anything comparable to what you linked. Yes, I am aware of all the advantages of ground based astronomy, which just got a huge boom by segmented mirrors basically removing the mirror size limit. The flexibility and costs of ground-based astronomy are superior for anything which can be done well from the ground. I have nowhere suggested to stop or defund ground based astronomy. We need ground based astronomy and space based one. So we need to come up with a replacement of Hubble, thats where my suggestions come from. And yes, I am aware of the challenges of space-going equipment. But if a system is designed for a life time of rather 5 than 30 years, things become a bit easier. Also, if you look at the camera equipment of Perseverance, a lot of it is off-shelve, only slightly enhanced for its intended purpose.
- SiempreViernes 6y ago
  Uh, missions are designed to last max five years, so you're not gonna find any savings there. Maybe if you cut the high reliability requirements to five months you can skimp on some stuff, but I'm not sure that actually relaxes demands so much as that's still a lot of thermal cycles to maintain instrument alignment over.
- JBorrow 6y ago
  As another commenter said, they are designed to work for 5ish years. That we have had Hubble so long is essentially a miracle. Same thing for the Mars rovers that limped on for years despite only being designed to last months. Also your claim about the instruments on Hubble is incorrect. See: https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/hubble-space-telescope-science-instruments https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/hubble-space-telescope-....

_ph_ 6y ago

Hubble is mainly a set of cameras attached to the telescope, it doesn't have anything comparable to what you linked. Yes, I am aware of all the advantages of ground based astronomy, which just got a huge boom by segmented mirrors basically removing the mirror size limit. The flexibility and costs of ground-based astronomy are superior for anything which can be done well from the ground. I have nowhere suggested to stop or defund ground based astronomy. We need ground based astronomy and space based one. So we need to come up with a replacement of Hubble, thats where my suggestions come from. And yes, I am aware of the challenges of space-going equipment. But if a system is designed for a life time of rather 5 than 30 years, things become a bit easier. Also, if you look at the camera equipment of Perseverance, a lot of it is off-shelve, only slightly enhanced for its intended purpose.

SiempreViernes 6y ago
Uh, missions are designed to last max five years, so you're not gonna find any savings there. Maybe if you cut the high reliability requirements to five months you can skimp on some stuff, but I'm not sure that actually relaxes demands so much as that's still a lot of thermal cycles to maintain instrument alignment over.
JBorrow 6y ago
As another commenter said, they are designed to work for 5ish years. That we have had Hubble so long is essentially a miracle. Same thing for the Mars rovers that limped on for years despite only being designed to last months. Also your claim about the instruments on Hubble is incorrect. See: https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/hubble-space-telescope-science-instruments https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/hubble-space-telescope-....