6 ms·

Yes, the future of astronomy is in space. If the satellites don't disrupt it, light pollution will anyway, or best case, it will be disrupted by atmospheric po

Yes, the future of astronomy is in space. If the satellites don't disrupt it, light pollution will anyway, or best case, it will be disrupted by atmospheric pollution. There's no lack of clear skies in space.

DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
The future of astronomy is both on the ground and in space. There are so many things that you can only conceivably do from the ground. You can build vastly larger telescopes on the ground, you can install far heavier instruments (like cameras and spectrographs) on them, you can upgrade and repair components much more easily. You can build massive arrays of radio telescopes. You get the point. There are some things you can only do from space, or that are better in space, but saying that everything will be done in space is like saying we only need laptops and don't need datacenters. You need both.
- mercutio2 3y ago
  Are there really a lot of ground based telescope components larger than Starship's fairing? I'm just not seeing the argument for there being any telescope function that wouldn't be better done in orbit, at Starship payload prices.
  - Retric 3y ago
    Yes, though I guess it depends on what you mean by lots: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_optical_reflecting_telescopes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_optical_reflec.... Critically the 30+m monsters under construction have only recently become feasible on the Earh let alone in space, and much smaller instruments still provide significant value today. There’s a much longer list of large radio based telescopes which have minimal advantages in space to the point where we haven’t launched any, and they are also negatively impacted by constellations. Also, several types of observations don’t really benefit from being in space. If you want to track killer asteroids space doesn’t provide much advantage even if you could get there for 100$/kg. IMO the issue here isn’t satellites, it’s that they can harm multi billion dollar investments at zero cost to themselves. If you’re very clearly causing 10’s of millions in damages you really should be compensating the people affected.
    - TeMPOraL 3y ago
      > There’s a much longer list of large radio based telescopes which have minimal advantages in space to the point where we haven’t launched any What if they could be put behind the Moon, completely shielding them from Earth RF emissions? It's been a cost-prohibitive idea now, but might not be for much longer.
      - sapiogram 3y ago
        The largest filled-aperture radio telescope in the world has a 500-meter diameter, and reportedly only cost $180 million. For comparison, the International Space Station costs $3 billion per year just to operate. Doing stuff in space is expensive.
        TeMPOraL 3y ago
        Right, but the whole reason people are so excited about SpaceX is because they're making the costs of doing stuff in space drop like a stone.
        sapiogram 3y ago
        For large (>10m) telescopes, it doesn't matter much, because no one is building rockets with big enough fairings. Even if the cost of launching to LEO was $0, in-orbit unfolding/assembly is a bottomless hole of engineering complexity that you cannot avoid. Again, see JWST/ISS.
  - petsfed 3y ago
    I count 13 on wikipedia's list of the largest telescopes. There are 3 more currently under construction. The evocatively named "Extremely Large Telescope" is estimated to cost about $1 billion USD. Who knows how much it will actually cost, but for comparison, that's about $400 million less (adjusted for inflation) than the budgeted cost of the Webb telescope, which is about 1/6 the planned size (and therefore 1/36 the light collecting capability). edit: italicized above. The Webb ended up costing $10 billion, so the savings could be even larger
    - mercutio2 3y ago
      But the point is that Webb was vastly over-engineered because we needed to get value out of every ounce of mass at the very high costs of legacy launch providers, and even more compromised because of Ariane 5’s tiny fairing. You could build Webb for vastly, vastly less money if it launched on Starship, not just per unit of mass; volume is at much less of a premium in the new regime. You can’t quite fit ELT pre-constructed into a single Starship, it’s true. But it’s built out of segmented mirrors. It doesn’t have to arrive on station in one piece.
ketralnis 3y ago
A: yeah we're hurting you but if we didn't, B & C would B: yeah we're hurting you but if we didn't, A & C would C: yeah we're hurting you but if we didn't, A & B would I guess it’s nobody’s fault then
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  A lot of people really want A & B. Way more than how many want your work. But well, any one is free to go fight the tide.
bmitc 3y ago
That needs some citations. The James Webb Telescope's mirror is 6.5m in diameter. It took decades and billions of dollars of overruns and a prayer to launch and work correctly. There is no hope of most hardware repairs. That mirror size pails in comparison to what can be accomplished via ground based observatories for much, much cheaper. And the available modes of operation are completely different between space and ground. For example, space observatories are using decades old instrumentation techniques, hardware, and software. And that's just for starters. We cannot do astronomy via space exclusively. For me personally, I never wanted to see something like Starlink with my bare eyes, and I have several times. It's beyond annoying to me that a company has been able to unilaterally pollute the Earth's sky.
- _dain_ 3y ago
  > That needs some citations. The James Webb Telescope's mirror is 6.5m in diameter. It took decades and billions of dollars of overruns and a prayer to launch and work correctly. There is no hope of most hardware repairs. Because it had to get launched folded up, because the launch vehicles were so space- and mass-constrained. The unfolding mechanism was enormously complicated and added to much of the cost. Now we can send up bigger, heavier objects for much less money. The 6.5m mirror fits comfortably inside Starship's cargo bay, unfolded. JWST is a one-off clockwork masterpiece; future space telescopes will come off an assembly line. There will be thousands in orbit, pointed at every part of the heavens simultaneously.
  - lumost 3y ago
    Back of the envelope math would suggest that 8-10 JWTs could be launched in a single starship flight making for an impressive telescope array.
    - stevage 3y ago
      Did you factor in the fuel to get to where it needs to be?
      - 3y ago

DiogenesKynikos 3y ago

The future of astronomy is both on the ground and in space. There are so many things that you can only conceivably do from the ground. You can build vastly larger telescopes on the ground, you can install far heavier instruments (like cameras and spectrographs) on them, you can upgrade and repair components much more easily. You can build massive arrays of radio telescopes. You get the point. There are some things you can only do from space, or that are better in space, but saying that everything will be done in space is like saying we only need laptops and don't need datacenters. You need both.

mercutio2 3y ago
Are there really a lot of ground based telescope components larger than Starship's fairing? I'm just not seeing the argument for there being any telescope function that wouldn't be better done in orbit, at Starship payload prices.
- Retric 3y ago
  Yes, though I guess it depends on what you mean by lots: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_optical_reflecting_telescopes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_optical_reflec.... Critically the 30+m monsters under construction have only recently become feasible on the Earh let alone in space, and much smaller instruments still provide significant value today. There’s a much longer list of large radio based telescopes which have minimal advantages in space to the point where we haven’t launched any, and they are also negatively impacted by constellations. Also, several types of observations don’t really benefit from being in space. If you want to track killer asteroids space doesn’t provide much advantage even if you could get there for 100$/kg. IMO the issue here isn’t satellites, it’s that they can harm multi billion dollar investments at zero cost to themselves. If you’re very clearly causing 10’s of millions in damages you really should be compensating the people affected.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    > There’s a much longer list of large radio based telescopes which have minimal advantages in space to the point where we haven’t launched any What if they could be put behind the Moon, completely shielding them from Earth RF emissions? It's been a cost-prohibitive idea now, but might not be for much longer.
    - sapiogram 3y ago
      The largest filled-aperture radio telescope in the world has a 500-meter diameter, and reportedly only cost $180 million. For comparison, the International Space Station costs $3 billion per year just to operate. Doing stuff in space is expensive.
      - TeMPOraL 3y ago
        Right, but the whole reason people are so excited about SpaceX is because they're making the costs of doing stuff in space drop like a stone.
        sapiogram 3y ago
        For large (>10m) telescopes, it doesn't matter much, because no one is building rockets with big enough fairings. Even if the cost of launching to LEO was $0, in-orbit unfolding/assembly is a bottomless hole of engineering complexity that you cannot avoid. Again, see JWST/ISS.
- petsfed 3y ago
  I count 13 on wikipedia's list of the largest telescopes. There are 3 more currently under construction. The evocatively named "Extremely Large Telescope" is estimated to cost about $1 billion USD. Who knows how much it will actually cost, but for comparison, that's about $400 million less (adjusted for inflation) than the budgeted cost of the Webb telescope, which is about 1/6 the planned size (and therefore 1/36 the light collecting capability). edit: italicized above. The Webb ended up costing $10 billion, so the savings could be even larger
  - mercutio2 3y ago
    But the point is that Webb was vastly over-engineered because we needed to get value out of every ounce of mass at the very high costs of legacy launch providers, and even more compromised because of Ariane 5’s tiny fairing. You could build Webb for vastly, vastly less money if it launched on Starship, not just per unit of mass; volume is at much less of a premium in the new regime. You can’t quite fit ELT pre-constructed into a single Starship, it’s true. But it’s built out of segmented mirrors. It doesn’t have to arrive on station in one piece.

ketralnis 3y ago

A: yeah we're hurting you but if we didn't, B & C would B: yeah we're hurting you but if we didn't, A & C would C: yeah we're hurting you but if we didn't, A & B would I guess it’s nobody’s fault then

marcosdumay 3y ago
A lot of people really want A & B. Way more than how many want your work. But well, any one is free to go fight the tide.

bmitc 3y ago

That needs some citations. The James Webb Telescope's mirror is 6.5m in diameter. It took decades and billions of dollars of overruns and a prayer to launch and work correctly. There is no hope of most hardware repairs. That mirror size pails in comparison to what can be accomplished via ground based observatories for much, much cheaper. And the available modes of operation are completely different between space and ground. For example, space observatories are using decades old instrumentation techniques, hardware, and software. And that's just for starters. We cannot do astronomy via space exclusively. For me personally, I never wanted to see something like Starlink with my bare eyes, and I have several times. It's beyond annoying to me that a company has been able to unilaterally pollute the Earth's sky.

_dain_ 3y ago
> That needs some citations. The James Webb Telescope's mirror is 6.5m in diameter. It took decades and billions of dollars of overruns and a prayer to launch and work correctly. There is no hope of most hardware repairs. Because it had to get launched folded up, because the launch vehicles were so space- and mass-constrained. The unfolding mechanism was enormously complicated and added to much of the cost. Now we can send up bigger, heavier objects for much less money. The 6.5m mirror fits comfortably inside Starship's cargo bay, unfolded. JWST is a one-off clockwork masterpiece; future space telescopes will come off an assembly line. There will be thousands in orbit, pointed at every part of the heavens simultaneously.
- lumost 3y ago
  Back of the envelope math would suggest that 8-10 JWTs could be launched in a single starship flight making for an impressive telescope array.
  - stevage 3y ago
    Did you factor in the fuel to get to where it needs to be?
    - 3y ago