4 ms·

Sure, why not? A Hubble-sized telescope is only about 12 tons, which is only about 70% the mass of what a Falcon 9 can deliver to low earth orbit, and SpaceX d

Sure, why not? A Hubble-sized telescope is only about 12 tons, which is only about 70% the mass of what a Falcon 9 can deliver to low earth orbit, and SpaceX does that 100x per year (it's only May and they've launched 47 so far this year). For reference, Spitzer is 1 ton and Chandra is 6 tons. The elephant in the room is that launching one Hubble per year to a Hubble-like orbit only uses about 1% of SpaceX's current annual demonstrated launch capacity, and the actual reason people are upset has little to do with the actual impact on astronomy and more do with wanting to punish a certain CEO. One new space telescope every year would completely revolutionize the field, yet he'd barely notice. Better think of something else.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ghaff 2y ago
The upset is also because urban people or people in many denser areas generally don’t really benefit from Starlink etc. You can bet if those types of satellites were the only readable way for them to get internet, astronomy would suddenly fall way down on their list of priorities.
WithinReason 2y ago
Fun fact: in 2012 the Department of Defense donated 2 Hubble-class telescopes to NASA it had lying around and didn't need: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_National_Reconnaissance_Office_space_telescope_donation_to_NASA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_National_Reconnaissance_O...
djao 2y ago
Space telescopes cost billions of dollars not because of launch costs but because of all the dedicated engineering required to fit the telescope into the size and weight restrictions required for launch. In the past we've always been willing to go to extreme lengths to meet launch requirements (hand-made parts with exotic materials, folding mirrors with intricate deployment procedures, etc.). If we instead design something to be mass-produced at a cost more commensurate with that of a Falcon 9 launch, then it may well be much better than Hubble in terms of bang for the buck, but it won't be as capable as Hubble in absolute terms. Even so, although Falcon 9 is very cost effective per unit weight compared to past rockets, it does not have a large payload volume compared to launch vehicles used for previous large space telescopes, and volume is usually what you need for space telescopes (because big mirrors are constrained by volume, not weight). Once Starship becomes fully operational it will completely transform the landscape because it is not only low cost but the interior payload bay volume is much larger than existing rockets in all dimensions.
reaperman 2y ago
The thing is, paying SpaceX's going rate for launch only adds a tiny sliver to the cost of a "Hubble-sized" telescope. Launch costs have become very cheap thanks to SpaceX - whether they donate it or not is somewhat like an American family getting a 100% discount on rice...it's not going to change their overall monthly food costs, because rice is already so cheap.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

ghaff 2y ago

The upset is also because urban people or people in many denser areas generally don’t really benefit from Starlink etc. You can bet if those types of satellites were the only readable way for them to get internet, astronomy would suddenly fall way down on their list of priorities.

WithinReason 2y ago

Fun fact: in 2012 the Department of Defense donated 2 Hubble-class telescopes to NASA it had lying around and didn't need: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_National_Reconnaissance_Office_space_telescope_donation_to_NASA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_National_Reconnaissance_O...

djao 2y ago

Space telescopes cost billions of dollars not because of launch costs but because of all the dedicated engineering required to fit the telescope into the size and weight restrictions required for launch. In the past we've always been willing to go to extreme lengths to meet launch requirements (hand-made parts with exotic materials, folding mirrors with intricate deployment procedures, etc.). If we instead design something to be mass-produced at a cost more commensurate with that of a Falcon 9 launch, then it may well be much better than Hubble in terms of bang for the buck, but it won't be as capable as Hubble in absolute terms. Even so, although Falcon 9 is very cost effective per unit weight compared to past rockets, it does not have a large payload volume compared to launch vehicles used for previous large space telescopes, and volume is usually what you need for space telescopes (because big mirrors are constrained by volume, not weight). Once Starship becomes fully operational it will completely transform the landscape because it is not only low cost but the interior payload bay volume is much larger than existing rockets in all dimensions.

reaperman 2y ago

The thing is, paying SpaceX's going rate for launch only adds a tiny sliver to the cost of a "Hubble-sized" telescope. Launch costs have become very cheap thanks to SpaceX - whether they donate it or not is somewhat like an American family getting a 100% discount on rice...it's not going to change their overall monthly food costs, because rice is already so cheap.