5 ms·

With more affordable sensor technology, citizen science has a huge potential to become a strong force just by being able to deploy a large number of people in a

With more affordable sensor technology, citizen science has a huge potential to become a strong force just by being able to deploy a large number of people in a short time span. However some of the problems is that it's not really recognized (yet) by academia and governments and thus also not adequately funded. It would be great if there is a more systematic approach to citizen science but only in astronomy but also global challenges like climate change and biodiversity.

b112 2y ago
Yes, but with the cost of lift dropping to dollars per kg, we could easily launch thousands upon thousands of short life, disposable sensor platforms away from Earth yearly, just in the spare space for some launches. Such platforms need only cost hundreds of dollars each, and could even use crowd source designs. We could iterate fast, tey different designs, discovering what cheap build method works. They could be tiny, with nuclear batteries, or very small solar panels. Something along these lines would be far, far, far more effective than ground sensors, or Hubble, as they could be networked and would be effectively millions of km apart. If even 90% of them died due to cheap design, who cares. If they only last a year, or even weeks who cares. People spent billions on things like hubble, because it used to cost enormously to launch. It wil be as cheap to launch a kg to orbit in the next decade, as to ship a pacakge via fedex. So our design and deploy methods should change too.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  >It wil be as cheap to launch a kg to orbit in the next decade, as to ship a pacakge via fedex. What innovation is expected to make this possible? The minimum amounts of fuel and oxygen necessary to leave the atmosphere are fixed, short of a chemistry breakthrough.
  - pavel_lishin 2y ago
    I don't think the person you're responding to was thinking of this, but off the top of my head is the spin-launcher which gives a rocket a "kick", giving it a decent buffer before it has to start worrying about Tsiolkovsky's tyranny.
  - wkat4242 2y ago
    A space elevator maybe?
  - b112 2y ago
    This has been discussed for several years now. There are plans for thousands of Starship launches per year. Heck, there are plans to build thousands of Starships. Starship can launch 200+ tonnes to orbit per launch. That's 200,000 kg metric tonnes. This is the point I'm trying to get across, access to space is about to become very, very, very cheap, and there's a lot of talk about it. https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2024/01/how-will-spacex-bring-the-cost-to-space-down-to-10-per-kilogram-from-over-1000-per-kilogram.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2024/01/how-will-spacex-bring-... There are many other similar articles. Everything is going to change at this cost level. Everything. All of these mega-expensive probes are going to morph into cheaper probes. It will be less expensive to experiment, to play, to try new things in space. There are so many sectors in space I am envisioning getting involved in. Heck, with costs like this even a YC startup could have the fiscal might to try experimental methods of mining asteroids. SpaceX is in a particularly envious position, I can envision neuralink enabled astronauts controlling Tesla robots in SpaceX hardware, on site. EG, to reduce lag, and also provide strong direct feedback. Experiments on advanced propulsion systems, especially theoretical ones, need not be "big big big". We can iterate. We can try 1000s of different designs, we can experiment without big budgets. I want to see 100kg of mined ore, unrefined, lifted and automated, weightless methods to refine that ore tried. I want to see an immense range and scope of sensors tested, in space, never tried before. Space born solar panel construction methods tested. The list goes on and on and on. I imagine lagrange points becoming congested with endless stations, sensor platforms. We don't need asteroids back moved back to earth. Imagine latching onto an asteroid, with the ability to refine metal, you can simply build a station there! Multiple mobility methods have been pondered, solar sails, there are endless electrical engines, so multiple mass-driven methods of propulsion can be employed. Travel to/from such stations need not depend upon earth provided propellant, any molecule or atom can be shot out the stern. The cusp of so many things is right on the horizon. The "Internet" age has landed in our laps ~ 2000, and in 2024 is now a saturated market, filled with an immense array of competitors, there is little "new" to be had here. But space? Space is new, just as multiple biotech fields are new. There are enormous opportunities in space, and SpaceX and others following it its wake are building the backbone. We just need to build the "apps".
- wkat4242 2y ago
  Hmm. I doubt so many people are that interested in science and also capable of making something. Maybe as an off the shelf satellite as a hobby just like everyone bought drones for a while until all the laws came in. It'll be a cool gadget for a while and then everyone but the real enthusiasts will lose interest. And is this really a good idea? Space cluttering is already a problem for astronomers. After Starlink, Project Kuiper and others launching 10.000s of says, do we really need the general population to go and mass-pollute space? Sure it will be short lived LEO stuff for sure but still..
  - b112 2y ago
    away from earth is what I said. Space is vast. Launching thousands upon thousands of small sensor satellites (we're talking SMALL) outward from the earth/moon system, is not going to even be noticeable.
    - M95D 2y ago
      To escape orbit from LEO, the satellite needs another 50% speed. That 50% more speed is not just 50% more expensive.
- ianburrell 2y ago
  What would be the point? Where would we send them? What would they do when they get there? They can't be more effective telescopes than Hubble since they would be tiny, and it would be impossible to combine the images. Another problem is that they are too tiny to send radio back to the Earth. How would we launch them? SpaceX gets them to Earth orbit. It would be expensive to get them to rest of Solar System. Sending out like Voyager probes would be harder that takes forever to get anywhere useful. Getting them up to speed of this object is beyond our technology.
  - b112 2y ago
    What would be the point? Where would we send them? What would they do when they get there? Ask the same question about anything else we send into space. They can't be more effective telescopes than Hubble since they would be tiny, and it would be impossible to combine the images. I see nothing impossible about combining the images. Why do you deem it impossible? Further, what does size have to do with it? If I gather 1 metre wide of light from 1000 lenses, and mesh them, is that not better than Hubbles meager, tiny size? Well, I don't know yet. But I do know that I can launch 1000 satellites for under $1M, so maybe it's worth a test. Another problem is that they are too tiny to send radio back to the Earth. Huh?! Why on earth so? You can have receivers in orbit. You could have regional radio-only platforms to collect(again, small) and re-transmit. Antennas aren't big bulky things, wire mesh in space can be super light. Most of antenna weight on earth is to support itself. How would we launch them? SpaceX gets them to Earth orbit. There are multiple ways to move things from LEO to above. Did you miss the part about how cheap it will be to launch to orbit? LEO is solved, just scale for 1kg payloads, and see how easy it is to get them to escape velocity. These things will be cheap, flimsy, minimally engineered. The goal is to iterate, and see what works. If 99% of them blow up, malfunction, break on the first try, you improve on the 1% that works for the next time. Because it's cheap to try! I feel your not viewing this through the optics of almost-free. Would you levy all these worries and concerns and such, if I was launching paper-folded boats onto a river, to see which survived the best? Because that's what this is. That's how cheap this is. It would be expensive to get them to rest of Solar System Why? It's not expensive to get things to orbit, it's cheap. That means everything is cheap, including fuel. Think of the future, not the past. And in another post, I discussed solar sails, electric methods of propulsion, I have to repeat here.. this is fun, experimental playtime. Getting them up to speed of this object is beyond our technology. You think it's impossible to get other objects to the speed we got Voyagers, a 1/2 century ago? This is a strange assertion. Regardless, I simply stipulated "away from earth", as in, the earth/moon system. There are immense advantages to that simple act. And you're stuck on "hubble". It was an example. There are 1000s of other sensor platforms we can attempt, measuring all manner of things, looking for variations in physical laws, and validating assumptions we have. The key part here is... there will no longer be a restriction on getting things to space (it used to take YEARS to get a launch window). There will be no cost barrier to getting things to space, none, nada. There will be the opportunity to experiment, cheaply, easily, on whims, instead of decades of research and then an attempt to validate at enormous expense. Think of the possibilities. Stop thinking of the roadblocks, which often are mired in old-cost, old-launch think.

b112 2y ago

Yes, but with the cost of lift dropping to dollars per kg, we could easily launch thousands upon thousands of short life, disposable sensor platforms away from Earth yearly, just in the spare space for some launches. Such platforms need only cost hundreds of dollars each, and could even use crowd source designs. We could iterate fast, tey different designs, discovering what cheap build method works. They could be tiny, with nuclear batteries, or very small solar panels. Something along these lines would be far, far, far more effective than ground sensors, or Hubble, as they could be networked and would be effectively millions of km apart. If even 90% of them died due to cheap design, who cares. If they only last a year, or even weeks who cares. People spent billions on things like hubble, because it used to cost enormously to launch. It wil be as cheap to launch a kg to orbit in the next decade, as to ship a pacakge via fedex. So our design and deploy methods should change too.

HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
>It wil be as cheap to launch a kg to orbit in the next decade, as to ship a pacakge via fedex. What innovation is expected to make this possible? The minimum amounts of fuel and oxygen necessary to leave the atmosphere are fixed, short of a chemistry breakthrough.
- pavel_lishin 2y ago
  I don't think the person you're responding to was thinking of this, but off the top of my head is the spin-launcher which gives a rocket a "kick", giving it a decent buffer before it has to start worrying about Tsiolkovsky's tyranny.
- wkat4242 2y ago
  A space elevator maybe?
- b112 2y ago
  This has been discussed for several years now. There are plans for thousands of Starship launches per year. Heck, there are plans to build thousands of Starships. Starship can launch 200+ tonnes to orbit per launch. That's 200,000 kg metric tonnes. This is the point I'm trying to get across, access to space is about to become very, very, very cheap, and there's a lot of talk about it. https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2024/01/how-will-spacex-bring-the-cost-to-space-down-to-10-per-kilogram-from-over-1000-per-kilogram.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2024/01/how-will-spacex-bring-... There are many other similar articles. Everything is going to change at this cost level. Everything. All of these mega-expensive probes are going to morph into cheaper probes. It will be less expensive to experiment, to play, to try new things in space. There are so many sectors in space I am envisioning getting involved in. Heck, with costs like this even a YC startup could have the fiscal might to try experimental methods of mining asteroids. SpaceX is in a particularly envious position, I can envision neuralink enabled astronauts controlling Tesla robots in SpaceX hardware, on site. EG, to reduce lag, and also provide strong direct feedback. Experiments on advanced propulsion systems, especially theoretical ones, need not be "big big big". We can iterate. We can try 1000s of different designs, we can experiment without big budgets. I want to see 100kg of mined ore, unrefined, lifted and automated, weightless methods to refine that ore tried. I want to see an immense range and scope of sensors tested, in space, never tried before. Space born solar panel construction methods tested. The list goes on and on and on. I imagine lagrange points becoming congested with endless stations, sensor platforms. We don't need asteroids back moved back to earth. Imagine latching onto an asteroid, with the ability to refine metal, you can simply build a station there! Multiple mobility methods have been pondered, solar sails, there are endless electrical engines, so multiple mass-driven methods of propulsion can be employed. Travel to/from such stations need not depend upon earth provided propellant, any molecule or atom can be shot out the stern. The cusp of so many things is right on the horizon. The "Internet" age has landed in our laps ~ 2000, and in 2024 is now a saturated market, filled with an immense array of competitors, there is little "new" to be had here. But space? Space is new, just as multiple biotech fields are new. There are enormous opportunities in space, and SpaceX and others following it its wake are building the backbone. We just need to build the "apps".
wkat4242 2y ago
Hmm. I doubt so many people are that interested in science and also capable of making something. Maybe as an off the shelf satellite as a hobby just like everyone bought drones for a while until all the laws came in. It'll be a cool gadget for a while and then everyone but the real enthusiasts will lose interest. And is this really a good idea? Space cluttering is already a problem for astronomers. After Starlink, Project Kuiper and others launching 10.000s of says, do we really need the general population to go and mass-pollute space? Sure it will be short lived LEO stuff for sure but still..
- b112 2y ago
  away from earth is what I said. Space is vast. Launching thousands upon thousands of small sensor satellites (we're talking SMALL) outward from the earth/moon system, is not going to even be noticeable.
  - M95D 2y ago
    To escape orbit from LEO, the satellite needs another 50% speed. That 50% more speed is not just 50% more expensive.
ianburrell 2y ago
What would be the point? Where would we send them? What would they do when they get there? They can't be more effective telescopes than Hubble since they would be tiny, and it would be impossible to combine the images. Another problem is that they are too tiny to send radio back to the Earth. How would we launch them? SpaceX gets them to Earth orbit. It would be expensive to get them to rest of Solar System. Sending out like Voyager probes would be harder that takes forever to get anywhere useful. Getting them up to speed of this object is beyond our technology.
- b112 2y ago
  What would be the point? Where would we send them? What would they do when they get there? Ask the same question about anything else we send into space. They can't be more effective telescopes than Hubble since they would be tiny, and it would be impossible to combine the images. I see nothing impossible about combining the images. Why do you deem it impossible? Further, what does size have to do with it? If I gather 1 metre wide of light from 1000 lenses, and mesh them, is that not better than Hubbles meager, tiny size? Well, I don't know yet. But I do know that I can launch 1000 satellites for under $1M, so maybe it's worth a test. Another problem is that they are too tiny to send radio back to the Earth. Huh?! Why on earth so? You can have receivers in orbit. You could have regional radio-only platforms to collect(again, small) and re-transmit. Antennas aren't big bulky things, wire mesh in space can be super light. Most of antenna weight on earth is to support itself. How would we launch them? SpaceX gets them to Earth orbit. There are multiple ways to move things from LEO to above. Did you miss the part about how cheap it will be to launch to orbit? LEO is solved, just scale for 1kg payloads, and see how easy it is to get them to escape velocity. These things will be cheap, flimsy, minimally engineered. The goal is to iterate, and see what works. If 99% of them blow up, malfunction, break on the first try, you improve on the 1% that works for the next time. Because it's cheap to try! I feel your not viewing this through the optics of almost-free. Would you levy all these worries and concerns and such, if I was launching paper-folded boats onto a river, to see which survived the best? Because that's what this is. That's how cheap this is. It would be expensive to get them to rest of Solar System Why? It's not expensive to get things to orbit, it's cheap. That means everything is cheap, including fuel. Think of the future, not the past. And in another post, I discussed solar sails, electric methods of propulsion, I have to repeat here.. this is fun, experimental playtime. Getting them up to speed of this object is beyond our technology. You think it's impossible to get other objects to the speed we got Voyagers, a 1/2 century ago? This is a strange assertion. Regardless, I simply stipulated "away from earth", as in, the earth/moon system. There are immense advantages to that simple act. And you're stuck on "hubble". It was an example. There are 1000s of other sensor platforms we can attempt, measuring all manner of things, looking for variations in physical laws, and validating assumptions we have. The key part here is... there will no longer be a restriction on getting things to space (it used to take YEARS to get a launch window). There will be no cost barrier to getting things to space, none, nada. There will be the opportunity to experiment, cheaply, easily, on whims, instead of decades of research and then an attempt to validate at enormous expense. Think of the possibilities. Stop thinking of the roadblocks, which often are mired in old-cost, old-launch think.