/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12402539
see you in [curent year + 3]
by that time it might be finished

I want thing to blow up on launch, just so the Too Big To Fail contractors and lobbyists get fucked over and we switch gears to smaller/cheaper/sooner space missions.

20 years and x99999 over budget? Thanks joos.

extremely large telescope bros, we're gonna win

>>12402539
The delays baffle me

>>12403237
That's idiotic. NG and the long list of contractors are still going to get paid if it explodes. Most politicians won't care either because most of the jobs are created before launch. The only thing that would get fucked over is the science, and the astronomers.

> switch gears to smaller/cheaper/sooner space missions.
NGST was such a mission, proposed to radically cut costs. It was later renamed JWST. Just declaring your intention to cut costs is not enough.

>>12403237
>>12403333

If free-market competition is as nurtured as the US claims it is, then SpaceX and any other cost-reducing innovators will organically phase out the 'too big to fail' monopolies currently bottle-necking space exploration. The Chinese communists will also automatically kick the US into action should they manage to overtake.

Falcon Heavy has already rendered SLS obsolete, Starship will be the knockout punch to oldspace.

>>12402539

>>12402539

>>12403529
>then SpaceX and any other cost-reducing innovators will organically phase out the 'too big to fail' monopolies currently bottle-necking space exploration
That doesn't follow. Costs can decease for some components but at the same time missions become more ambitious over time.

And no space telescopes are not a free market. It is entirely controlled by governments. What missions happen when is decided by space agencies and their governments, not contractors. Policy will dictate the scale and risk that is allowable.

>>12402539
JWST FUCK MY SHIT UP

>>12403253
that's a big telescope

>>12404921
It's so big that one of it's predecessors could easily fit on one of it's instrument platforms. The smaller telescope is one of the 8.2 meter telescopes that make up the VLT. Which are already huge. It's collecting area is larger than all the current big telescopes combined.

>>12404921
>that's a big telescope
for. you

>>12403253
>extremely large telescope
Large lad

Launch date is currently (tentatively) scheduled for October 31st, 2021.

>>12405754
Wheres the 500 meter diameter chinese telescope that they just built?

>>12405897
>>12405754

>>12405916
The circle is the real scale of the "FAST" telescope.

>>12405897
A section of it is shown as the bottom grey shape. But given it's a radio telescope it's not really comparable to optical telescopes, hence why other radio telescopes are not shown.

>>12405916
Fun fact: FAST and Arecibo have the worst resolution of all those telescopes, because they only work at very long wavelengths. They have lower resolution than even a cheap amateur telescope.

>>12402539
they should ship that thing straight to the air and space museum and put it on display as a great example gross negligence and incompetence.

With the advances in ground observations at a tiny fraction of the cost there is no point in going forward with the launch which is not even factored into the overall cost of building the turd, then you have to account for all the additional operational cost. Its a loss, call it a day and move on to the next version with different contractors and bar the existing contractors from participating.

>>12403237
I too and looking forward to that pos blowing up in spectacular fashion. It is a fitting end for a loser project.

>>12406060
>bar the existing contractors from participating.
They will get bonuses from NASA even though it's way over budget and mind bogglingly late. The way these contracts are written, their bonuses are guaranteed no matter how poorly they manage the construction.

>>12403253
>Starlink shits across your image

>>12402539
>hexagram
>(((telescope)))

>>12402539
The real question is, what's the holdup? Did they break a mirror?

>>12406421
Based
Ground based telescopes are going to be obsolete in just a few more years with dropping launch costs

>>12403253
what would happen if we aimed it at the sun?

>>12406517
SLS

>>12402539
>fails to fold out

>>12406532
Nope. The cost of building in space is always going to cost more, even if the launch was free. ELT won't be "obsolete" until someone actually builds a 30+ meter in space. Don't hold your breath on that last one.

>>12406421
The ELT has quite a small field of view, so it isn't significantly impacted by satellite constellations.

https://www.eso.org/public/archives/releases/sciencepapers/eso2004/eso2004a.pdf

>>12406060
>>12406131

Too big to fail