Read on Twitter
Heard on a tech podcast "ground astornomy is ruined already by light pollution anyway" ... obviously didn't look up the places where cutting edge observations are actually made made. There still is a lot of darkness in places that wont support large human pops.
Another arguement was make Hubble 2.0 -- also a bit of not knowing what they are talking about. WFIRST is like a Hubble 2.0 -- first convos I heard were in 2012 for a launch in 2025. And that's a relatively simple concept. JWST took much longer to develop.
Invite an actual scientist or a science journalist if you want to pundit about science because these uninformed conversations are perpetuating misinformation.
What we do is a lot more complicated, advanced, and nuanced than is presented.
What we do is a lot more complicated, advanced, and nuanced than is presented.
Like ... while conceptually what we do is take pictures of space, we use camera where we count every single particle of light.
Mirrors have to have surfaces as precise as 1/4 of the wavelength used.
I can see in my HST data the effect of the telescope having been warmed by sun.
Mirrors have to have surfaces as precise as 1/4 of the wavelength used.
I can see in my HST data the effect of the telescope having been warmed by sun.
The image quality between the 1st and 2nd image in an orbit is measurable (~1-2-3% flux differences). 2nd image is when telescope has cooled and metal contacted, so the focus point of the image plane has moved relative to the detector. For what I do, I have to care about this.
Given that on same podcast, one of speakers talked about the lack of attention to detail in the Tesla products (like waterfall-like run off over open doors in rain) ... call me less than convinced these companies are ready for "just moving astronomy to space anyway"
Also thinking launch costs are the expensive part of space telescopes is just naive. Sure cheaper launches are better, but is a drop in the cost bucket. Detectors alone can run up to several million bc the # you have to make to get a good one (APOGEE uses rejected JSWT detectors)
I think that the stated aims of the sats are good. But the same astronomers worried about this routinely use these same technologies and understand their limitations. These sats are not the holy grail they are advertised to be. It will help, but it won't solve all access issues.
And that's what I think about that.
I'm gonna go into rural disconnected America for Thanksgiving. I cant get a cell signal there and am in serious doubt that I ever will. But, we have acres of trees, clean air, and dark skies.
I'm gonna go into rural disconnected America for Thanksgiving. I cant get a cell signal there and am in serious doubt that I ever will. But, we have acres of trees, clean air, and dark skies.
