Posts: 968
Threads: 74
Joined: Aug 2007
Methinks you're grasping at straws HOTPE. It's like arguing for fossil fuels. They're cheaper, we already have a delivery system, the whole world is dependent upon them, but gee, they still aren't the answer no matter how you slice it. But go ahead grasp away brah. Thankfully there are wiser minds, with more far reaching visions, that are paving the way into a great future. And anyone saying we are dependent upon one machine anywhere, Mauna Kea or otherwise, to get there, is mistaken.
Posts: 11,068
Threads: 755
Joined: Sep 2012
grasping at straws HOTPE
Let's compare a couple of straws.
Cost of TMT: $1.4 billion
Cost of James Webb Space Telescope: $8 billion (so far)
(final cost of Webb telescope assumes it will not arrive in orbit with a deformed mirror like the Hubble, resulting in a lengthy non-operational period during which scientists needed to devise a corrective workaround. As well as multiple space shuttle missions to repair and upgrade.
Delay of TMT: so far under a year
Delay of James Webb Telescope: projected minimum of 8 years
Question: Which technology is more "obsolete"? Technology of a system delayed by a year or several years, or technology delayed by 8 years, possibly more?
Bonus Question: Which telescope is more likely to provide more value on a per dollar basis over it's lifetime?
"How we spend our days is, of course, how we spend our lives." -Annie Dillard
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
Posts: 10,290
Threads: 345
Joined: Apr 2009
HOTPE,
"final cost of Webb telescope assumes it will not arrive in orbit with a deformed mirror like the Hubble, resulting in a lengthy non-operational period during which scientists needed to devise a corrective workaround. As well as multiple space shuttle missions to repair and upgrade."
The JWST is non-serviceable. If something major goes wrong, that's it, end of mission.
Posts: 11,068
Threads: 755
Joined: Sep 2012
It's like arguing for fossil fuels. They're cheaper, we already have a delivery system, the whole world is dependent upon them, but gee, they still aren't the answer no matter how you slice it.
So what you're saying if I understand correctly, is that we should have both terrestrial and space based telescopes? The fossil fuels and the alternative energy systems? The TMT and the James Webb? That's what I believe too. I think space based telescopes are a good idea. We're just not a point where we're ready to have only space based telescopes for astronomical research.
"How we spend our days is, of course, how we spend our lives." -Annie Dillard
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
Posts: 10,290
Threads: 345
Joined: Apr 2009
Last year, Andrew Cooper, an engineer at the Keck, posted an excellent article on his blog about space telescopes vs. ground-based telescopes. And before someone says "that's just his opinion" it's also the opinion of the astronomy community and NASA.
http://darkerview.com/wordpress/?p=15800
Posts: 10,290
Threads: 345
Joined: Apr 2009
PT claimed:
" The observatories know they go obsolete. The astronomers that have given public presentations include the topic in their talks."
Which public presentations are you referring to?
" Some examples of obsolescence or in logistics, End of Life Cycle. They start out being called 'reserves', backup, mothball, then after a long enough time, they are called 'toxic waste dumps':
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/wwfeatures/1600_...26vj8m.jpg"
What an extraordinary collection of obsolete telescopes. Oh, wait...
The rest of PT's post is so off-base it's just not worth the effort to respond, it's just a random collection of irrelevance.
Posts: 10,290
Threads: 345
Joined: Apr 2009
" Some days, visiting Punaweb feels a little like this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhBPuG-qmDI"
That's wonderful! I won't insult anyone other than to say the only person who is clearly identifiable here is the guy (Barney) who lets Clarice into the dungeon. That's Rob!
(Apologies, Rob, it's meant in jest!).
Posts: 1,406
Threads: 25
Joined: Jun 2013
HOTPE (while browsing for telescopes in WalMart), asks himself; "Hmmm, which telescope is more likely to provide more value on a per dollar basis over it's lifetime?"
[  ]
Posts: 761
Threads: 40
Joined: Nov 2014
quote:
Originally posted by TomK
"Some days, visiting Punaweb feels a little like this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhBPuG-qmDI"
That's wonderful! I won't insult anyone other than to say the only person who is clearly identifiable here is the guy (Barney) who lets Clarice into the dungeon. That's Rob!
(Apologies, Rob, it's meant in jest!).
"I'll be watching. You'll do fine. Assume the best and ask questions."
Yup, I'm sure Rob feels that way sometimes, too. Mahalo as always Rob for the chair, the cells, and most of all, the Plexiglas.
If the TMT found a single habitable, earthlike planet within 100 light years, it will be exactly like the discovery of the New World in 1492. What price tag would you attach to that discovery? The spittoon of history contains the names of those who called Christopher Columbus a crank. In 1899 the greatest minds of 19th century science dogmatically asserted that heavier than air flight was physically impossible. The spittoon of history contains the names of those 'great minds'. We are at that inflection point in history again as regards interstellar flight. They are closer than you think and we are going to need another earth. Soon. At this point, the name Hawaii has a firm place in the spittoon of history unless it climbs out fast. It can. People need to wake up. We are at the dawn of a new age. Why is that so frightening?
---------------------------
You can't fix Samsara.
|
