• echo64@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago
    1. telescopes can only be as big as the rocket they are launched in
    2. It’s incredibly expensive still
    3. It’s nigh impossible to repair or upgrade without also having the budget of a hubble
    4. The engineering of space telescopes is a million times more complicated
    5. Building space telescope arrays is a million times more complicated than earth telescope arrays
    6. We don’t need a massive increase in more space junk throwing us towards kessler syndrome
    7. Space telescopes have shelf life’s
    • Player2@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s definitely more money, and I don’t know very much about this stuff, but having a space based system would avoid a lot of issues like light pollution, atmospheric distortions, etc., no? Of course this isn’t needed for amateur or lower level stuff, but surely for scientific studies that’s a pretty big deal. Space junk is really pretty irrelevant since that concerns low earth orbits, while being at a Lagrange point is preferable for telescopes anyway (like Webb).

      With ever more people and satellites on/around the earth, I just don’t see the problems with ground based imaging getting any better over the long term.

      • echo64@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Despite the articles clickbait, light pollution isn’t a threat to astronomy. We build telescopes far from the city, usually on mountains. Modern techniques using lasers and active mirrors resolve atmospheric distortions.

        The best telescopes go into space, it’s the best environment. We do not need to put the telescopes We currently put on earth into space, it would only create the problems I outlined above.