Re: "Who needs big pockets?"
We can't let women's jeans have pockets for the safety of the universe.
Have you seen how much stuff they keep in their bags?
Imagine if they had jeans with 5 pockets - it would result in a blackhole consuming the Earth.
26124 publicly visible posts • joined 31 Dec 2009
No I'm saying that if you want a 2.4m class visible scope in a leo (and it's not clear why you would) you get a commercial outfit to build a bunch of them with modern instruments and launch them for cheap on a SpaceX flight
You don't try and limp an ancient maintenance nightmare in a poor orbit along for another few years
The starlink satelites are also flimsy and have large surface area of solar panels and antennae
Hubble is a school bus with a block of concrete in one end, it's going to come down largely one piece and make a hole.
Fortunately nobody with any sort of retaliatory capability lives in the tropics.
Definitely the CCP. All day the Chinese govt tracks what I read and watch, monitors what I buy online and adjusts prices to make me spend more. They also show political messages to my fellow voters to influence the choice of govt.
If only chairman Pooh wasn't controlling all my internet things would be a lot saner here.
Not just the chips though, what about the staff?
Who is making sure that no sneaky foreigners or Orientals are working in our telecommunications system?
Surely vital computer systems should only be built and operated by straight righteous God fearing Christians who listen to country music - like they used to be.
And the real point isn't the money - each country gets back in contracts roughly what it puts in (minus a bunch of waste and overhead) so it's really just an expensive/inefficient way for each country to fund it's own high tech industry.
What it's really losing is the freedom to work together.
The UK remains part of CERN (and sort-of part of ESA) but instead of scientists and their families being free to live work around CERN they will now presumably have a Swiss visa to visit the facility for a limited time and a French residency visa
But developing a vaccine is a "social issue", these Scientists obviously want people to be able to get together safely and be social - therefore they must be socialists
It's much better for everybody to stay isolated in their bunkers mom's basement and not go out (except to rallies and football/hockey games)
Companies don't necessarily send IP to ARM but they are sharing IP.
Hey ARM sales guy - we are planning to develop a line of AI+GPU cards using AMR, they will have X power and we will ship Y units starting in Z. Now imagine the same conversation if the ARM sales guy has an nvidia.com email ?
TSMC are deeply involved in the design of the chips, it's an inherent part of high-end fab.
It's why Samsung have a much more restricted fab business, you buy pre-existing cores from Samsung but nobody is going to trust them with anything that might be worth stealing.
But Intel as a fab for hire. Like AMD / Nvidia / anybody-Chinese is going to hand over it's designs to an American "National Champion" !
JWST or Herschel have to be in space - but they don't all have to be $20Bn 20 year programs.
That's the big thing that SpaceX is changing.
When you had a once/decade chance of $1+Bn Shuttle launch you had to make sure that your payload would work, which meant every last resistor had to be space-grade, which meant it cost $$$ and had to be a 20 years obsolete 'proven' design.
So any mission cost a minimum of $10Bn and took 10-20years, at which point you might as well also build an entire institute around it. And that has to have a director and staff and has to be funded for 10-20years. And the payload needs to be manually operated , so that you have lots of staff because that adds to the budget and prestige of the institute which further ensures its funding.
With a $50M launch available every day the economics of flying 10-20 space telescopes, built on a production line for $100M each with new instruments, operated by universities - even if a % of them fail.
This is an IR telescope it it's going to spend all its time pointing as far away from the Earth and Sun as possible.
L2 isn't mathematically stable but JWST doesn't have to remain precisely on station and there isn't much else for it to drift into so precise station keeping isn't critical.
To reduce costs you would expect this to be relatively autonomous, observations are planned a year in advance to optmise movements and it should have a lot more on-board storage and processing than HST - so constant comms shouldn't be necessary
Yes, although a 2.4m mirror isn't the main cost factor and arguably you would rather have a modern lightweight mirror rather than a 70s era one. But it's good "swords into ploughshares" PR
I'm guessing that the paperwork in transferring the asset, the testing, and some computer controlled re-polishing costs more and takes longer than making a new one - but that might be my experience of dealing with NASA.
It's history is even more perverse than that. It was originally (late 90s) a relatively cheap 6.5m lightweight monolithic mirror launched by an Ariane5, at the same unserviceable orbit.
Then 9/11 happened and the Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys declined an invitation to take part in Vietnam-II Desert Edition and so it had to be launched on a Freedom Rocket = hence the insane complicated folding design.
As the design got more insanely complicated the costs went up and so it was cancelled in every round, but so much money and prestige was attached to it that it had to be reinstated. But each hold adds time and costs because it's built by a defense company that has other commercial priorities. Which led to more calls for a cancelation, which added more holds and more costs.
Ultimately it got so expensive that NASA needed a foreign partner, who would also chip in a free launch - on the CESM Ariane5.
>That mission (and every servicing mission since) has cost more than it would have cost to build a HST Mk2/3/4/5 and launch it into orbit.
It was also estimated that extra costs to make HST a "man rated" mission to allow servicing + the cost of storage after the first Shuttle incident = 3x the cost of building a HST