5 edited tags
| link
4 added 172 characters in body
source | link

I would like to know what number of space telescopes, ideally mass produced ones using current technology and that could be cheaply manufactured and launched en-mass via the future SpaceX BFR. How many and how spaced out would they need to be to directly observe planets of the closest say 100 million stars in out galaxy?

Secondly assuming a good design can be created and enter into mass production how would their resolving power increase fromthough signal combining via interferometry as is already done for radio telescopes on earth. Surely in space 10 to 100 to 1000 toor even 10,000. would collectively improve resolution to astronomical scales :)

Note I am suggesting cheap telescopes that gain ability through numbers and trying to understand if this option might be more economical and produce better results than a few very expensive space telescopes. This whole idea is based on the idea that BFR is 100% reusable and can haul much more into space at a much cheaper rate. This in essence is an economical question on how best space budget money might be spent. Quantity vs quality, I am assuming resolving power improves better with quantity.

I would like to know what number of space telescopes, ideally mass produced ones using current technology and that could be cheaply manufactured and launched en-mass via the future SpaceX BFR. How many and how spaced out would they need to be to directly observe planets of the closest say 100 million stars in out galaxy?

Secondly assuming a good design can be created and enter into mass production how would their resolving power increase from 10 to 100 to 1000 to 10,000.

Note I am suggesting cheap telescopes that gain ability through numbers and trying to understand if this option might be more economical and produce better results than a few very expensive space telescopes. This whole idea is based on the idea that BFR is 100% reusable and can haul much more into space at a much cheaper rate. This in essence is an economical question on how best space budget money might be spent. Quantity vs quality, I am assuming resolving power improves better with quantity.

I would like to know what number of space telescopes, ideally mass produced ones using current technology and that could be cheaply manufactured and launched en-mass via the future SpaceX BFR. How many and how spaced out would they need to be to directly observe planets of the closest say 100 million stars in out galaxy?

Secondly assuming a good design can be created and enter into mass production how would their resolving power increase though signal combining via interferometry as is already done for radio telescopes on earth. Surely in space 10 to 100 to 1000 or even 10,000 would collectively improve resolution to astronomical scales :)

Note I am suggesting cheap telescopes that gain ability through numbers and trying to understand if this option might be more economical and produce better results than a few very expensive space telescopes. This whole idea is based on the idea that BFR is 100% reusable and can haul much more into space at a much cheaper rate. This in essence is an economical question on how best space budget money might be spent. Quantity vs quality, I am assuming resolving power improves better with quantity.

3 deleted 1807 characters in body
source | link

Ok so I know there is a lot to this question so I will try be specific. What would it takelike to build a networkknow what number of space telescopes lets say James Webb or Hubble style? Given the R&D on these is already done all I am talking is putting them in mass production, even decreasing their quality (less gold usage ext) to save cost is feasible as we going for lots here of the fully optimized for cost/quality/quantity variety. With economies of scale, ideally mass produced ones using current technology and an optimized manufacturing process I should imagine cost per unitthat could be massively, massively reduced. Then launching them in batches of 100 at a time oncheaply manufactured and launched en-mass via the fully reusablefuture SpaceX BFR (when it is ready and assuming its awesome and works).

So here goes howHow many of these distributed around the earth and the solar system if necessaryhow spaced out would wethey need to make a super duper amazing telescope that could resolve an earth sized planet under 50 light years away. Realistically we could easily be putting 100 up at a time 10x a year. That's 1000 of them coming online in 1 year. The super telescope network would steadily improve but we would be able to start using it from day 1 :). We would start getting amazing shots of asteroids and thedirectly observe planets from the first launch. Then a virtually endless increase in resolution as more and more go up. If we started in 2028 (guess when BFR could be available), in 10 years there could be 10,000 of these hell eventhe closest say 100,000 if production ramps up to 1000 units per month. I see no reason telescopes such as these could not be mass produced cheaply. How many would we need million stars in out galaxy? The distributed satellite network 'aperture size equivalent' limitation is basically the size of our solar system.

Secondary questions (whatSecondly assuming a good design can be created and enter into mass production how would their resolving power increase from 10 to 100, vs to 1000 vsto 10,000) be able to resolve? Presumably, we would first get detailed images of stars been born, direct observation of brown and white dwarfs, detailed images of matter been sucked into black holes, atmospheric data of exoplanets compositions ect ect always getting better and better sharper and sharper until one day eventually maybe 100 years from now, planets themselves and with enough information to determine habitability with a high degree of confidence.  

Feel free to adjust parameters if you can think of better options? The main thingNote I am getting at is that givensuggesting cheap as possible mass production, networking, advanced image recombination technology,telescopes that gain ability through numbers and the possible future very cheap LEO access with reusable rockets. Istrying to understand if this feasible, I mean there is plentyoption might be more economical and produce better results than a few very expensive space around the sun to put these thingstelescopes. The prototype network can start around the earth in Geo-sync orbits or atThis whole idea is based on the Langerhans points? whateveridea that BFR is best. Plus immediate benefits100% reusable and awesomeness from the first launch. The project can gohaul much more into space at a much cheaper rate. This in essence is an economical question on pause and be resumed eventually if needshow best space budget money might be spent. Quantity vs quality, hell why not?I am assuming resolving power improves better with quantity.

Ok so I know there is a lot to this question so I will try be specific. What would it take to build a network of telescopes lets say James Webb or Hubble style? Given the R&D on these is already done all I am talking is putting them in mass production, even decreasing their quality (less gold usage ext) to save cost is feasible as we going for lots here of the fully optimized for cost/quality/quantity variety. With economies of scale, and an optimized manufacturing process I should imagine cost per unit could be massively, massively reduced. Then launching them in batches of 100 at a time on the fully reusable BFR (when it is ready and assuming its awesome and works).

So here goes how many of these distributed around the earth and the solar system if necessary would we need to make a super duper amazing telescope that could resolve an earth sized planet under 50 light years away. Realistically we could easily be putting 100 up at a time 10x a year. That's 1000 of them coming online in 1 year. The super telescope network would steadily improve but we would be able to start using it from day 1 :). We would start getting amazing shots of asteroids and the planets from the first launch. Then a virtually endless increase in resolution as more and more go up. If we started in 2028 (guess when BFR could be available), in 10 years there could be 10,000 of these hell even 100,000 if production ramps up to 1000 units per month. I see no reason telescopes such as these could not be mass produced cheaply. How many would we need? The distributed satellite network 'aperture size equivalent' limitation is basically the size of our solar system.

Secondary questions (what would 100, vs 1000 vs 10,000) be able to resolve? Presumably, we would first get detailed images of stars been born, direct observation of brown and white dwarfs, detailed images of matter been sucked into black holes, atmospheric data of exoplanets compositions ect ect always getting better and better sharper and sharper until one day eventually maybe 100 years from now, planets themselves and with enough information to determine habitability with a high degree of confidence.  

Feel free to adjust parameters if you can think of better options? The main thing I am getting at is that given cheap as possible mass production, networking, advanced image recombination technology, and the possible future very cheap LEO access with reusable rockets. Is this feasible, I mean there is plenty space around the sun to put these things. The prototype network can start around the earth in Geo-sync orbits or at the Langerhans points? whatever is best. Plus immediate benefits and awesomeness from the first launch. The project can go on pause and be resumed eventually if needs be, hell why not?

I would like to know what number of space telescopes, ideally mass produced ones using current technology and that could be cheaply manufactured and launched en-mass via the future SpaceX BFR. How many and how spaced out would they need to be to directly observe planets of the closest say 100 million stars in out galaxy?

Secondly assuming a good design can be created and enter into mass production how would their resolving power increase from 10 to 100 to 1000 to 10,000.

Note I am suggesting cheap telescopes that gain ability through numbers and trying to understand if this option might be more economical and produce better results than a few very expensive space telescopes. This whole idea is based on the idea that BFR is 100% reusable and can haul much more into space at a much cheaper rate. This in essence is an economical question on how best space budget money might be spent. Quantity vs quality, I am assuming resolving power improves better with quantity.

    Post Closed as "unclear what you're asking" by Jan Doggen, Rory Alsop, Manu H, CBredlow, ForgeMonkey
2 added 281 characters in body
source | link
1
source | link