[TagBahthuff]

Heh, Heh, Heh... Dan said probe...

[/beavis]

[scemHeish]

A balloon is going to have a difficult time getting to another star, Zkrib.

NIMBY makes space-based telescopes more attractive.

Why? You never put them near people anyway, 'cause of the light pollution.

[XU8i6ysK]

Believe it or not, that's where native burial sites and such stuff are at.

Bah

[GetsTan]

It's why I don't work at places like JPL anymore. I went for the money instead and am much happier.

[Waymninelia]

pchang: Are interstellar probes several orders of magnitude from making sense?

[Clilmence]

Originally posted by DanS
Are interstellar probes several orders of magnitude from making sense? Yes.

[oxixernibioge]

what Krazyhorse said

[Clesylafabada]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Won't we always need some space-based just because of the atmosphere filtering out parts of the spectrum? Its actually worse than that

[freflellalafe]

Originally posted by DanS


That's good to know. I'm also interested in arrays of telescopes. For instance, the diameter of the Hubble mirror (~2 meters) was in part constrained by the payload bay of the Shuttle. I could imagine multiple mirrors unfold on orbit to create an array. works great for collectors of long waves (radar, radio, etc.) - it is how the deathstars worked
we don't have the technology to unfold optic collects and have them come together at the tolerances necessary.

[Gubocang]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I don't think you have a real sense for just how difficult, if not impossible that would be. OK. That's cool. It makes for easier comparisons if we disallow it.

[Adimondin]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
And even in the parts of the spectrum where the atmosphere is relatively clear, DanS is being rather glib about the difficulties presented by corrective optics. AO. OA. We're talking interstellar probes here. Glib is part and parcel of this discussion.

[masterso]

are not very stable, nor are we building very large ones

[WenPyclenoWex]

Balloon telescopes suck for the same reasons that rockoons suck. They're much harder to handle than they appear and they aren't that stable.

[Qynvtlur]

Look 'em up, bathroom boy.

Every person that I've heard about working on a rockoon project has watched it end in tears.

[bxxasxxa]

are DLs???

[u2ZQGC6b]

Originally posted by DanS
Look 'em up, bathroom boy. I've heard of them, just not by that name.

[Ngwkgczx]

Originally posted by pchang
works great for collectors of long waves (radar, radio, etc.) - it is how the deathstars worked
we don't have the technology to unfold optic collects and have them come together at the tolerances necessary. Is that why JWST isn't optical, for instance? IIRC, that's contemplated as an unfolding telescope. 36 mirror segments. 6.5 meter diameter total.

[Msrwbdas]

NASA made a poor PR decision. The flagship telescope has to be optical. People like to see what their billions are getting them.

[smirnoffdear]

OK, so it looks like near-term, the max diameter for an optical telescope will be 8 or 9 meters, given that's what the Ares V will be, if they ever get the damn thing built...

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/aresv.htm

What can you see with a diameter of 8 or 9 meters?

You could probably make an oversized fairing. Might get you a couple extra meters.

[AAAESLLESO]

AFAIK, false color only gets you so far. The Earth is more beautiful than anything you would paint. The goal is to put something in orbit that would replace an interstellar probe. You want full visual impact.

How big would a telescope need to be to replace an interstellar probe? Are we talking miles? Meters? AUs?