NASA had funded a study that would examine SpaceX’s next-gen BFR rocket as an option for launching LUVOIR. The Large UV/Optical/IR Surveyor (LUVOIR) is a concept for a highly capable, multi-wavelength space observatory.
On June 1, 2018, NASA HQ instructed the Decadal Mission studies (HabEx, LUVOIR, Lynx, and OST) to produce versions of their concepts that fit into the $3-5 billion cost box. LUVOIR was exempt from this instruction.
On June 14, 2018, NASA HQ withdrew the aforementioned June 1 memo and replaced it with new directions. The new memo acknowledges that all four studies are planning to design less costly second mission concepts, and notes that the LUVOIR-B architecture already under development has a roughly 50% size reduction compared to LUVOIR-A. HabEx, Lynx, and OST are given the goal of developing a second concept with an estimated cost less than about $5 billion.
The LUVOIR study team is considering two architectures, one with a 15-m mirror (Architecture A), and another with a ~8-m mirror (Architecture B). Architecture A is designed for launch on NASA’s planned Space Launch System (SLS), while Architecture B is being designed to launch on a heavy-lift launch vehicle with a 5-m diameter fairing, similar to those in use today.
A third version for launch be the SpaceX BFR should be similar to the 15-meter mirror. The new under $5 billion cost directive could change the size and design.
Debra Fischer: NASA is funding study on launching LUVOIR with SpaceX's BFR.
Primary option still SLS Block 2, but if it isn't ready there are private sector alternatives.#Exoplanets2
— Ryan MacDonald #FBPE (@MartianColonist) July 6, 2018
If you think @NASA_Hubble has taken some amazing pictures, you ain't seen nothing yet @NASAWebb #LUVOIR pic.twitter.com/PBTpF3Bscn
— Conor A Nixon (@Shamrocketeer) January 18, 2017
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
One way to escape the problem with launches is that we could build a optical interferometer, launch a big bunch of smaller spacecraft some carrying the mirrors and some carrying the instruments. They would fly together trying to behave like big virtual mirror. Other way could be telescopes that can be assembled in space, piece by piece. So the capacity of the telescope can be incremented gradually instead of being a big win or lose.
One way to escape the problem with launches is that we could build a optical interferometer launch a big bunch of smaller spacecraft some carrying the mirrors and some carrying the instruments. They would fly together trying to behave like big virtual mirror. Other way could be telescopes that can be assembled in space piece by piece. So the capacity of the telescope can be incremented gradually instead of being a big win or lose.
What we need are smaller orbiting scopes that can cooperate to form larger scopes, and add incrementally to the functionality with each subsequent launch. Something in a size range where they can just be mass produced, instead of each new scope being a one off.
What we need are smaller orbiting scopes that can cooperate to form larger scopes and add incrementally to the functionality with each subsequent launch. Something in a size range where they can just be mass produced instead of each new scope being a one off.
I note that, in spite of such beginnings as SpiderFab, from TU’s Firmamentum subsidiary, and Archinaut, from Made-In-Space, in doing large aperture construction in Space, this was *not* an included option for the decadal planners, even though they are supposed to be thinking long-range. This is so even though the money spent on just one of the $5 Billion 15m scopes, launched from the ground, could probably put a fabrication facility in Orbit that could assemble far larger apertures than 15m again and again and again. In this we are seeing NASA being nervous about disturbing current cost structures, and money flows within the academic lobbying world. In space science, including space telescope astronomy, the usual cost structure has been 1/3rd of project cost for the scope, 1/3rd of it for the launch, and 1/3rd of it for the scientists and their grad students during the project lifetime. We do see that the cost of launch will drop enough that a $6 million BFR flight wouldn’t be noticed in a $Billion dollar budget, much less $5 Billion. That exposes the other costs to more intensive criticism, however. The scope itself need not be so costly even without assembly in orbit, because a greater mass scope that is cheaper to design and certify as flight ready can be lifted with little increase in cost. That can cut the cost by 3/1 easily. Add in assembly on-orbit at EML-1, and you can lighten that mass up again, because the spacecraft no longer has to go through the 5+ Earth Gravities of launch, nor its 20+ Earth Gravities of vibration. Certification becomes a far easier process, because you need no vacuum chamber or special thermal testing facility, because you just set it outside the assembly plant with measuring instruments on it for a while to bake in the vacuum, till you decide it’s passed its tests. Of course, the change in launch prices will piss off old launch providers, and their members of Congress. The change in the mass launchable at a price of $6 Million wi
I note that in spite of such beginnings as SpiderFab from TU’s Firmamentum subsidiary and Archinaut from Made-In-Space in doing large aperture construction in Space this was *not* an included option for the decadal planners even though they are supposed to be thinking long-range. This is so even though the money spent on just one of the $5 Billion 15m scopes launched from the ground could probably put a fabrication facility in Orbit that could assemble far larger apertures than 15m again and again and again.In this we are seeing NASA being nervous about disturbing current cost structures and money flows within the academic lobbying world. In space science including space telescope astronomy the usual cost structure has been 1/3rd of project cost for the scope 1/3rd of it for the launch and 1/3rd of it for the scientists and their grad students during the project lifetime. We do see that the cost of launch will drop enough that a $6 million BFR flight wouldn’t be noticed in a $Billion dollar budget much less $5 Billion. That exposes the other costs to more intensive criticism however.The scope itself need not be so costly even without assembly in orbit because a greater mass scope that is cheaper to design and certify as flight ready can be lifted with little increase in cost. That can cut the cost by 3/1 easily. Add in assembly on-orbit at EML-1 and you can lighten that mass up again because the spacecraft no longer has to go through the 5+ Earth Gravities of launch nor its 20+ Earth Gravities of vibration. Certification becomes a far easier process because you need no vacuum chamber or special thermal testing facility because you just set it outside the assembly plant with measuring instruments on it for a while to bake in the vacuum till you decide it’s passed its tests.Of course the change in launch prices will piss off old launch providers and their members of Congress. The change in the mass launchable at a price of $6 Million will reduce incom
How about NASA finishes tightening the f*cking bolts on the Webb first?!? (Yes, I know it’s mostly Northrop, but I need to vent my frustration on our slow bureaucratic government). Webb, should of launched years ago, and now they say they need a few more years (and billions more), ridiculous.
How about NASA finishes tightening the f*cking bolts on the Webb first?!? (Yes I know it’s mostly Northrop but I need to vent my frustration on our slow bureaucratic government). Webb should of launched years ago and now they say they need a few more years (and billions more) ridiculous.
Unless you are trying to take observations in UV, X-rays or some infrared bands, those are heavily absorbed by Earth atmosphere, any space telescope will have less capabilities than any big ground-telescope. To compare, the Hubble Space Telescope has a 2.4m meter main mirror, the Large Binocular Telescope has two 8.4m meter mirrors, giving you roughly a 11.8m meter virtual mirror. After the introduction of advanced modern optics, the need of large optical space telescopes was severely diminished, that’s why we haven’t seen a big space telescope after Hubble. But some missions can only be accomplished in space like what Kepler, Gaia and others telescopes did.
Unless you are trying to take observations in UV X-rays or some infrared bands those are heavily absorbed by Earth atmosphere any space telescope will have less capabilities than any big ground-telescope.To compare the Hubble Space Telescope has a 2.4m meter main mirror the Large Binocular Telescope has two 8.4m meter mirrors giving you roughly a 11.8m meter virtual mirror. After the introduction of advanced modern optics the need of large optical space telescopes was severely diminished that’s why we haven’t seen a big space telescope after Hubble.But some missions can only be accomplished in space like what Kepler Gaia and others telescopes did.
Small telescopes lack the resolution and the light gathering capacity to distinguish small objects. Both resolution and sensibility scales up with the the size of the main mirror. And there is no alternative, those are physical limitations of the optics. What we have is that in some cases you don’t really need a large telescope to get the job done, but on most occasions, bigger is indeed better.
Small telescopes lack the resolution and the light gathering capacity to distinguish small objects. Both resolution and sensibility scales up with the the size of the main mirror. And there is no alternative those are physical limitations of the optics. What we have is that in some cases you don’t really need a large telescope to get the job done but on most occasions bigger is indeed better.
The problem is that a useful space telescope is heavy enough that it doesn’t pay to send several up. If a space telescope has less capabilities than a ground-based observatory, what’s the point of paying to put it up?
The problem is that a useful space telescope is heavy enough that it doesn’t pay to send several up. If a space telescope has less capabilities than a ground-based observatory what’s the point of paying to put it up?
Instead on a few large expensive space telescopes what we need is a large number of cheaper space telescopes. With a large number of space telescope we will be able to find more interesting things to look at.
Instead on a few large expensive space telescopes what we need is a large number of cheaper space telescopes. With a large number of space telescope we will be able to find more interesting things to look at.
One way to escape the problem with launches is that we could build a optical interferometer, launch a big bunch of smaller spacecraft some carrying the mirrors and some carrying the instruments. They would fly together trying to behave like big virtual mirror.
Other way could be telescopes that can be assembled in space, piece by piece. So the capacity of the telescope can be incremented gradually instead of being a big win or lose.
What we need are smaller orbiting scopes that can cooperate to form larger scopes, and add incrementally to the functionality with each subsequent launch. Something in a size range where they can just be mass produced, instead of each new scope being a one off.
I note that, in spite of such beginnings as SpiderFab, from TU’s Firmamentum subsidiary, and Archinaut, from Made-In-Space, in doing large aperture construction in Space, this was *not* an included option for the decadal planners, even though they are supposed to be thinking long-range. This is so even though the money spent on just one of the $5 Billion 15m scopes, launched from the ground, could probably put a fabrication facility in Orbit that could assemble far larger apertures than 15m again and again and again.
In this we are seeing NASA being nervous about disturbing current cost structures, and money flows within the academic lobbying world. In space science, including space telescope astronomy, the usual cost structure has been 1/3rd of project cost for the scope, 1/3rd of it for the launch, and 1/3rd of it for the scientists and their grad students during the project lifetime. We do see that the cost of launch will drop enough that a $6 million BFR flight wouldn’t be noticed in a $Billion dollar budget, much less $5 Billion. That exposes the other costs to more intensive criticism, however.
The scope itself need not be so costly even without assembly in orbit, because a greater mass scope that is cheaper to design and certify as flight ready can be lifted with little increase in cost. That can cut the cost by 3/1 easily. Add in assembly on-orbit at EML-1, and you can lighten that mass up again, because the spacecraft no longer has to go through the 5+ Earth Gravities of launch, nor its 20+ Earth Gravities of vibration. Certification becomes a far easier process, because you need no vacuum chamber or special thermal testing facility, because you just set it outside the assembly plant with measuring instruments on it for a while to bake in the vacuum, till you decide it’s passed its tests.
Of course, the change in launch prices will piss off old launch providers, and their members of Congress. The change in the mass launchable at a price of $6 Million will reduce income to the spacecraft builders in the home districts of any number of members of Congress, because not nearly as much design and redesign is needed. The change to assembly on-orbit will reduce those incomes low enough to infuriate many members.
Worse, it will be bipartisan, because reducing both the launch cost and the design and building costs will expose those present 1/3rd costs for the actual science being done to intense scrutiny. Why? Because it’s nearly all of the cost still left!
30 years ago this would not be a problem. As academia drops in popularity, and even academic science becomes an object of intense suspicion, it *will* become a problem. We have already seen a drop in college enrollment and graduation of around 9%. This means that the prestige of academia is finally cracking in our society, after a 90 years long bloat in numbers, …and most especially, …in influence. Still, we are yet near the peak of that influence. So, cuts will come there, too.
How about NASA finishes tightening the f*cking bolts on the Webb first?!? (Yes, I know it’s mostly Northrop, but I need to vent my frustration on our slow bureaucratic government). Webb, should of launched years ago, and now they say they need a few more years (and billions more), ridiculous.
Unless you are trying to take observations in UV, X-rays or some infrared bands, those are heavily absorbed by Earth atmosphere, any space telescope will have less capabilities than any big ground-telescope.
To compare, the Hubble Space Telescope has a 2.4m meter main mirror, the Large Binocular Telescope has two 8.4m meter mirrors, giving you roughly a 11.8m meter virtual mirror. After the introduction of advanced modern optics, the need of large optical space telescopes was severely diminished, that’s why we haven’t seen a big space telescope after Hubble.
But some missions can only be accomplished in space like what Kepler, Gaia and others telescopes did.
Small telescopes lack the resolution and the light gathering capacity to distinguish small objects. Both resolution and sensibility scales up with the the size of the main mirror. And there is no alternative, those are physical limitations of the optics.
What we have is that in some cases you don’t really need a large telescope to get the job done, but on most occasions, bigger is indeed better.
The problem is that a useful space telescope is heavy enough that it doesn’t pay to send several up. If a space telescope has less capabilities than a ground-based observatory, what’s the point of paying to put it up?
Instead on a few large expensive space telescopes what we need is a large number of cheaper space telescopes. With a large number of space telescope we will be able to find more interesting things to look at.