Author Topic: Starship/BFR and science instruments  (Read 177090 times)

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Starship/BFR and science instruments
« on: 10/26/2017 06:13 am »
So in places like U Arizona or CalTech, at least some people must see BFR as an upcoming opportunity, and are thinking about what type of instruments they can orbit.  I mean, even it's only academic...

There's a very real possibility that instruments that are scheduled to launch in the next 5-10 years will be have a very short lifetime before being eclipsed by a new generation of 25-50 ton behemoths.

These people do worry about the "Telescope gap" - see for example the race to terrestrial 30 m telescopes and beyond.

Has anyone heard of such talk?  Even water-cooler talk, as long as the water cooler is near the right offices?

« Last Edit: 11/28/2021 03:14 am by gongora »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: BFR and science instruments
« Reply #1 on: 10/26/2017 02:28 pm »
So in places like U Arizona or CalTech, at least some people must see BFR as an upcoming opportunity, and are thinking about what type of instruments they can orbit.  I mean, even it's only academic...


I note the moving part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Magellan_Telescope is around a thousand tons, and a billion dollars. ($1000/kg)
The 8.4m diameter mirrors would in principle fit in BFR launches, and would be each considerably larger in diameter than JWST.
An array of the nominal seven would be a very, very significant improvement over JWST.
Note the more ambitious costings for BFR launches (well under $1000/kg) are basically irrelevant to this market at the moment.

What might emerge is interesting.
http://cs.astronomy.com/asy/b/astronomy/archive/2010/02/03/orion-introduces-line-of-giant-telescopes.aspx - for example - a 50" telescope was available for $123K in 2010.

Which sets a reasonably low bare minimum.
The mirror is half hubble diameter, and it seems in principle plausible you could put it in a high orbit with it staring at something and reporting back over CommX remarkably inexpensively if done in bulk.
« Last Edit: 10/26/2017 02:36 pm by speedevil »

Offline jebbo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 940
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 608
  • Likes Given: 309
Re: BFR and science instruments
« Reply #2 on: 10/26/2017 03:36 pm »
I note the moving part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Magellan_Telescope is around a thousand tons, and a billion dollars. ($1000/kg)
The 8.4m diameter mirrors would in principle fit in BFR launches, and would be each considerably larger in diameter than JWST.
An array of the nominal seven would be a very, very significant improvement over JWST.
Note the more ambitious costings for BFR launches (well under $1000/kg) are basically irrelevant to this market at the moment.

The GMT is that massive because gravity. Similarly the mirror. Any space based instrument would be *much* lighter. Also, there is little need for such massive mirrors these days - almost all are segmented.

But overall, how BFR helps with orbital (or lunar) telescopes is a good question!

--- Tony

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: BFR and science instruments
« Reply #3 on: 10/26/2017 04:01 pm »
The GMT is that massive because gravity. Similarly the mirror. Any space based instrument would be *much* lighter. Also, there is little need for such massive mirrors these days - almost all are segmented.

But overall, how BFR helps with orbital (or lunar) telescopes is a good question!

If you're putting something up on BFR, the logical segment size would be around the BFR diameter, all else being equal.

In principle I agree about space based instruments being possibly lighter. But I would be rather surprised if making a large telescope for space use wasn't going to be comparably expensive at least to one on earth.
Yes, some things get easier - gravity and wind loads are notably reduced, and you can throw out a chunk of the adaptive optics.

But, lack of maintenance (or considerably harder maintenance), and positioning, comms, vacuum hardening commercial equipment aren't free.
Complex 'good' telescopes are still going to be expensive. Single detector relatively small 'light buckets' with limited capabilities might be lots cheaper and compliment the large ones enormously.

Fun fact. JWST costs $1000/g.

« Last Edit: 10/26/2017 04:08 pm by speedevil »

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: BFR and science instruments
« Reply #4 on: 10/26/2017 04:06 pm »
Bring back ESA Darwin or NASA Terrestrial Planet Finder that were cancelled a decade ago. Or Antoine Labeyrie hypertelescope. BFR is certainly the right rocket for them, but as usual, no buck, no buck rogers.
« Last Edit: 10/26/2017 04:07 pm by Archibald »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline jebbo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 940
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 608
  • Likes Given: 309
Re: BFR and science instruments
« Reply #5 on: 10/26/2017 04:25 pm »
If you're putting something up on BFR, the logical segment size would be around the BFR diameter, all else being equal.

Not really. To cast and grind 8.4m segments is very difficult: and they are very heavy so they don't deform under gravity. For space based, it is far better to make smaller and lighter mirror and tesselate them.

Quote
In principle I agree about space based instruments being possibly lighter. But I would be rather surprised if making a large telescope for space use wasn't going to be comparably expensive at least to one on earth.

Possibly lighter? Certainly.

Expense is a different thing and I agree any space based instrument will be very expensive.

Quote
Fun fact. JWST costs $1000/g.

JWST is not really a comparison I like. To me, for BFR to make a difference, I think we need a developed cislunar economy, and significant human involvement in construction and maintenance. As you say, everything else relies on a level of autonomy that escalates cost very rapidly.

The instruments I think it makes sense for are both lunar: a far side radio instrument (no interference and also allows a bigger frequency range), and an IR interferometer in one of the polar craters (Shackleton is most likely). In these cases, you're launching parts for assembly.

--- Tony

Offline jebbo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 940
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 608
  • Likes Given: 309
Re: BFR and science instruments
« Reply #6 on: 10/26/2017 04:28 pm »
Bring back ESA Darwin or NASA Terrestrial Planet Finder that were cancelled a decade ago. Or Antoine Labeyrie hypertelescope. BFR is certainly the right rocket for them, but as usual, no buck, no buck rogers.

I think we can design better missions than these now we know so much more about exoplanets. But I agree, something for directly imaging exoplanets is a very exciting prospect. As always, inner working angle and contrast will be the biggest issue ...

--- Tony

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: BFR and science instruments
« Reply #7 on: 10/26/2017 05:57 pm »


The GMT is that massive because gravity. Similarly the mirror. Any space based instrument would be *much* lighter. Also, there is little need for such massive mirrors these days - almost all are segmented.

But overall, how BFR helps with orbital (or lunar) telescopes is a good question!

If you're putting something up on BFR, the logical segment size would be around the BFR diameter, all else being equal.

In principle I agree about space based instruments being possibly lighter. But I would be rather surprised if making a large telescope for space use wasn't going to be comparably expensive at least to one on earth.
Yes, some things get easier - gravity and wind loads are notably reduced, and you can throw out a chunk of the adaptive optics.

But, lack of maintenance (or considerably harder maintenance), and positioning, comms, vacuum hardening commercial equipment aren't free.
Complex 'good' telescopes are still going to be expensive. Single detector relatively small 'light buckets' with limited capabilities might be lots cheaper and compliment the large ones enormously.

Fun fact. JWST costs $1000/g.

I'm just going to take issue with the structure being "possibly lighter", and with wind and gravity loads being "notably reduced"...

I think you're understating the conditions...

I am not sure what the ideal optical segment size would be.

I can fantasize too about it, but I was looking for any concrete ideas that anyone has heard of.

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Semmel

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2178
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2433
  • Likes Given: 11916
Re: BFR and science instruments
« Reply #8 on: 10/27/2017 07:10 am »
I work at a scientific institute for ground based astronomy. We did supply an instrument for a space mission but nothing big. I bring up the topic of instruments for a BFR type launcher both in cost and capability over lunch breaks occasionally. No one I talked to believes in either. No one could think of designing a sat that heavy. No one believes it can be launched that cheap. No one believes that a funding agency can be convinced to fund a project like that. As a consequence, no one is willing to spend the time in investigating a scientificly relevant instrument and telescope for BFR.

By the way, the major advantage of space is, that there is no (dif-)fraking atmosphere. No extinction, no background, no emission lines, no seeing. Ground based telescopes are limited by these things. Adaptive optics can only correct a tiny field, so you can't get wide field with it. And even that not perfectly.

In my opinion, a sat would be best for very large mirrors because it would be diffraction limited. Instruments can range from far UV to IR which doesn't work on earth. But such a project is expensive and takes at least 20 years from start to launch. A good alternative would be a swarm of small, wide field telescopes to observe the entire sky continously. Could be cheaper than LSST with better results. Also other high energy telescopes for x-ray astronomy would be great. But there is a new generation coming online in the near future, so probably not a project to get funding in the next decade. Radio astronomy on the moon or in space would be brilliant, not for the interference shielding but for base length with Earth.

For comparison, I am not convinced that EELT, GMT and TMT will deliver the science return that justifies the cost. The adaptive optics is much harder due to the size and segmentation of the primary mirror. All three will be a marvel of engineering when it works, but I think space would have been easier and cheaper. We will see. I am pretty sure that the three giant telescopes above are the last class of large telescopes ever built on the ground. For radio, the SKA already covers the entire earth in size. There is no physical way to make it better than to go to space. And then there is gravitational waves telescopes. That doesn't need BFR but it doesn't hurt either.

In all, the cost for a space telescope does not come from the launch but from the army of engineers designing and building a one off special device. And once you have a telescope like that, operations costs even more than building it. Thats because a good space telescope is so rare, everyone wants observation time. Many, cheap space telescopes of identical design would be my guess for the first serious application of BFR for astronomy. But I would not count on any telescope being build within the next 20 years that require BFR. It will take around 10 years to get BFR/BFS flying often enough so that science institute consider it as a reliable launcher. It will then take at least 10 more years to design and build a space telescope or a swarm that requires BFR capabilities. If its not a swarm but a giant telescope, it will take 30 years instead of 20. No one wants a second project like JWST. Its just too expensive.
« Last Edit: 10/27/2017 07:43 am by Semmel »

Offline jpo234

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2021
  • Liked: 2280
  • Likes Given: 2184
Re: BFR and science instruments
« Reply #9 on: 10/27/2017 10:00 am »
I bring up the topic of instruments for a BFR type launcher both in cost and capability over lunch breaks occasionally. No one I talked to believes in either. No one could think of designing a sat that heavy. No one believes it can be launched that cheap. No one believes that a funding agency can be convinced to fund a project like that. As a consequence, no one is willing to spend the time in investigating a scientificly relevant instrument and telescope for BFR.

Would there be interest once it's proven?

No one wants a second project like JWST. Its just too expensive.

BFR could allow a brute force way of engineering. What I mean is: I f you are not mass constrained, you could go for simpler and cheaper solutions.

As an example: As I understand it, the JWST main mirror segments are made from beryllium to save mass. If mass wasn't a constrained, could you use something cheaper and easier to handle? Glass?
You want to be inspired by things. You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great. That's what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It's about believing in the future and believing the future will be better than the past. And I can't think of anything more exciting than being out there among the stars.

Offline Semmel

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2178
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2433
  • Likes Given: 11916
Re: BFR and science instruments
« Reply #10 on: 10/27/2017 10:57 am »
I bring up the topic of instruments for a BFR type launcher both in cost and capability over lunch breaks occasionally. No one I talked to believes in either. No one could think of designing a sat that heavy. No one believes it can be launched that cheap. No one believes that a funding agency can be convinced to fund a project like that. As a consequence, no one is willing to spend the time in investigating a scientificly relevant instrument and telescope for BFR.

Would there be interest once it's proven?

My guess would be that in about 10 years, and if BFR works as advertised in reliability, cost and capacity, you probably will not find a single astronomy institute dreaming of some sort of telescope or instrument for BFR. Astronomers are a conservative bunch because they know how hard it is to get something right. But if BFR is as good as it sounds, they will not be able to hold back. I dont think that any of the three giant telescopes will be operational in 10 years. The largest problem will be: Follow engineering and paperwork guidelines for space hardware (no tinkering allowed!) and getting the funding for a launch not supplied by your respective home country.

Offline sghill

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1682
  • United States
  • Liked: 2092
  • Likes Given: 3200
Re: BFR and science instruments
« Reply #11 on: 10/27/2017 12:36 pm »
I work at a scientific institute for ground based astronomy. We did supply an instrument for a space mission but nothing big. I bring up the topic of instruments for a BFR type launcher both in cost and capability over lunch breaks occasionally. No one I talked to believes in either. No one could think of designing a sat that heavy. No one believes it can be launched that cheap. No one believes that a funding agency can be convinced to fund a project like that. As a consequence, no one is willing to spend the time in investigating a scientifically relevant instrument and telescope for BFR.


In the private sector, we'd call this a "market opportunity." There is no reason a private entrant can't design, build, and launch a pay-per-view space telescope if the economics work, and you can practically disregard the launch cost with BFR.

TerreStar-1 was sold at auction for $1.3 billion, and the recent ViaSat-2 launch was insured for $800 million against loss. Hubble cost $1.5 billion.

So the "big science" sized money is out there for constructing massive commercial space platforms.

Lining up paying users would be the key here, but that's what every market sensitivity study is for.
« Last Edit: 10/27/2017 12:37 pm by sghill »
Bring the thunder!

Online M.E.T.

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2313
  • Liked: 2912
  • Likes Given: 508
Re: BFR and science instruments
« Reply #12 on: 10/27/2017 01:00 pm »
ATLAST would surely be enabled by BFR?

An optical space telescope with the capability of directly imaging continents on exoplanets.

https://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/ATLAST/

It talks about a 10m mirror, but even an 8m diameter telescope that can fit into BFR with some room to spare would surely provide massive advances in exoplanet imaging.

Offline Bob Shaw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1427
  • Liked: 727
  • Likes Given: 676
Re: BFR and science instruments
« Reply #13 on: 10/27/2017 01:22 pm »
If BFR - and the competition from Jeff Bezos - work, then launch costs will collapse and launch cadence will go through the roof.

The launch environment should be more benign, as even the cargo versions of these big launchers will be basically the same as the passenger vehicles, but without the human-centric frills. A more benign environment should allow access to cheaper engineering, though some things will still be costly.

Some science payloads will require insertion into orbits which these vehicles won't like, due to range considerations. Others will demand liquid-fuel upper stages which won't be terribly popular, but solids should be fine.

Some payloads - science and commercial - could be carefully ejected from whatever payload area exists and robotically tended while they deploy, power up etc before being sent to their final orbit; others could be delivered directly by a refuelled cargo-lifter. Failed payloads might be returned to Earth; refilling of He dewars might be possible, or Hubble-style instrument changes.

Add humans, or Robonaut-style robots and the possibilities for payload manipulation and assistance grow further, but so do the overheads and the risk aversion (not that the builders of multi-billion $ unmanned spacecraft are exactly keen on risk, either!).

In short, cheap and regular access to orbit, and many, many opportunities for all concerned. I'd expect the cost of space science to drop dramatically, and the era of enormously expensive one-off spacecraft to simply end, particularly once Musk's satellite factory gets going.


Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: BFR and science instruments
« Reply #14 on: 10/27/2017 02:28 pm »
I work at a scientific institute for ground based astronomy. We did supply an instrument for a space mission but nothing big. I bring up the topic of instruments for a BFR type launcher both in cost and capability over lunch breaks occasionally. No one I talked to believes in either. No one could think of designing a sat that heavy. No one believes it can be launched that cheap. No one believes that a funding agency can be convinced to fund a project like that. As a consequence, no one is willing to spend the time in investigating a scientificly relevant instrument and telescope for BFR.

By the way, the major advantage of space is, that there is no (dif-)fraking atmosphere. No extinction, no background, no emission lines, no seeing. Ground based telescopes are limited by these things. Adaptive optics can only correct a tiny field, so you can't get wide field with it. And even that not perfectly.

In my opinion, a sat would be best for very large mirrors because it would be diffraction limited. Instruments can range from far UV to IR which doesn't work on earth. But such a project is expensive and takes at least 20 years from start to launch. A good alternative would be a swarm of small, wide field telescopes to observe the entire sky continously. Could be cheaper than LSST with better results. Also other high energy telescopes for x-ray astronomy would be great. But there is a new generation coming online in the near future, so probably not a project to get funding in the next decade. Radio astronomy on the moon or in space would be brilliant, not for the interference shielding but for base length with Earth.

For comparison, I am not convinced that EELT, GMT and TMT will deliver the science return that justifies the cost. The adaptive optics is much harder due to the size and segmentation of the primary mirror. All three will be a marvel of engineering when it works, but I think space would have been easier and cheaper. We will see. I am pretty sure that the three giant telescopes above are the last class of large telescopes ever built on the ground. For radio, the SKA already covers the entire earth in size. There is no physical way to make it better than to go to space. And then there is gravitational waves telescopes. That doesn't need BFR but it doesn't hurt either.

In all, the cost for a space telescope does not come from the launch but from the army of engineers designing and building a one off special device. And once you have a telescope like that, operations costs even more than building it. Thats because a good space telescope is so rare, everyone wants observation time. Many, cheap space telescopes of identical design would be my guess for the first serious application of BFR for astronomy. But I would not count on any telescope being build within the next 20 years that require BFR. It will take around 10 years to get BFR/BFS flying often enough so that science institute consider it as a reliable launcher. It will then take at least 10 more years to design and build a space telescope or a swarm that requires BFR capabilities. If its not a swarm but a giant telescope, it will take 30 years instead of 20. No one wants a second project like JWST. Its just too expensive.
The first part of your post - that's exactly what I suspected.  In some ways, scientists are both very imaginative but also very conservative...

We'll see how this plays out.  Someone is going to be "first", and it might not be one of the first-tier players.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1744
  • Liked: 1255
  • Likes Given: 1017
Re: BFR and science instruments
« Reply #15 on: 10/27/2017 03:30 pm »
I work at a scientific institute for ground based astronomy. We did supply an instrument for a space mission but nothing big. I bring up the topic of instruments for a BFR type launcher both in cost and capability over lunch breaks occasionally. No one I talked to believes in either. No one could think of designing a sat that heavy. No one believes it can be launched that cheap. No one believes that a funding agency can be convinced to fund a project like that. As a consequence, no one is willing to spend the time in investigating a scientificly relevant instrument and telescope for BFR.

The first part of your post - that's exactly what I suspected.  In some ways, scientists are both very imaginative but also very conservative...

We'll see how this plays out.  Someone is going to be "first", and it might not be one of the first-tier players.

Most people haven’t changed their view of what will happen in Space in the next 10-20 years based on Elon’s Adelaide presentation. It was just taken as another in a very long line of speculative pitches from all sorts of players. I think the fact that Elon completely controls SpaceX, SpaceX likely can pay for this on its own and rapid reusability will let them plausibly shift production to BFR/BFS while still flying Falcon/Dragon makes this radically different.

Everybody is used to treating this sort of thing as in the same category as Lockheed’s Mars proposal. Just an entertaining wild longshot pitch for funding. No player with the resources to actually do it has ever just announced hey guys, we’re building this thing. It will be available in a few years if you want to use it.

Nobody is accustomed to taking this sort of thing seriously, especially after 40 years of tens of billions of dollars spent to accomplish very little, despite endless programs and fancy graphics generated.

Expect dramatic shifts in opinion every time SpaceX actually accomplishes a step on the path. Flying Falcon Heavy, Flying Crew, It’s own private manned lunar Flyby, The first reveal of a test full scale BFS. It will come as a shock that they’re serious.
« Last Edit: 10/27/2017 03:38 pm by Ludus »

Offline RoboGoofers

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1006
  • NJ
  • Liked: 871
  • Likes Given: 980
Re: BFR and science instruments
« Reply #16 on: 10/27/2017 03:43 pm »
A good first proposal would be to work with an existing design like Hubble. Update the design and cram as many as possible into a cargo BFS. maybe six per launch?

There's no funding at the NASA level for "just another Hubble" since it doesn't show any advancement, but i'm sure there are lots of universities around the world that would like to have their own Hubble if one could be had for the cost of a new dorm building or campus stadium.
« Last Edit: 10/27/2017 03:45 pm by RoboGoofers »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: BFR and science instruments
« Reply #17 on: 10/27/2017 05:20 pm »
but i'm sure there are lots of universities around the world that would like to have their own Hubble if one could be had for the cost of a new dorm building or campus stadium.
Not really

a.  The cost isn't going to be that low
b.  And they are going to fund such a high cost project.
c.  Who do you think funds such projects at the universities?  The US gov't.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: BFR and science instruments
« Reply #18 on: 10/27/2017 05:22 pm »

Expect dramatic shifts in opinion every time SpaceX actually accomplishes a step on the path. Flying Falcon Heavy, Flying Crew, It’s own private manned lunar Flyby, The first reveal of a test full scale BFS. It will come as a shock that they’re serious.

Likewise, every time something doesn't happen.

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: BFR and science instruments
« Reply #19 on: 10/27/2017 05:29 pm »
A good first proposal would be to work with an existing design like Hubble. Update the design and cram as many as possible into a cargo BFS. maybe six per launch?

There's no funding at the NASA level for "just another Hubble" since it doesn't show any advancement, but i'm sure there are lots of universities around the world that would like to have their own Hubble if one could be had for the cost of a new dorm building or campus stadium.

On the general topic of hubble, and related instruments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Field_Infrared_Survey_Telescope
This had a 'hubble-like' telescope given to them, and they're still spending $2B or so to get it launched. (for a 2.4m diameter mirror).

I do wonder about prizes.
'construct a gyroscope using parts only from hobbyking and mcmaster-carr costing under $5000' Rated by on-orbit testing. First three get $1M.



Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0