Low Cost Batch Built Space Telescopes

[Twark_Main]

If you want batch built / mass produced, you can't get much better economies of scale than the Starlink platform.


Starlink-derived telescopes could launch mounted to the top of a standard Starlink stack, utilizing the the (otherwise unused) volume available in the nose cone.

[Valerij Zhilisky]

If you want batch built / mass produced, you can't get much better economies of scale than the Starlink platform.
   
Starlink-derived telescopes could launch mounted to the top of a standard Starlink stack, utilizing the the (otherwise unused) volume available in the nose cone.

     
I think that for serial large space telescopes it is better not to use the Starlink platform, but to make our own platform, possibly unified with Starlink, but necessarily compatible with various group launch systems. The platform and orbital requirements for Starlink and for telescopes are different, and for a telescope it is desirable to ensure long-term operation.
   

[Twark_Main]

I think that for serial large space telescopes it is better not to use the Starlink platform

Ok. So I think A, and you think Not A.

It would seem we are at a stalemate. 

possibly unified with Starlink

It sounds like we're thinking about the same thing, really. You re-use the parts of Starlink that make sense to re-use, and custom build the rest.

necessarily compatible with various group launch systems.

I don't see why that's necessary.

Furthermore, I don't see why you couldn't build an adapter to launch a Starlink platform satellite on other launchers.

The platform and orbital requirements for Starlink and for telescopes are different, and for a telescope it is desirable to ensure long-term operation.

For batch built telescopes. it might actually be desirable to replace inexpensive satellites frequently (5-10 years), instead of using the same budget to build a much smaller number of "Battlestar Galactica" satellites that last 30+ years.

[Valerij Zhilisky]

I think that for serial large space telescopes it is better not to use the Starlink platform

Ok. So I think A, and you think Not A.

It would seem we are at a stalemate. 

possibly unified with Starlink

It sounds like we're thinking about the same thing, really. You re-use the parts of Starlink that make sense to re-use, and custom build the rest.

   
This is an argument about words. The term "platform" in reference to spacecraft implies a very similar design, not just using the same components as the term "unification". Also, a space telescope must have much greater pointing accuracy and orientation holding stability than a communications satellite, and many other differences.
       

necessarily compatible with various group launch systems.

I don't see why that's necessary.

Furthermore, I don't see why you couldn't build an adapter to launch a Starlink platform satellite on other launchers.

     
The Starlink platform satellites (unlike the Starlink constellation satellites) can use a standard interface to launch them on different launch systems, such as SpaceX's Rideshare program. The same adapter, in my opinion, should be used on serial space telescopes.
     
On the other hand at the moment of launch into orbit, Starlink satellites present a package of flat vehicles. A serial low-cost space telescope should not fold flat, otherwise its transformation mechanism will be expensive and unreliable. Therefore, it makes no sense to launch space telescopes in a Starlink satellite package.
   
But above the Starlink satellites folded in a package, space can be left in the fairing for one space telescope, which can be launched together with them.
     

The platform and orbital requirements for Starlink and for telescopes are different, and for a telescope it is desirable to ensure long-term operation.

For batch built telescopes. it might actually be desirable to replace inexpensive satellites frequently (5-10 years), instead of using the same budget to build a much smaller number of "Battlestar Galactica" satellites that last 30+ years.

   
I do not propose to build a "Battlestar Galactica", but I remind you that astronomers on Earth successfully use telescopes built in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. Another thing is that, in addition to the telescope itself for effective work it is necessary to provide cameras, filters, spectrographs and other instruments. On different copies of the same serial telescopes can be a different set of instruments. And it can be very interesting to simultaneously observe one object using different instruments.
   

     

[Paul451]

If you want batch built / mass produced, you can't get much better economies of scale than the Starlink platform.

I'm reminded of people who ask, "How much mass would you need to add to Jupiter to turn it into a small star?" And the answer is, "A small star."

The difference between Starlink and a space telescope is a space telescope.

[Ben Baley]

If you want batch built / mass produced, you can't get much better economies of scale than the Starlink platform.

I'm reminded of people who ask, "How much mass would you need to add to Jupiter to turn it into a small star?" And the answer is, "A small star."

The difference between Starlink and a space telescope is a space telescope.

That's not correct, according to the IAU the line between a brown dwarf star and a planet is set at 13 Jupiter masses. Therefore if you added a mass between 12 and 13 Jupiters, it would be adding less than a star and result in a star. 

[Paul451]

That's not correct, according to the IAU the line between a brown dwarf star and a planet is set at 13 Jupiter masses.

Meh. No-one considers brown-dwarfs to be "stars".