|
|
|
|
|
|
by HorstG
2343 days ago
|
|
|
It will kill astronomy pretty good. The key point is usable observation time. Our current handful of satellite telescopes provide 24h of time a day. Each terrestrial telescope provides maybe 8h. However, there are a magnitude more telescopes on Hawaii alone than in space. You would need to get a hundred satellite telescopes to begin to replace earthbased observation time. And that doesn't even begin to talk about the possible instruments, mirror sizes, astronomical costs of buulding and running satellites, etc. |
|
|
Satellites are invisible if they're in the Earth's shadow. By the time useful observation can begin, there's an enormous swath of the sky that will have zero visible satellites in it.
Diversify your observation targets. There's more than one interesting thing to science at any given moment. If that means spreading out your observations so you spend two hours a night observing four targets as opposed to four hours a night on two targets, so be it.
At the very worst, this means astronomers will need to do more work during the day shift scheduling and prioritizing. This isn't a new problem. I remember reading a back page article in Astronomer magazine sometime in the late 90s with a page of BASIC code. Someone wanted to optimize a computer controlled telescope to make one observation of 100 or so stars every night. You need to roughly minimize the total Manhatten distance between every two observations, while also eliminating observations below the horizon and penalize observations low in the sky. So the author wrote a program to roughly approximate the traveling salesman problem with the additional constraints. In the 90s. In BASIC. In one page. It might be NP complete to get the perfect solution, but good enough is pretty good.
Add an additional constraints penalising observations where they might be impacted by satellites. Hire an intern working on their degree who's taken an optimization course and have them do it for you.