[TeMPOraL]

> A 100x reduction in costs means that it becomes a fundable endeavour that countries like the US could still justify.

Don't forget the dynamics. Costs of all such projects drop further when early steps become affordable. Like, with 100x reduction on the sticker price, US might feel Mars colony is still too expensive a project, but 100x reduction on trying out some adjacent space tech may just be in range of NASA budget or some private interest. Steps get made, iterated on, making next steps cheaper and more likely to happen. Derisking compounds.

I do agree it'd still be a decades long project at least (with a settlement established early on; it's the tail end that will drag on).

>> or nestled in a crater on the Moon.

>..why?

Having some gravity and hard surface to build on simplifies engineering challenges, particularly on large scales, as in free space, tension becomes a big issue. And, perhaps more importantly, the Moon would shield the telescope from all the electromagnetic noise produced on Earth, and also by the Sun.

[SAI_Peregrinus]

Shielding from the sun only happens when it's dark on that side of the moon. So half the month, effectively. But shielding from Earth can be constant, thanks to tidal locking. Particularly nice for really big radio telescopes.

[TeMPOraL]

> So half the month, effectively.

A little less, if nestled in the crater as the quoted idea would have it.

[ceejayoz]

Even better: use one of the deep lava tube pits. https://futurism.com/nasa-holes-moon-comfortable-temperature