I didn't read this as saying "open == secure"; rather I read it as "secure -> open", which is a very different thing.
Oh, while we are at it, SSD tend to fail spectacularly: i.e. usually when they perish you cannot extract any information at all vs. spinning platters which usually fail gradually.
Most newer SSDs are designed to fail gracefully. When they die, they become a read-only device. All your data is still accessible. Many USB flash drives are designed to fail the same way - if you've ever had a USB flash drive mysteriously become "write-protected", it probably died and set itself to read-only mode. Unfortunately, Samsung seems to be one of the SSD manufacturers which hasn't yet adopted this philosophy for failure. But I can understand their reasoning because...
P.S. If you wanna counter my first argument, fill your SSD up to 99% and then try to work with it continuously for quite some time. That 1% will get overwritten multiple times and your whole SSD will be prone to a failure.
That problem was solved in the 2000s with wear-leveling algorithms. Basically, the "sectors" the SSD presents to the computer aren't actual physical locations. They're virtual locations stored in a table. If the SSD senses certain blocks being used too much or other blocks sitting unused, it moves the data around behind the scenes so that writes hit all flash memory cells about equally. It updates the virtual table every time it does this, to fool the computer into thinking the drive is physically the same as it has always been.
The rated endurance on most consumer SSDs is around 2000-3000 cycles. For a 250 GB SSD, that means you can write 625 terabytes to it before expecting a failure. If you write 100 GB of data to the drive every day, you can expect it to last nearly 20 years. In torture tests, most SSDs have lasted about 2-3x longer than their rating. And no, the first cell failure is not catastrophic. Pretty much all SSDs have a number of reserve cells sitting on the sidelines to take over for cells which fail early.
If your duty cycle is higher than 100 GB/day, they make special enterprise SSDs rated for 10k-100k writes per cell. The price is correspondingly higher of course, primarily due to using SLC (one bit stored per cell) instead of MLC (2 bits) or TLC (3 bits).
Limited number of writes were more of a problem in the early days of SSDs when they were like 32 GB in size. In that case, the exact same characteristics as the above 250 GB SSD would yield only 2.2 years of longevity. But the problem has pretty much become a non-factor as capacities have increased.
Why not go all out and just evacuate the wings for maximum lift? Moron.
AFAIK the problem is if you make it big enough for the effect to be meaningful, it takes up too much space. So my question phrased more properly is, can you just stack them, or is there some property which makes that infeasible?
Actually, I think they should start with an optical/radio telescope array, I'm sure you know more than I do about techniques for combining multiple small image sensors' output. But they should also put a large optical telescope there, and I think that it's within our technical abilities.
No, sorry, that's not true. "Your community" has no input into whether you build 300 ft structures on your 1000 ac of private property out in unincorporated land.
HAW HAW HAW
Tell you what. Go forth and give it a shot, and see how it goes — make sure to defend it to the bitter end. You won't have to get back to us to let us know how it went, because you'll be on the news.
Money cannot buy love, nor even friendship.