For 20 years, plus or minus, personal computers reversed that idea.

I gave all my Apple wealth away because wealth and power are not what I live for. I have a lot of fun and happiness. I funded a lot of important museums and arts groups in San Jose, the city of my birth, and they named a street after me for being good. I now speak publicly and have risen to the top. I have no idea how much I have but after speaking for 20 years it might be $10M plus a couple of homes. I never look for any type of tax dodge. I earn money from my labor and pay something like 55% combined tax on it. I am the happiest person ever. Life to me was never about accomplishment, but about Happiness, which is Smiles minus Frowns. I developed these philosophies when I was 18-20 years old and I never sold out.

Known VPN services have identifiable server addresses that can be blocked. Instead, you can set up a cheap raspberry pi (or other) at your home and use an encrypted SSH connection to that [raspberry pi] from far away. Then turn on your SOCKS proxy (part of WiFi Details on Macintosh) and check to see that your IP address shows to the world you access as that of your raspberry pi. I do this all the time, including right now. It also helps to watch sports events.

Thanks.

https://downloads.aaronia.com/datasheets/solutions/drone_detection/Aaronia_AARTOS_DDS_FAQ.pdf

You might have missed that Musk made the same claim about 2016, with the 1-camera sensor system. The 2017 claim was with the newer 8-camera system, and the claim was made before Tesla even had software for the new sensors, and the Tesla then lacked adaptive cruise control, adaptive high beam, self parking, summon, and other things that the prior model did have. I'm embarrassed that I actually believed these claims.

I am careful in all such interviews to say that Facebook is fine for anyone who likes it, for whom the plusses outweigh any minuses. I state that it's just wrong for me, myself, or others like myself. How can I not be "right" about that?

At least Tesla respects our right to die in our sleep.

Well... let's not just brush it off as one single management failure with no precedence.

Note that even the HST was hugely over budget, over time, and was mismanaged as well... so it's not like it's a one-time thing. Instead, it's more common than not.

From its original total cost estimate of about US$400 million, the hubble space telescope cost about US$4.7 billion by the time of its launch. Hubble's cumulative costs were estimated to be about US$10 billion in 2010. It was launched years behind shedule. It had a flawed main mirror. Etc.

So...sure, it provided nice pictures, and was/is a great asset, but let's not sugarcoat the truth: it was over-budget, over-time, and mismanaged as well. You could have built about 3 OWL's with that. And those would have provided better pictures, certainly in the visible spectrum.

That's why the "Just because in e.g. 20 years we can do something much cheaper we should not stop building scientific instruments today." argument doesn't hold up, imho, because it will ALWAYS be cheaper to build them on Earth. It's a given. One knows this in front. It's not about 'not' building scientific instruments; one can build new ones for Earth-based telescopes as well. It's balancing the advantages and deciding where the most bang for the buck is.

And as said, I think in many instances, unless for specific reasons or goals, space-based telescopes will always come out lower in that regard.

Now, I do understand what you're trying to say, and it's one of the reasons why - even though I personally would have liked to see 'normal' pictures - I do think it made the most scientific sense to use JWST for infra-red observations. At least, that's something that can not, or only with great difficulty, be done on Earth. But still, it's hard to argue that it was worth more than 10 billion dollars. And it's also hard to argue that's an exception, in large space projects.

with the money of the HST, one could have build a couple of EEVLT instead. With the money of the JWST, one could have build a couple of OWL's. And if one ever would send up a new teslecope, double as grand as JWST and double as costly, it's a given for the same money one would, once again, be able to build a far more powerful telescope on Earth. Yes, maybe not in the infra-red... but is getting infra-red really worth 20 billion dollars?

As for exposure-times... you could build an OWL on each side of the planet. Also: while exposure time is important for deep field viewing, *aperture* (and thus lightgathering power) is even more important. Meaning: with a much bigger mirror, you can see much more much faster. So one day with a two meter diameter telescope would demand LESS than half a day with a 8 meter telescope, if we're only talking about exposure time.

And sure, space has its advantages, but the point I'm trying to make, they're not all THAT overwhelmingly large anymore, on a lot of fronts. Not to warrant a cost/time loss of billions/years - and certainly not if it's not strictly necessary to do it that way.

Now... true, costs may come down - hopefully that will pan out for SpaceX - but if we're speculating on future technology, one may do it both ways, and what if, in the future, they find a way to capture infra-red waves in sufficient amount on Earth, for instance? Future technology works both ways, after all - adaptive optics, unimaginable only 40 years ago, is the proof of that.

So, while potentially complementary, I think a very stringent look is necessary as for what projects, exactly, a space-telesope is worth the extra effort and money, and to what degree.

For some tings, it's pretty obvious; for instance, if one wants to test out interferometry on a scale larger than the diameter of Earth. For others, it's less obvious or necessary.

Also, they had to remove a scientific instrument to make room for the corrective optics.

There is no doubt it was a kludge, and an expensive one at that. And a completely avoidable one. For the PRIMARY mirror - the main piece of the space-telescope - to be flawed in such an endeavor... you'd either need to be willfully turn a blind eye or be incompetent beyond belief.

Even NASA doesn't go without blame, here. They should have checked it independently, before shipping.

If one doesn't want to fall in the trap of meaningless semantics, one can just say it as it is: it WAS a flawed instrument, indeed. One which they corrected later, but not without paying a penalty, both in cost as in time/science wasted.

That said, they had to remove a scientific instrument to make room for the corrective optics.

The original estimate was officially 1 to 1,2 billion euro's (in 2006 currency). The *original* estimate that is. But we all know how that goes, with large projects. ;-)

That said, let's say it would have been double that amount in reality. It still would mean 4-5 OWL's. Even one OWL would produce better pictures than JWST would ever be able to, let alone 5 with interferometry...

It would have outclassed JWST without any doubt.

(If, I repeat, JWST would have been in the visible wavelength as well, which it isn't, and which makes the comparison now difficult. But overall, the 5 OWLs surely would have delivered vastly more scientific output in total.)

But, well, no crying over spilled milk. I'm sure the JWST will provide us with nice and scientific interesting things too. It's just that, in this thread/debate, if you compare space-telescopes with earth-based telescopes (including cost), it becomes clear the former only make sense in some specific circumstances or for particular goals.

Fair enough. :-)

Are you using ublock? Otherwise I recommend that. It's pretty good, and I have had very few problems with it (false positives included) on any site, thusfar.

"Space telescopes not only have advantage in some wavelengths, but they are critical, since parts of the spectrum are blocked by the atmosphere."

Which was why I said they still had advantages in those area's. ;-)

There needs to be a compelling reason to send a telescope in space that costs 10 times more for 10 times less aperture. Difficulties to get close to the diffraction limit used to be one of those, up until the late 20th century, but this reason has been starkly reduced with the advent of adaptive optics. Specific wavelengths which are difficult to observe (not impossible, however, if you use high altitude airplanes or balloons) would be a clear advantage. Longer uninterupted viewing in *some* directions, another.

The question is, whether it's worth it, and at what price (as a cost-comparison).

I'll repeat once more, that for the cost of the JWST one could have build 10 OWL terrestrial telescopes. And there is no doubt that, however good the JWST may turn out, ten OWLs would have overclassed and blown away almost everything JWST could show us. The scientific output would be an order of magnitude more.

So I don't think, in a reality where budgets are restrained, that there is always a sufficient cost-benefit analysis being done for the 'complementary' aspects you speak of. I would therefor hold my position space-based telescopes are only useful (in a cost-benefit context) in specific circumstances and special fields of endeavor, in certain scientific niches, or with with particular goals in mind - all of which are not, or only with great difficulty, possible with more feasible, cheaper Earth-based telescopes.

Not to take sides, but it was pretty clearly shown at the right of the summary, which is still 'the article', and it even says "Neptune from the VLT and Hubble". A cursory look would have been enough to find it. As I did.

While true it could have been put nicer, you're exaggerating with 'ESP' as well. And in your rebuttal you weren't very nice neither. In the end, he did give you the link for your request, so maybe you should have stayed a bit more polite as well, if you're going to complain about it in the first place.