>>9207084>You could have origami style folding like JWST with higher complexityI was referring to the mass limitations, context.
>or you could launch from the Moon or even base it on the Moon which means no problems with fuel and reaction wheels. With 1/6 of the gravity you could make huge telescopes.The Moon also has dust causing both mechanical problems and scattering light. The Moon also has huge temperature swings. A space telescope would be cheaper (as no requirement to land) and better. Reaction wheels an annoyance because they're mechanical and break down, a lunar telescope would also require a mechanical mount.
>True. And what about sites? I hear Hawaii is getting rather hostile these days.Chile has better conditions anyway. The TMT site selection process ranked Cerro Armazones as the better site but it was cheaper to share infrastructure with Keck. One big difference is that Mauna Kea doesn't have particularly good weather, the fraction of clear nights on MK is 76%, on Armazones it was 89%. That's 17% more telescope time.
>How deep does that go? You can get down to atmospheric cutoff at 300nm. It allows you to access the Lyman alpha forest at z~2 which is much more dense that lower redshift. Space UV astronomy is nice but there is going to be a massive gap after HST and COS is already running out of things to do. TMT and ELT will do extraordinary things at higher redshifts, lower redshifts will have to wait.
