Microtasked Satellites

I know Goldin's approach at NASA is not heavily favored by the experts here,
but recent discussions about Betelgeuse's fate make me wonder if we might
be better served via astronomy if we could build a few small satellites that
we could dedicate (microtask) to one specific thing, such as continuous
observation of Betelgeuse or some other space phenom that we think might
event in the next 100 years?

Comments?

Dave

On Jun 20, 12:50*pm, David Spain wrote:
I know Goldin's approach at NASA is not heavily favored by the experts here,
but recent discussions about Betelgeuse's fate make me wonder if we might
be better served via astronomy if we could build a few small satellites that
we could dedicate (microtask) to one specific thing, such as continuous
observation of Betelgeuse or some other space phenom that we think might
event in the next 100 years?

Comments?

Betelgeuse is being watched by many amateur astronomers already.
Dedicating a satellite would be a waste of money because nothing might
happen for several decades or longer. It is sort of like trying to use
a satellite to scan for comets when we already have amateur
astronomers doing the same thing.

Also, sort of reminds me of SETI when it first started. Many thought
that since we now have SETI we should find aliens any day now. Well,
hasn't happened and might not for a loooong time.

Eric

On Jun 20, 9:50*am, David Spain wrote:
I know Goldin's approach at NASA is not heavily favored by the experts here,
but recent discussions about Betelgeuse's fate make me wonder if we might
be better served via astronomy if we could build a few small satellites that
we could dedicate (microtask) to one specific thing, such as continuous
observation of Betelgeuse or some other space phenom that we think might
event in the next 100 years?

Comments?

Dave

Compared to the Apollo era of satellites and mission deployments via
rocket, the modern stuff of purely robotic satellites or
interplanetary probes doesn't demand 1% the mass in order to
accomplish 10 fold better science. In other words, 100 times as many
satellites and each of those with at least ten fold better capability,
or if you'd like to accomplish ten large satellites with each offering
100 fold better capability, as such could be deployed with one Saturn
5.

Actually it's even a whole lot better these days, because those Apollo
and cold-war era satellites and probes were configured for their
serving a few months, as opposed to the modern and energy efficient
stuff that's lasting more than a decade is giving these newest of
missions another 100 fold advantage.

That's 10 x 100 x 100, or 100,000 times better off (science bang for
the buck) than anything of our Apollo era.

~ BG

On Jun 22, 11:39*am, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Jun 20, 12:50*pm, David Spain wrote:

I know Goldin's approach at NASA is not heavily favored by the experts here,
but recent discussions about Betelgeuse's fate make me wonder if we might
be better served via astronomy if we could build a few small satellites that
we could dedicate (microtask) to one specific thing, such as continuous
observation of Betelgeuse or some other space phenom that we think might
event in the next 100 years?

Comments?

Betelgeuse is being watched by many amateur astronomers already.
Dedicating a satellite would be a waste of money because nothing might
happen for several decades or longer. It is sort of like trying to use
a satellite to scan for comets when we already have amateur
astronomers doing the same thing.

Also, sort of reminds me of SETI when it first started. *Many thought
that since we now have SETI we should find aliens any day now. Well,
hasn't happened and might not for a loooong time.

Eric

Amateurs haven't 1% as good of astronomy capability as our government
and public funded institutions that sleep with our NASA has at it's
disposal, not to mention a dozen of those most spendy of spendy
supercomputers that amateurs as a whole couldn't possibly afford to
own even 10% of but one supercomputer for accomplishing proper
simulations.

In other words, your bipolarism is back into covering for our
government.

~ BG

On Jun 22, 4:30*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Jun 22, 11:39*am, Eric Chomko wrote:





On Jun 20, 12:50*pm, David Spain wrote:

I know Goldin's approach at NASA is not heavily favored by the experts here,
but recent discussions about Betelgeuse's fate make me wonder if we might
be better served via astronomy if we could build a few small satellites that
we could dedicate (microtask) to one specific thing, such as continuous
observation of Betelgeuse or some other space phenom that we think might
event in the next 100 years?

Comments?

Betelgeuse is being watched by many amateur astronomers already.
Dedicating a satellite would be a waste of money because nothing might
happen for several decades or longer. It is sort of like trying to use
a satellite to scan for comets when we already have amateur
astronomers doing the same thing.

Also, sort of reminds me of SETI when it first started. *Many thought
that since we now have SETI we should find aliens any day now. Well,
hasn't happened and might not for a loooong time.

Eric

Amateurs haven't 1% as good of astronomy capability as our government
and public funded institutions that sleep with our NASA has at it's
disposal, not to mention a dozen of those most spendy of spendy
supercomputers that amateurs as a whole couldn't possibly afford to
own even 10% of but one supercomputer for accomplishing proper
simulations.

If that is true, then why do amateurs discover the majority of the new
comets and asteroids discovered?


In other words, your bipolarism is back into covering for our
government.

You're the socialist leaning toward communist.

Eric