EUV ASML mirrors and mirrors for astronomical observation have nothing in common: size, reflectivity, precision, lifetime, actuation are all *completely* different as they have completely different purposes. This is a ridiculous comparison.
Not only that, they are doing UV light emission generation (dual laser) at 50,000 per second just to generate the light.
Actuation speeds are actually ridiculous in these machines as they image. Precision is ridiculous (and far higher than astro), lifetimes are pretty good so far. Reflectivity? EUV is one of the hardest wavelengths to manage reflectivity at. Does it even do anything on a standard polished surface? I would expect it to be absorbed pretty much 100%.
In terms of size, if you look at the individual elements the TMT is not one mirror, it is many smaller mirrors.
I think your comment sort of explains why astro is trapped. There is not a willingness to consider options.
" Astronomers are very cost-conscious,"
Have you paid any attention to cost over-runs on TMT or Webb?
Can you give me an example if a larger $100M+ project done on a payment on delivery / fee for service model in astronomy in last decade? I'm seriously interested.
" Astronomers are very cost-conscious,"
Have you paid any attention to cost over-runs on TMT or Webb?
Can you give me an example if a larger $100M+ project done on a payment on delivery / fee for service model in astronomy in last decade? I'm seriously interested.
Look at the Origins Space Telescope Project:
https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Journal-of-Astro...
The jokes start right away. Design with a fairing for the Space Launch System, which supposedly has a cost of $500M to launch (already estimates are off by 4x!).