Hacker News Reader

>It rivals images from spacecraft in Earth orbit - as in Hubble or Webb. (emphasis mine)

It seems like this critical detail was left out of the headline.

Still technically correct, the best kind of correct. I wonder how much cheaper are land-based telescopes over the lifetime of instruments such as the Hubble or the Webb.

Also, a huge shame the Overwhelmingly Large Telescope was cancelled. We need more creative names for those.

Angular resolution through the Atmosphere has been solved with adaptive optics and advanced mathematical techniques.

Unfortunately, nothing can remove the temperature of the atmosphere (which affects infrared imaging), or the absorption of many wavelength bands.

> I wonder how much cheaper are land-based telescopes over the lifetime of instruments such as the Hubble or the Webb.

10-100 times cheaper. An LBT night is around $50k-100k, which over 10 years corresponds to $300 millions. JWST total budget is about $10 billions.

True, JWST can operate close to 24/7. On the other hand, land-based telescopes are under constant refurbishment and upgrades, and they become more powerful over time.

Sure, but you're comparing apples and oranges. It's like comparing a sports car to a boat. A ground-based telescope can never do what the JWST can do, because of the atmosphere (namely, do IR photography).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com