Former Google CEO Plans To Singlehandedly Fund a Hubble Telescope Replacement (arstechnica.com) 40
An anonymous reader shares a report: Prior to World War II the vast majority of telescopes built around the world were funded by wealthy people with an interest in the heavens above.
However, after the war, two significant developments in the mid-20th century caused the burden of funding large astronomical instruments to largely shift to the government and academic institutions. First, as mirrors became larger and larger to see deeper into the universe, their costs grew exponentially. And then, with the advent of spaceflight, the expense of space-based telescopes expanded even further.
But now the tide may be turning again.
On Wednesday evening, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and his wife, Wendy, announced a major investment in not just one telescope project, but four. Each of these new telescopes brings a novel capability online; however, the most intriguing new instrument is a space-based telescope named Lazuli. This spacecraft, if successfully launched and deployed, would offer astronomers a more capable and modern version of the Hubble Space Telescope, which is now three decades old.
A billionaire with a keen interest in science and technology, Schmidt and his wife did not disclose the size of his investment in the four telescopes, which collectively will be known as the Schmidt Observatory System. However, it likely is worth half a billion dollars, at a minimum.
However, after the war, two significant developments in the mid-20th century caused the burden of funding large astronomical instruments to largely shift to the government and academic institutions. First, as mirrors became larger and larger to see deeper into the universe, their costs grew exponentially. And then, with the advent of spaceflight, the expense of space-based telescopes expanded even further.
But now the tide may be turning again.
On Wednesday evening, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and his wife, Wendy, announced a major investment in not just one telescope project, but four. Each of these new telescopes brings a novel capability online; however, the most intriguing new instrument is a space-based telescope named Lazuli. This spacecraft, if successfully launched and deployed, would offer astronomers a more capable and modern version of the Hubble Space Telescope, which is now three decades old.
A billionaire with a keen interest in science and technology, Schmidt and his wife did not disclose the size of his investment in the four telescopes, which collectively will be known as the Schmidt Observatory System. However, it likely is worth half a billion dollars, at a minimum.
Good (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You think it won't have a viewing proposal evaluation committee, and a distinct time-allocation committee? Seriously?
How do you think telescope time will be allocated? Votes on some website? Likes on Facebook? In which case, you can guarantee that the "Moon Landings were a Hoax" idiots will at some point game the system to burn out the sensors and claim proof that the Moon Landings did, indeed, never happen. That, or the Tangerine Shitgibbon will annex the telescope and require it to search minutely for pro
Good. (Score:4, Insightful)
Just plain good. Even better if operations also don't depend on government funding.
This is depoliticized pure science.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Didn't you hear, science is woke and gay now.
Re: Good. (Score:2)
So is Jesus.
Â\_(ãf)_/Â
(I bet that shrug won't render correctly...)
Re: Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Oligarchy" means Eric Schmidt doesn't stand for election or Senate approval but still gets to be part of the club that dictates how the force of the state is employed against (or for) its citizens.
Oligarchy doesn't mean Eric Schmidt is rich enough to pay for a space telescope.
Re: (Score:2)
For a longer moment than I care to admit, I thought you were alluding to "woke" space exploration.
Re: (Score:2)
Does astronomy have a problem with politicization?
Re: Good. (Score:1)
Big money astronomy does. Work has to be parceled out with an eye to disburse funds to states and congressional districts represented by influential senators and representatives, or ones whose votes or loyalties can be influenced by the disbursement funds to their districts. As opposed to spending money where it will achieve the most value for the mission without regard to other considerations.
So (Score:1)
1/106 of his net worth. Like me splurging on a high end GPU.
Re: (Score:3)
net worth is not quite exactly how much money he actually has.
If it's all stock shit for example, it's not real money, because for example if he tried to cash it out, no one would be able to actually pay that much cash, he would be able to trade with different stocks etc..
I imagine even getting a billion out of it is already a pain.
shove it up your delta-vee (Score:1)
Why not just have Gemini, or whatever you're calling yours, generate the pictures instead? It'd save a lot of money over a spaceborne telescope!
Well, maybe it'd save a LITTLE money.
Schmidt Schmidt projector (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
So ... he has some deal with Nielson (sp? the TV ratings organisation) to somehow monitor people's vision of the sky, and how effective the adverts are. Because if you're selling adverts, at some point the customer is going to ask "are my adverts reaching the right eyeballs and leading to more sales.
Yes, I am anticipating, for example, a new (?) use for all those under-employed Google Glasses. Should have the correct range of sensors and communications to do the job.
totally applaud this (Score:5, Insightful)
Putting a scientific instrument into space that provides 30 years of state-of-the-art data? At the very least, it's worth trying as something that could have a larger, lasting positive effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, you're saying entities like the Gates foundation that attempt to get the most bang for their buck in terms of improving the quality of life for impoverished people have a dismal return to society and completely fail to address real problems. And some billionaire privately funding another space telescope is precisely what society really needs.
I have to be misreading what you wrote. It only makes sense if you don't care at all about the sorts of people the Gates foundation attempts to help.
Re: (Score:1)
Gates foundation should focus on stopping poor people from breeding, then it would have lasting, positive return to society. No more poor kids.
Re: (Score:2)
That's an impressively dark view.
Re: (Score:1)
Is it? Why? It is no human right, or recommended/recommendation, to force children to grow up in poverty.
Re: (Score:2)
Procreation itself is generally considered a human right.
The most reliable way to reduce birthrate is to improve quality of life. Reduce mortality rates, educate women, provide access to birth control, have jobs with living wages, etc. People naturally have fewer children if they're confident their children will survive and if they don't need them for labor.
It's also better for society to generally improve quality of life than to try to restrict procreation based on socioeconomic status. I shouldn't hav
Re: (Score:1)
Procreation collides with other human rights. If a non-parent forced themselves upon a child in the way parents do it would be a severe crime. How do you explain that?
No, the most reliable way to reduce birth rate is sterilisation.
Poor people in the West don't need children for labour or are afraid that the child won't survive. They still procreate.
Procreation is immoral. I shouldn't have to spell this out.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, there are some people who wail, profusely, that that is, indeed, a problem, because they don't do it enough.
I've never understood it myself, because I've never had any idea how to get the consent of my future adult children for the life of unmitigated misery they're going to suffer, before conceiving them. But some people do indeed seem to think that inflicting misery on their ch
Re: (Score:2)
I encourage you to widely share your views with people you know in real life.
Personally, I'm choosing to not have children, in part because I don't want to force living in this world upon another sentient being who isn't able to choose it for themself. It's amusing because I'm probably not among the class of people you wish wouldn't procreate.
Advocating the, presumably forced, sterilization of others goes way too far. Reserving that sort of treatment for particular groups of people is horrific, especially
Re: (Score:1)
I do that constantly. It is not popular, but people have big problems arguing with my view.
Me too, for the exact same reason.
Again, it is no human right to force children to grow up in poverty.
Re: (Score:2)
So 2026.
So MAGA.
Re: (Score:2)
It's really ea
Re: (Score:2)
It seems defeatist to say that no attempt should be made to improve the quality of life of any person on the African continent because, in some cases, war could undo it.
I'm all for getting colonial powers (we can start with the U.S.) out of the affairs of other countries.
Singlehandedly? (Score:1)
"Former Google CEO Plans To Singlehandedly Fund a Hubble Telescope Replacement "
Half a billion probably isn't going to fund a Hubble replacement, never mind four of them. Private funding for things like this aren't that uncommon either. Vera Rubin's mirror was at least partially privately funded.
There already is something called that (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
$500M.. right.. (Score:2)
RAH (Score:2)
"space-based telescope named Lazuli "
Named after one of the female clones of Lazarus Long ?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
As a geologist, I obviously thought of lapis lazuli while trying to work out the name. But I didn't know the Persian linguistic connection.
Classic lapis should have flecks of iron pyrites (FeSâ, approx ; brassy-yellow, possibly cubic habit ) in the blue (frequently white-mottled) groundmass ; if you don't see that, it's probably a good idea to put the specimen down and move on to the next dealer, because you're probably being sold sodalite - and the dealer themselves may not actually know it. Now sodal
Trying to get ahead of the rape allegations (Score:3)
Thanks you so much! (Score:1)
Hello,
Amateur astronomer here, and I just want to say thank you!
Traditional Nasa projects are insanely expensive (10B for JWST for example).
But others have managed to do much more with much less. The European Extermely Large Telescope (39m) will tick at around 1 billon (only)...
With Starship (wouch could have taken up the JWST withotu having it folded!) it would be darn easy to send a Hubble class telescope (2.5m) in space. And Making 2.5m mirrors this days is a peice of cake (way under the million mark)...
Re: (Score:2)
Traditional Nasa projects are insanely expensive (10B for JWST for example).
But others have managed to do much more with much less. The European Extermely Large Telescope (39m) will tick at around 1 billon (only)...
How on earth is that "doing more with less"? Those are different instruments with different objectives. JWST could never be as big as the ELT, and won't be upgraded. ELT can't look for the same kind of longer wave IR that JWST can look at because the atmosphere is in the way emitting and absorbin