The telescope's unusual design allows it to photograph an area equivalent to 45 full moons in each shot.
How many LOCs is that? I only speak 'Murican.
That would allow Hubble2
Using Starship to deliver Hubble 2 if it existed is like using an 18 wheeled semi-tractor trailer to deliver a single bale of hay. It could be done that way does not mean it is a wise use of resources.
As you point out, Webb2 would require orbital refueling.
1) No, he never pointed out Webb2 would require refueling because Webb 2 would not be in orbit. L2 is not in orbit around the Earth. 2) LWST does not allow refueling and I cannot imagine Webb 2 would either. Refueling at L2 is technically possible but highly impractical.
I think you are confusing procedure with results. When someone searched on Google previously, if the answer was on news sites, that was the first few answers. A user could then click to go to the news site. These days, the first result is AI generated; however, the answer may not be correct. Then Google puts YouTube videos at the top of search results. The next few links might link to a news site, but news sites have been pushed down the page.
Of course a user could start on a news site; many news site' Search functionality is less than ideal. I found it was easier and more accurate in the past to use Google to search the news site than the site's search.
2017? Three years to build M1? Seems optimistic
Skylake was launched in late 2015 with Apple probably doing QA in early 2015. M1 was launched in 2020 so 5 years.
Also it was not the start of Apple making their own chips; Apple did not start in a vacuum. They had been making A series chips for a while before then. And as you stated they may have had prototypes for years. Skylake was the point where Apple finally decided Intel was not going to work out anymore.
Starship can launch 100+ tons and has a payload bay with a width of 9m. So we can soon cheaply launch a much larger, but simpler and therefore cheaper, telescope.
1) The word “can” has not been demonstrated yet. Didn’t the last Starship explode on a test flight on May 27, 2025? It certainly would not be cheaper if telescope explodes before reaching orbit.
2) Since Starship has not yet successfully delivered a payload, what is the actual cost per launch? The estimates are $100M but that is factoring it is reusable and not debris after every launch.
3) Why would any telescope use Starship when it can use other rockets, even SpaceX Falcon ones? Telescopes are not necessarily pushing 100+ tons.
Are there any plans for a such a telescope ?
The next telescope is the Nancy Grace Roman telescope scheduled for 2027 launch. It is a wide field infrared telescope that weighs 4.5 tons.
Apple only switched to their own silicon to cut costs
And the fact Intel stagnated on chip design and production for 5 years had nothing to do with it? Also their quality suffered. An Intel insider believes the bad Skylake QA was the final straw for Apple to migrate off Intel.
The fact it could not be delivered is neither here nor there for whether IBM was willing to make whole new architecture Apple's laptops,
IBM was willing to make laptop chips for Apple; however, they were not going to meet Apple's requirements for power efficiency. Also Apple needed improvements almost yearly from chips. That's a lot of R&D for one customer. And Apple was always going to be a small customer to IBM. I think even IBM's own server systems would be a bigger customer to IBM.
The idea that IBM could just rejigger the speeds of the existing designs is EXACTLY the reason IBM hated the Apple contract. If Jobs says, IBM I'm going to shift my purchases of chips to ones that are 100 MHz faster because we need a refresh this fall, that means even more chips are unsaleable and go in the trash. Yes the fabrication got better over time but only by a bit.
Not exactly. Jobs wanted improvement year to year. Increase in chip speed was only one thing. You are correct in asserting IBM did not want yearly changes but it was not just about clock speed. The G5 was a good first attempt at consumer chips; Apple was going to need more changes for future chips. IBM wanted Apple to buy the same chip for years with little change. IBM can get away with that strategy on the server side, not the consumer side.
The entire point of the AIM alliance was to make sure Apple wasn't dependent upon any one supplier. Yes, things weren't ideal with Motorola at the time either, but it's not clear to me that throwing PowerPC out the window was the only option.
And that didn't happen. Motorola could never keep up. IBM was the only one that had any chance; however, what Apple wanted was constant updates to the chips. Neither Motorola nor IBM was willing to do that. Most chipmakers would prefer to make one model for years and years without changes, maybe only a node shrink. For example, IBM designed the Xbox 360 chip. It basically the same chip in production for 11 years with 4 node shrinks. For Apple, it was never going to get better going forward. There is a reason why there was never a laptop G5 chip. IBM would not invest in designing a power efficient mobile chip; none of their Power systems were laptops.
I'm sure it'd have been easier for IBM to make a lower speed, low power, mobile part if that's what Jobs had been hyper-focused on.
And how are you sure about that? IBM has never made an efficient mobile Power chip for laptops. Never. All IBM Power systems at the time were for servers and workstations where power efficiency is not really a factor. Whether IBM was capable also ignores the main issue that R&D costs money. IBM would have had to spend tens of millions of R&D for one customer that might purchase a few million chips at best. Then the next year more R&D would be required. IBM was going to get way more orders from Microsoft and Sony for chips that would not change year to year.
The switch to ARM seems like a move for the worse - behind the superficial performance improvements is one hardware change - a better integration of RAM with the CPU - that'll ultimately make its way to the commodity platform anyway.
And the fact that Intel stagnated on chip designs for more than 5 years had nothing to do with that?
And then where does that leave Apple?
Not at the mercy of yet another chip supplier that could not deliver chips. First it was Motorola. Then it was IBM. Then it was Intel. Could Apple switched to AMD? Sure. But it would could have been the same issue again, different supplier.
tldr; Could be just me but a company with this much money can afford to issue security patches at least.
You couldn't bothered to read the second sentence of the summary? "They will, however, continue to receive security updates for a few more years."
Never tell people how to do things. Tell them WHAT to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity. -- Gen. George S. Patton, Jr.
