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.
When you're the size of Google, of course you can have it both ways. What's the entire point of effectively legalized regulatory capture if not the privilege of having it both (or 5 or 10 or N) ways?
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.
Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome. -- Dr. Johnson
