Uncertainty can lead humans to make decisions to handle a worst-case scenario that isn't actually taking place. High-quality imaging makes it difficult for nation-states to bluff or to understate the scale of decay/disaster and allows for finer-grained control of military escalation.
We are seeing the next evolution of these effects as ordinary citizens can now get access to imaging systems that were once the realm of the Keyholes. They are journalists and free press in the sky. The internment camps of Xinjiang can't be hidden: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alison_killing/satellit...
We must, of course, be wary of the societal effects of these imaging systems. If only some have access to orbital imaging, the asymmetry in power can be substantial and the norms for privacy can erode.
We built nuclear power plants not because we needed electricity, but because we needed plutonium for the bomb. We went to the moon in part because "it is hard", but mainly as a way to stick it to the Russkies. We built space telescopes to spy on the "opponent". Yes, that did indeed kept the world in a balance for quite some time, amazingly, but imagine if we, collectively, were just a tad smarter and instead of this, directed our efforts to science.
Had we evolved from bonobos, things might have been different.
I worked on a satellite that was outward facing above a Navy satellite.
We wouldn't have got in space w/o the military subsidy, and I think it'll take society a long time to pay off that debt/slough off the infrastructure, but we're starting to make progress.
There is absolutely no evidence of this. The example you cite has not seen any concrete action taken, China is left to act with impunity.
On the contrary, along with imaging military installations of rival states, they are probably mostly used to surveil targets for the ever-expanding global assassination and missile strike program run by the United States. A recent example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Qasem_Soleima...
I think spending some of that money on science (even earth-facing science) would have a far better return in peace dividend, and might actually make the rest of the world view the US as it apparently still sees itself (as the benevolent overseer of world peace).
The peace that could've been made by spending the funds for a single Keystone on, instead, schools and water plants and hospitals - in the country's the Keystone would be observing... but instead, imperialist war-mongers justify these toys with ever-broader threats of violence and terror.
We should be dropping books, not bombs.
Hubble's optics don't use lenses. Do you have any evidence that KH-11 satellites use lenses? Also, I could be wrong, but I thought that the orbits of Keyhole satellites are high enough relative to the primary mirror diameters that the difference between focusing something on the earth's surface and focusing at infinity (columated light) is within the mirror polishing tolerances, so for all intents an purposes both Earth observation and astronomical telescopes have mirrors shaped to focus at infinity. Am I wrong?
Is sharper focus what you mean by "better capture terrestrial images"? I thought that the main difference in the mirrors was that image intelligence satellites generally have lower magnification / wider field of view than orbiting astronomical telescopes. If you were to point Hubble at Earth (and not burn out its instruments due to the brightness), I don't think you'd get a less sharp image than you'd get from a mirror ground for image intelligence (assuming same manufacturing tolerances/technology). My understanding is that diffraction and atmospheric distortion dominate the image clarity issues for image intelligence satellites, so there's little to nothing to gain for going narrower field of view / higher magnification.
> “The telescope allocation committee would never have approved such a long, risky project,”
Other similar "high risk" experiments would be more likely to occur if time constraints were not such a concern.
[0]: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/phenomena/2015/04...
The bigger question is whether the requisite resources could have a larger combined impact elsewhere by delivering similar advances in astrophysical missions, for which I suspect the answer was correctly judged to be "yes".
We just need to figure out how to repair the Hubble.
Most of the price of JW is research and development anyway. It will not be 2x the price, it will be much less, so even if we ignore the possible scientific output, from a purely financial perspective two would be a bargain.
I just don't understand why we build one JW, and one Hubble, but we can afford 12 KHs and god know how many other spy telescopes...
If only this was true.
nicely done.
Whenever it breaks it’s done.
Call the James’s Webb whatever you want. The point is that it would be useful to have both for decades
They significantly impacted how I grew up seeing the universe though, and I’m sure I’m not alone on this.
That and the countless unexpected insights and connections between seemingly unrelated pieces of knowledge that can happen long after an initial discovery.
Ask the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency!
If the subsequent Hubbles cost as much as the first one actually cost: about 0.5 Hubbles
It's not totally on apples to apples comparison. There would probably be some cost reductions if you made ten hubbles. On the other hand, some of the servicing missions upgrade or even added instruments, so I suppose you'd need to take that into account
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_Kennen