That limit won't exist forever. Sooner or later we'll get space-based industry, and I'd rather that be sooner.
I'm as much a fan of astronomy as anyone, but I'm not willing to let it block the best chance we currently have of becoming a space-faring species. The comm satellites aren't important, but the launch capacity scaling is.
Launch capacity scaling isn't only possible through useless comsats.
And astronomy is still an extremely important component for becoming space-faring. No use in going somewhere blindly when you can have a look first. But if there is no-one looking because nothing to see, funding dried up, scientists demotivated,...
But why would you want that we become a space-faring species, at all costs? There is not much interesting to find in space, compared to what we have on Earth (especially not close to us, and I do not see us getting out of the solar system for a long time). Perhaps you could argue that we might do asteroid mining at some point, but at the moment that's very far out of reach.
Because we are limited in every conceivable way down here on Earth. Transportation is expensive, resource extraction is expensive, resources are limited, space is limited, pollution is a problem, energy generation runs into geopolitical, geographical and efficiency issues. And so on.
Never mind the problem of us being one asteroid strike or supervolcano away from a cataclysm, and that's not an if but a when.
I have a feeling that for humans to transcend the proverbial great filter, we have to tap into the vast quantities of resources and energy in the solar system, but more importantly rekindle the pioneering era that last ended with the industrial revolution.
The expensive part of the space industry is lifting infrastructure from ground to space. Moving within the solar system is comparatively cheap if we avoid descending into the gravity well of other planets. Luckily, this is unnecessary for most asteroid mining.
Humankind experienced incredible advances with the toppling of every transportational frontier. The wheel, seafaring, motorized transport and flight all resulted in expansions lasting a hundred years each.
The next frontier is the solar system. We don't know if we'll be able to ever leave it, but that's irrelevant because it can be our home for the next billion years. Our best shot at actually preserving the habitability of Earth is exploiting resources out in space.
I have no idea who downvotes such a wonderfully worded and inspiring comment, but surely, those willing to follow the space path and those willing to remain here on Earth should neither deny the other side of their dream nor enact "rules" that forbid it.
In fact, I'm pretty sure both "sides" would benefit greatly from cooperating. It might even be that these aren't "sides" but just different cousins of the family with different outlooks on their own life, and we need a little bit of everything, and everyone, to make a world.
There is also the possibility that we miss an open window of opportunity. This might be a key resource running out, a plague or global war or even an asteroid impact.
That might close the window of opportunity and not give us a second chance. So better not risk it. :-)
I'd bet you a coffee that, barring a collapse or decline of our present global society, we will have launched a probe to another star before 2100 with a planned arrival before 2150.
Exactly, eventually you should be able to build much bigger telescopes than what can be reasonably built on Earth thanks to the lack of gravity, no horizon and no atmosphere to trash your giant scope with a storm.
Many kilometers in diameter in circumference should be possible and likely much more. The whole thing would at the same time be likely really really light, just thin stabilized foil, as it does not need to fight gravity or survive launch loads. Could be quite a sight. :)
>eventually you should be able to build much bigger telescopes than what can be reasonably built on Earth thanks to the lack of gravity
>Many kilometers in diameter in circumference should be possible and likely much more.
This is a misconception. There is plenty of "gravity". The mirror has to keep a very precise shape and attitude, which severely limits the possible size, considering it has to be light and is a subject to gravitational perturbations. Large and thin constructions in space (solar panels, antennas etc) are mechanically non-trivial on their own, and for telescope-quality mirrors it seems downright impossible.
I'd say it may envisioned theoretically (better materials, new photo-sensor processus, you-tell-me, physics say we have a much higher bound).
But in the short-medium term, the cheapest course that delivers is to use normal telescopes and interferometry (say on some orbit between Venus and Mars). I'm pretty sure it's also a domain where narrow AI may help because finding "anomalies" in space is a lot like finding anomalies on X-rays to find malignant tumors — something AI apparently can do well. Both problems fit incredibly large datasets + ultra low resolution of said anomalous blobs, and discrepancy with normal ones barely statistically significant (well below what human eyes may spot).
This is how I see the immediate future of space-based observation: lots of small things that cooperate extremely (increasingly) well with each other, "networks" more than "giants", much like down here on the ground.
It's just easier, cheaper, and lets you grab a lot of low-hanging fruits. Meanwhile, space-based fabrication can kick off and take the time to reach 'self-sustaining' velocity.
I'm as much a fan of astronomy as anyone, but I'm not willing to let it block the best chance we currently have of becoming a space-faring species. The comm satellites aren't important, but the launch capacity scaling is.