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.
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.