
Ahh, perhaps that's why we've (astronomers) have just built *2* 10-meter
ground-based scopes and are studying designs for larger ones.
Seriously, though, you're never going to get a 10-meter scope into orbit
as cheaply as you can build one on the ground, and with adaptive optics
and a good site, the difference in quality is narrowed quite a bit
anyway.  Also, scopes in low orbit (like Hubble) can only observe things
continuously for ~45 minutes at a time, which can be a serious
limitation.


I sure as hell does if the 'point of light' is half a degree in extent
and as bright as the moon.  Have you ever noticed how much brighter the
night sky is on a moonlit night?



Existing satellites *are* points of light, but an advertising sign that
appeared as a point would be useless, so I rather think these will
appear larger than a 'typical' satellite.  Also, satellite tracks *are*
ruining lots of plates in the current Palomar Sky Survey.

What deparment are you in anyway, Philosophy?  You obviously are not
qualified to speak about astronomy...