Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The James Webb Space Telescope has passed the final mission analysis review

asc-csa.gc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 301 posts

Re: The James Webb Space Telescope has passed the final mission analysis review

#111

Post by ufmace »

tomschlick wrote: post #11
tectonic wrote: post #3

Such an exciting, and high stakes, and dramatically late and over-budget mission.

Government red tape and contracting at its finest Edit: Downvotes with no comments as to why... This thing is 24 years in development and 20x over budget. If thats not a failure of government contracting, budgeting, etc then idk what is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope#Cos... - Obviously the platform will be cool once they get it launched, but until then its just a money pit.

The thing with this kind of project, we're not punching out the 10 millionth Honda Civic or something. There's a tremendous amount of stuff here that's never been done before. There's no good way to have an accurate estimate for how much it will cost. You pretty much have to just keep spending until you get it right. This works the same way whether it's Government or Private Industry. Just ask Intel how far over budget they've gone getting EUV working.

Re: The James Webb Space Telescope has passed the final mission analysis review

#112

Post by bumby »

systemvoltage wrote: post #72
DubiousPusher wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that logic, so is the military, public schools and highway maintenance.

Any over budget and poorly run government program I see it as a jobs program. F-35, CalTrain, NASA SLS, etc. This is in stark contrast with partnerships with private industries. For eg DARPA + Moderna or NASA + SpaceX.

While I am as critical of government overspending as anyone, this comparison misses some important nuances.

Let's take the SpaceX example. SpaceX is great in terms of pushing innovation. But there would be no SpaceX without NASA or other government entities. They need those tax dollars (especially early on) to survive. And when they lose a government payload, the government takes something to the tune of 80% of the loss because they are self-insured. This has the effect of SpaceX farming out their risk to the government.

But this is one of the areas where the government excels. Namely, taking large risks in nascent fields where the risk is too big for private companies to balance against the benefit by themselves. But the complexities and unknowns that create that risk is also the very same thing that creates the budget and schedule risk as well.

Re: The James Webb Space Telescope has passed the final mission analysis review

#113

Post by phkahler »

derekp7 wrote: post #81
jl6 wrote: post #54

If the JWST survives launch but has a subsequent mechanical problem that prevents it deploying properly (and it’s the kind of problem that would have been fixable on Hubble, using a shuttle mission) would it be feasible to mount a robotic rescue mission to chase it down and remote-hands it back to life? For less than the cost of just launching another JWST?

I would think that a cheaper (or multiple cheaper) versions could be made if they don't require the long lifespan and reliability that previous launch costs inflicted. Once Starship is going, and if it proves to be as low cost as the current projections, I could see multiple space telescopes being designed cheaply for a launch every year, each one designed in a narrow configuration that serves a specific purpose. But…

>> But I really don't know what all goes into making a space telescope so expensive currently.

I think you already said it. The long life (high reliability) requirement, and I'll add the complexity of having it unfold. Both of those become non-issues if you build the telescope right into a space-X starship. There may be other issues with that, but the mirror wouldn't need to fold ;-)

Re: The James Webb Space Telescope has passed the final mission analysis review

#114

Post by bumby »

cromwellian wrote: post #101
wolverine876 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> surely the cost per unit would go down, and launch more than one? Surely? They didn't build a JWST factory. It might go up, as people with specialized skills or knowledge have moved on.

Yes, surely. Most of the cost was in R&D and in the mirror manufacturing. They've been designing and manufacturing it for 20 years. Per-unit costs would go down. Take the mirror, it's made of segments, the facility used to produce those segments certainly would benefit from scaling up production. They'd get better at fabbing them over time, increasing yields, reducing costs. What NASA is doing is building the equival…

Certainly a lot of the cost of the project is R&D, but most people would be shocked by how much of aerospace project budgets are driven by quality. E.g., a bolt costs $200 not because it has to go through a new R&D cycle, but because it needs a chain-of-custody, inspections, metal coupons stored, etc.

There's also a huge amount of political risk for a government entity. Politicians will be reluctant to fund another JWST if the first one fails because many will fight it as a waste of money, and the previous failure just bolsters the JWST-opponent's position.

Re: The James Webb Space Telescope has passed the final mission analysis review

#115

Post by darkwater »

sonograph wrote: post #33

I remember getting excited about this telescope a decade ago. I haven't heard of it since; but I thought it's budget was cut and it was over. I'm excited NASA is finally going to get it up in space!

It's ESA that's getting it up into space, NASA is "just" collaborating.

Re: The James Webb Space Telescope has passed the final mission analysis review

#116

Post by phkahler »

pklausler wrote: post #99
nabla9 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The JWST will not orbit Earth. It will be located near the second Lagrange point (L2) over 1,500,000 km away (The Moon is just 405,000 km from the Earth). Space Shuttle could not have reached it.

It's not an orbit, per se, but... it will go around the Earth once per year.

>> it will go around the Earth once per year.

I think more accurately it will go around the sun once per year. The earth will provide the extra gravitational pull (toward the sun) needed to orbit the sun at a larger radius than the earth in the same amount of time as the earth.

Re: The James Webb Space Telescope has passed the final mission analysis review

#117

Post by deepsun »

jl6 wrote: post #54

If the JWST survives launch but has a subsequent mechanical problem that prevents it deploying properly (and it’s the kind of problem that would have been fixable on Hubble, using a shuttle mission) would it be feasible to mount a robotic rescue mission to chase it down and remote-hands it back to life? For less than the cost of just launching another JWST?

Also, all robotic space repair satellites are very into military tech (even taking pictures of open space is very strictly controlled, because you may inadvertently take a picture of a military satellite). Not event talking about disabling err.. repairing, de-orbiting, spinning etc other satellites. That types of tech is opposed by military, that's actually one of the reason we don't clear dangerous space garbage (especially considering some of that garbage is actually working military satellites).

Re: The James Webb Space Telescope has passed the final mission analysis review

#118

Post by mtdewcmu »

keanebean86 wrote: post #76
pkaye wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually the budget was overrun quite a bit. I think it will cost $10B at this point.

$9.5 billion over is pocket change! If you adjust for inflation $10 billion is only $7.7 billion in 2007 dollars. Assuming the telescope works I can live with it being expensive.

Unlike the F-35, I think the taxpayers are getting their money's worth.

Re: The James Webb Space Telescope has passed the final mission analysis review

#119

Post by topspin »

fnord77 wrote: post #25

what's the biggest risk? rocket failure during takeoff or telescope malfunction?

There are several big risks. It's impossible to rank them in a credible way.

Obviously there are all the usual launch risks. The cryogenics system has had a lot of development problems. The deployment is staggeringly complex and involves components that are not known for their robustness. Finally there is no repair option; one critical things goes wrong or is found to be misdesigned and that's it.

Re: The James Webb Space Telescope has passed the final mission analysis review

#120

Post by bumby »

mtdewcmu wrote: post #118
keanebean86 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$9.5 billion over is pocket change! If you adjust for inflation $10 billion is only $7.7 billion in 2007 dollars. Assuming the telescope works I can live with it being expensive.

Unlike the F-35, I think the taxpayers are getting their money's worth.

Unfortunately, I think it's easier to fund something like the F-35 because it can be framed as a way to avoid an existential threat. It's difficult to do the same with fundamental science
Post reply on HN