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

131–140 of 301 posts

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

#131

Post by abz10 »

bumby wrote: post #127
abz10 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The F-35 was framed as a way to save money.

That argument only holds because it was purported to replace different weapons systems that were needed for mitigating a threat. The threat is the primary motivation and cost reduction is secondary. I.e., if not but for the existential threat there's no need for the JSF or any system it would replace.

The F-22 was sufficient for threat mitigation. The F-35 raison d'être was cost reduction, after that was exportability which again was supposed to help with cost reduction.

Edit; comparing the logic of a 'but for' vs a 'necessary' condition. Was the F-35 necessary for threat mitigation. No. Was it framed as the necessary for cost savings, yes.

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

#132

Post by swarnie_ »

slownews45 wrote: post #26
swarnie_ wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fact boy covered it a few weeks ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CowU0QK0Pjs&ab_channel=Megap... From what i remember this project has been running since around the time of Hubble Still.... Can't wait for it to get up there, money and time well spent!

That's pretty amazing. A financial black hole. A cool project, but if you think of the thousands of folks who didn't get funding so this thing could gobble everything up - these projects really become crazy budget wise (SLS did the same path). I wish they would do pay for performance deals. We'll give you $4B if you put a telescope in space of X size that meets some basic specs. If you look at commercial side, space…

10bn in the scope of this joint project between the US, Europe and one other group (Canada or Japan?) is a rounding error over 20 years.

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

#135

Post by sp332 »

phkahler wrote: post #116
pklausler wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It equally orbits the sun and the earth.

Normally, objects with smaller orbits take less time to make a circuit. But this is placed where the earth's gravity pulls it back, just enough to make it take one (earth) year to finish its smaller orbit. So gravity from the earth and the sun are involved.

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

#136

Post by sp332 »

minikites wrote: post #68
tomschlick wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Where are all of the privately funded space telescopes?

Pointed at earth.

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

#137

Post by justshowpost »

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.

Yes, if you prefer eye candy photos to public safety. By the way will James Webb wield a modern eye candy capable sensor? Not sure about that.

There is few worth from remote sensing unreachable (even in theory) objects. Kepler already proved theoretized Goldilocks Zone rocky planets and, in general, provided a lot of data for non-field research (less exciting than Hubble photos indeed). Last, but not least, what's the JWST's mission exactly?

Also, from taxpayers' money perspective Kepler's component quality was complete disaster.

So, I'd better invest in more Martian/Jovian probes than in revival of obsoleted project. Such revival is very similar to Russian GLONASS (a competitor to 1970s NAVSTAR) programme reboot.

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

#138

Post by Retric »

abz10 wrote: post #131
bumby wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That argument only holds because it was purported to replace different weapons systems that were needed for mitigating a threat. The threat is the primary motivation and cost reduction is secondary. I.e., if not but for the existential threat there's no need for the JSF or any system it would replace.

The F-22 was sufficient for threat mitigation. The F-35 raison d'être was cost reduction, after that was exportability which again was supposed to help with cost reduction. Edit; comparing the logic of a 'but for' vs a 'necessary' condition. Was the F-35 necessary for threat mitigation. No. Was it framed as the necessary for cost savings, yes.

Their designed for slightly different roles. The F-35’s R&D looks hard to justify vs simply having more F-22, but the F-35B can do verticals takeoff for example and the F-22 can’t.

So, the real question is if the F-35’s should have had fewer versions and thus been more capable in it’s remaining roles.

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

#139

Post by spaetzleesser »

When I look at project management for the small projects (1-20 people) I am working on I always wonder how projects of such a complexity are managed. It must be freakishly difficult to coordinate all the pieces.

The people working on this will also have several stressful months ahead of them. From launch to full deployment so many things can go wrong and there is nothing that can be done when something fails.

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

#140

Post by bumby »

abz10 wrote: post #131
bumby wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That argument only holds because it was purported to replace different weapons systems that were needed for mitigating a threat. The threat is the primary motivation and cost reduction is secondary. I.e., if not but for the existential threat there's no need for the JSF or any system it would replace.

The F-22 was sufficient for threat mitigation. The F-35 raison d'être was cost reduction, after that was exportability which again was supposed to help with cost reduction. Edit; comparing the logic of a 'but for' vs a 'necessary' condition. Was the F-35 necessary for threat mitigation. No. Was it framed as the necessary for cost savings, yes.

>Was the F-35 necessary for threat mitigation. No. Was it framed as the necessary for cost savings, yes.

I think we're saying the same thing. The argument is, "Was the F22/F18/Fwhatever/weapon-system necessary for threat mitigation? Yes."

With that said, if proponents of the F35 want to frame it as "threat reduction + cost savings" that's how they get the budget approved. But the point stands that without a threat, there's no basis for the cost savings argument. I'm not saying it was effective as cost reduction.

To circle back to the original point, it's much easier to get a budget approved when the basis is existential threat, rather than "science is cool."

Post reply on HN