Since 90% of the cost is probably in R+D of the telescope, one could build and deploy another for another 10%. Why isn't this done? Why is every space telescope completely unique?
[1] https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/observatory/ote/mirrors/in...
151–160 of 522 posts
Since 90% of the cost is probably in R+D of the telescope, one could build and deploy another for another 10%. Why isn't this done? Why is every space telescope completely unique?
[1] https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/observatory/ote/mirrors/in...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's a wrong assumption. Significant cost come from the assembly and testing of all the components itself, that you would have to redo entirely. Also if you were to build just 2 or 3 of them, you can't expect any economy of scale. On top of that, the operational cost of JWST is expected to be around 1B$ for it's lifetime, you could expect that to be similar for every single replica you have. And finally, you…
Assuming your figures are correct, you'll get double the data for another 30% cost. If you wait a month before launching #2, if problems appear in #1 (like the telescope mirror was ground improperly) it can be fixed in #2. The operational cost will not double. The same ground facility, equipment, and staff can manage both. If you're buying two identical launches, you can get a quantity discount. > the benefits of a s…
When I worked at Boeing, the first forging of a part cost $250,000. The next, just a handful of dollars.
At Boeing, the first airplane gets a ton of testing, as the design is being tested. Airplanes #2 and on only get tested to verify it was built according to the design, at a tiny fraction of the cost of testing #1.
One of the big numbers that been thrown around is that JWST has 344 single points of failure in its mission. Now that deployment has been completed, is there somewhere that lists how many of those points we have passed?
>344 single points of failure How can a system have more that one single point of failure?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's a wrong assumption. Significant cost come from the assembly and testing of all the components itself, that you would have to redo entirely. Also if you were to build just 2 or 3 of them, you can't expect any economy of scale. On top of that, the operational cost of JWST is expected to be around 1B$ for it's lifetime, you could expect that to be similar for every single replica you have. And finally, you…
Assuming your figures are correct, you'll get double the data for another 30% cost. If you wait a month before launching #2, if problems appear in #1 (like the telescope mirror was ground improperly) it can be fixed in #2. The operational cost will not double. The same ground facility, equipment, and staff can manage both. If you're buying two identical launches, you can get a quantity discount. > the benefits of a s…
It's like saying if you're gonna build a chip fab, why not build two while you're at it? Well because the building isn't the operation.
Since 90% of the cost is probably in R+D of the telescope, one could build and deploy another for another 10%. Why isn't this done? Why is every space telescope completely unique?
Reminds me of the line in Contact: "why build one when you can have two at twice the price?"
Since 90% of the cost is probably in R+D of the telescope, one could build and deploy another for another 10%. Why isn't this done? Why is every space telescope completely unique?
There is also the question of the part if the spectrum they are looking at. The JWST is for infrared so I assume the next one will be for different frequencies.
For those not up on the project, what are some of the earliest novel types of information we expect to receive from it?
Word on corners of the interwebz has it that this is gonna prove the existence of aliens (or at least gov. are gonna frame JW as the indicator of alien life)
If we saw that the next step would probably be a telescope designed specifically to observe that target. There are some thoughts about using a telescope out near Pluto that could use the sun as a gigantic gravitational lens to photograph an exoplanet and get very detailed spectroscopic information.
If we have a planet nine that is a primordial black hole that would be an absolute killer gravitational lens.
Since 90% of the cost is probably in R+D of the telescope, one could build and deploy another for another 10%. Why isn't this done? Why is every space telescope completely unique?
The Hubble telescope wasn't unique. It was simply the first one that was pointed away from earth. For the JWST, is there even room for a 2nd telescope at L2?
What puzzles me is the maneuvering fuel. When that fuel runs out, the telescope can no longer orient itself. This ended the life of the Kepler telescope. But aren't there other ways to orient in space? 1. use pressure from the solar wind 2. have 3 electric motors on 3 axis. Wouldn't spinning those motors rotate the craft? Electric power to do it would come from solar panels, giving it plenty of fuel.
We're getting better all the time at building more reliable components (including reaction wheels and cryocoolers) though. Until a few years ago, the life of something like JWST would be limited by the amount of liquid helium on board to cool the components. Modern cryocooler technology (aka a space grade refrigerator) is good enough to cool it indefinitely. Solid state cryocoolers, previously unachievable, are now apparently available for some applications (important not only for reliability but also to reduce vibrations).
Reaction wheels can be used for attitude control but they still have to be unloaded by thrusters after maneuvering for a while. You're right that you could use a rudder (probably two rudders would be required for 3d attitude control) and have to have a balanced solar wind profile (JWST does actually have a solar wind balancing flap, but I don't think it's adjustable like a rudder). But solar wind won't act fast enough if you want to quickly change attitude for observations. And you can't use reaction wheels for stationkeeping. It very much matters where the telescope is, since if it drifts too far away from Earth it will be much harder to send high bandwidth data, and if it's too close to Earth, Moon etc. it will have no way to orient without heating up or blinding itself with the IR sunlight reflected by them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IIRC the thrusters are also used for station-keeping since practical Lagrange orbits are unstable.
Being a telescope, what matters is where it is pointing, not where it is.
Due to that JWST will always be on 'close side of L2' and technically in slow freefall back to Earth and boosted up periodically, but always a bit short of passing to the other side.