Live data from Hacker News

James Webb is fully deployed

nasa.gov

151–160 of 522 posts

Re: James Webb is fully deployed

#151

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?

After reading / watching all the info on this page [1], I find it very hard to imagine even the tiniest reduction in cost in going from 19 insanely complex mirrors to 38, then there's all the insanely complex instruments. It might even be the case that the super specialised and expensive machines that were built to construct the telescope itself wouldn't be able to produce 2 full telescopes without being upgraded / refurbished, hence costing a lot more. Everything about this ambitious project is probably once-off for a very good reason.

[1] https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/observatory/ote/mirrors/in...

Re: James Webb is fully deployed

#152

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…

I remember having manuals printed in the 1980s. The first manual cost $1000 to print, the second one $1. This was with camera-ready copy. Never mind all the cost of writing the manual, proofing it, and formatting it.

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.

Re: James Webb is fully deployed

#153
post #23

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?

Are these 'points of failure' ? not single points of failure? I assume some of these have redundancy but could fail.

Re: James Webb is fully deployed

#154

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…

Doubling the data will also double the processing requirements for that data. The observatory is just the remote part of this operation. The data doesn't do squat unless stored, analyzed and interpreted by expensive professionals on expensive equipment.

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.

Re: James Webb is fully deployed

#155

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?"

Contact was written by a scientist who had no experience whatsoever in building things.

Re: James Webb is fully deployed

#156

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 technology is pretty outdated already at launch time. I think they take the lessons from this one into the next telescope.

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.

Re: James Webb is fully deployed

#157

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)

It could find a candidate biosphere. If we see a lot of free oxygen or other super reactive things like fluorine that would be very suggestive. It’s not proof but we don’t know many other processes that can maintain a high percentage of oxidizers in an atmosphere.

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.

Re: James Webb is fully deployed

#158

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?

Space is huge.

Re: James Webb is fully deployed

#159

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.

JWST, like many other spacecraft, has reaction wheels to orient itself. The reason Kepler ran out of fuel when it did was that it was expending more maneuvering fuel for attitude control because two of its four reaction wheels failed. Hubble and the ISS also had similar failures.

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.

Re: James Webb is fully deployed

#160
post #76

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.

It matters a lot, L2 is unstable point so if it ventures beyond L2 there would be no way to bring it back and it would enter a heliocentric orbit. Communication between Earth and telescope would become impossible after some time as gimballed antenna can only rotate so far and stray light reflected from Earth would limit its field of view.

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.

Post reply on HN