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

Post by bumby » Wed, Jul 07, 2021, 10:28 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #138

abz10 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by system2 » Wed, Jul 07, 2021, 10:33 PM UTC

Torkel wrote: post #98

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?

Latency is a bitch. So remote hands from earth is most likely a no-go, for this reason alone. And if you bring astronauts close, then I guess that some EVAs in existing suits starts looking appealing vs developing those remote hands.

Post by omgwtfbyobbq » Wed, Jul 07, 2021, 10:34 PM UTC

tomschlick wrote: post #37

omgwtfbyobbq wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're getting downvoted because what you're saying doesn't match up with the wiki article you linked. The original estimate was for $1.6 billion, in I'm guessing the 90s, and the estimate had been updated to $5 billion by the time it was formally confirmed for construction. > The telescope was originally estimated to cost US$1.6 billion,[102] but the cost estimate grew throughout the early development and ha…

According to the budget table, when the project started in 1997, the budget plan was 500 million. Today its close to 10 billion.

Post by RapidFire » Wed, Jul 07, 2021, 10:41 PM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #142

justshowpost wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

The JWST's mission is to see deep infared, which can pass through interstellar clouds. It will uncover things that have been veiled to us since the beginning of history. It can only be built as a space telescope because the frequency of its intended observations are so low that to a device sensitive to them, air radiates light of blinding intensity.

Post by GekkePrutser » Wed, Jul 07, 2021, 10:53 PM UTC

bumby wrote: post #141

Retric wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's similar analogies here to the space shuttle. For the shuttle to get approved, it had to meet the demands of many masters. The fact that it had to meet DoD missions as well as NASA missions made it a bit of a boondoggle. Likewise, the JSF needed to meet the Marine Corps demands of VTOL to take the place of the AV8B. It's hard to remain focused when you have so many stakeholders. As the saying goes, a camel is…