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

261–270 of 301 posts

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

#261

Post by arp242 »

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.

It's roughly the same costs as Hubble ($9.3 billion in 2020 USD), and that excludes the costs for the mirror correction they had to do.

It seems clear the original estimate of $500 million was overly optimistic; actually, it was criticized almost immediately as such after publication. There's a lot of incentive to low-ball these initial cost estimates.

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

#262

Post by arp242 »

bane wrote: post #191

It's my personal belief that these massive R&D space telescope programs are nearing their end. Computational approaches among multiple sensors, combined with good 'ol factory mass manufacturing powered by low-cost reusable launch technology allows for the money spent on one-shot programs like this to be spent and allocated in radical different ways. Instead of building one huge short life-span spacecraft, why not lau…

Deploying multiple smaller telescopes was one of the designs that was considered in the 90s for what eventually became the JWT.

I'm not an expert on any of this, and I don't know specifically why it was rejected, but it's not like people aren't thinking about all sorts of possibilities. Usually there's a reason they're not being done though.

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

#263

Post by relativ575 »

minikites wrote: post #70
endymi0n wrote: post #69

While it‘s awesome to finally see the JWST finally come to close to launch after all those years, now it‘s a close race between it and SpaceX Starship that could have taken the 6.5 meter mirror up to space in one whole piece in its 9m diameter belly rather than having to do all the miraculous origami that took two decades to develop in the first place…

I wouldn't trust any payload on a SpaceX ship given their track record.

SpaceX launched three crews to the ISS within the last 12 months. In other words, they are trusted with payload with the highest caliber.

How can a comment be that ignorant yet presented in such a confident tone?

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

#264

Post by gccs »

wolverine876 wrote: post #220
abhiminator wrote: post #52

On a related note, I highly, highly recommend watching this well-made documentary on JWST, released around 3 and a half years ago -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLD9LKq0u9E This documentary was produced by Northrop Grumman Corporation -- the builders of JWST under a NASA contract.

> This documentary was produced by Northrop Grumman Corporation -- the builders of JWST under a NASA contract. Is it promotional material?

Propaganda

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

#265

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #254
prox wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take Starship could, and should be operational in some form by then.

Question is whether it'll be financially / commercially viable. I think that greatly depends on how much data the telescope gathers or whether it needs more time. Also keep in mind that the Hubble got multiple upgrades over its lifespan, which will be much more difficult with the Webb - is it feasible to do spacewalks that far out? Has any astronaut ever done a spacewalk outside of Earth orbit?

Are you referring to the protection by Earths magnetic field?

If so, would it matter much, given we (allegedly) shot humans in not more than slightly pressurized tin cans to the moon multiple times?

And they survived.

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

#266

Post by [deleted] »

bane wrote: post #191

It's my personal belief that these massive R&D space telescope programs are nearing their end. Computational approaches among multiple sensors, combined with good 'ol factory mass manufacturing powered by low-cost reusable launch technology allows for the money spent on one-shot programs like this to be spent and allocated in radical different ways. Instead of building one huge short life-span spacecraft, why not lau…

[deleted]

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

#267

Post by prox »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #254
prox wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take Starship could, and should be operational in some form by then.

Question is whether it'll be financially / commercially viable. I think that greatly depends on how much data the telescope gathers or whether it needs more time. Also keep in mind that the Hubble got multiple upgrades over its lifespan, which will be much more difficult with the Webb - is it feasible to do spacewalks that far out? Has any astronaut ever done a spacewalk outside of Earth orbit?

Yeah, if it has done it set out to do, then we don’t need to. Also depends how much of a moon presence we have in five years. Launching from the moon might make it feasible for sure, considering the billions the JWST has cost!

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

#268

Post by simonh »

wolverine876 wrote: post #218
gpt5 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if this computational photography vision is years away, JWST might still become obsolete quickly. SpaceX's Starship would be able carry telescopes than JWST as a single piece. This would dramatically simplify development and increase optical quality.

Could you back that up with anything? There is so much excitement about SpaceX, it seems like all I read about on HN.

Saul Perlmutter is a Nobel Prize winning astrophysicist and has been talking about doing this.

https://twitter.com/ChrisG_NSF/status/1412845923521204237?re...

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

#269

Post by me_me_me »

tectonic wrote: post #3

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

Still better than a failed jet fighter. At least we will have working telescope. Even if all we get out of it are some photos for a wallpaper for PC. Still better value as something is better then nothing in this case.

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

#270

Post by phkahler »

pklausler wrote: post #128
phkahler wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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.

Sure, but it also goes around the Earth once per year, too, sidereally.

Sure, but I doubt anyone would say that about some of the other lagrange points.
Post reply on HN