mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Hobbies > Astronomy

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2011-08-23, 12:36   #1
Flatlander
I quite division it
 
Flatlander's Avatar
 
"Chris"
Feb 2005
England

31·67 Posts
Default Why is the JWST so expensive?

Space Telescope to Cost $8.7bn

I'm sure Top Gear could do it for 10 and 6, chips and lard.
Space Shuttle on a budget.
Flatlander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-23, 12:59   #2
retina
Undefined
 
retina's Avatar
 
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair

2×19×163 Posts
Default

I though it was obvious.

$10m for the design
$10m for the telescope.
$10m for the launcher.
$10m for the control building.
$8.66b for bribes, political donations and lap dancers.

I thought every public project was like this?
retina is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-23, 13:07   #3
Flatlander
I quite division it
 
Flatlander's Avatar
 
"Chris"
Feb 2005
England

40358 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by retina View Post
I though it was obvious.

$10m for the design
$10m for the telescope.
$10m for the launcher.
$10m for the control building.
$8.66b for bribes, political donations and lap dancers.

I thought every public project was like this?
That explains it then.

Last fiddled with by Flatlander on 2011-08-23 at 13:08
Flatlander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-23, 14:43   #4
fivemack
(loop (#_fork))
 
fivemack's Avatar
 
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England

191316 Posts
Default

I can just about see how the cost went from three billion to nine billion; if you've got about five thousand engineers at $100,000 per year cost-with-overheads-and-materials each then each year's postponement adds half a billion dollars, and maybe the project's at that big a scale.

It's an edge-of-the-possible project - Hubble was quite similar to spy satellites of the time, I suspect JWST is in the same way similar to the now-cancelled Future Imagery Architecture project to build newer, better spy satellites.
fivemack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-23, 20:10   #5
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
"π’‰Ίπ’ŒŒπ’‡·π’†·π’€­"
May 2003
Down not across

29×3×7 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fivemack View Post
Hubble was quite similar to spy satellites of the time
I do love good old British understatement.

HST is very nearly identical to the Keyhole satellites. The HST cameras being adapted to low-intensity imaging is by far the major physical difference. The direction in which it is pointed is the other major difference.

Question: why does the HST fit so snugly in the shuttle's payload bay?

Paul
xilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-24, 04:34   #6
Christenson
 
Christenson's Avatar
 
Dec 2010
Monticello

5·359 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xilman View Post
I do love good old British understatement.

HST is very nearly identical to the Keyhole satellites. The HST cameras being adapted to low-intensity imaging is by far the major physical difference. The direction in which it is pointed is the other major difference.

Question: why does the HST fit so snugly in the shuttle's payload bay?

Paul
What do you think went up on those secret shuttle missions? It doesn't take a clearance to figure it out!

I'd think a KH satellite would also have some adaptive optics/wavefront correction equipment on board, though maybe the right approach in that case would be to take very short exposures (remember, lots of light half the time) and then process the results into still pictures.
Christenson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-24, 08:29   #7
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

11110000011002 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xilman View Post

I do love good old British understatement.
:-)

Quote:
Question: why does the HST fit so snugly in the shuttle's payload bay?
Since it, like the Keyholes, was designed from the start to be launchable by shuttle, that snug fit is simply a design spec. :-)

Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 2011-08-24 at 08:33
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-24, 11:03   #8
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
"π’‰Ίπ’ŒŒπ’‡·π’†·π’€­"
May 2003
Down not across

29×3×7 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Christenson View Post
I'd think a KH satellite would also have some adaptive optics/wavefront correction equipment on board, though maybe the right approach in that case would be to take very short exposures (remember, lots of light half the time) and then process the results into still pictures.
True. That's the converse to my statement about low-light optics.

Paul
xilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-24, 12:36   #9
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101Γ—103 Posts

23·1,223 Posts
Default

Why was the mirror so perfect, yet in error? Maybe the blank met the right yet wrong spec.
Uncwilly is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-24, 12:54   #10
Christenson
 
Christenson's Avatar
 
Dec 2010
Monticello

5·359 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xilman View Post
True. That's the converse to my statement about low-light optics.

Paul
I have a different question:
NASA (and even the Hubble) seem to be prone to "Normal Accidents" (two shuttles preventably destroyed in flight, and some within the organisation acutely aware of the danger). The HST had a major "accident" with its mirror, the public story being about mis-assembly followed by a failure to do a foucault knife-edge test known to any amateur telescope builder worthy of the name.

Was the KH program plagued by similar problems, with similar nontechnical causes? Is the JWST program going to have the same problems -- you are busy calculating an engineering staff of thousands....
Christenson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-24, 12:57   #11
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
"π’‰Ίπ’ŒŒπ’‡·π’†·π’€­"
May 2003
Down not across

29×3×7 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncwilly View Post
Why was the mirror so perfect, yet in error? Maybe the blank met the right yet wrong spec.
A small component in the test rig was inserted upside down.

Paul
xilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Value of expensive chipsets stars10250 Hardware 16 2008-10-13 02:20

All times are UTC. The time now is 12:38.


Fri Jul 16 12:38:07 UTC 2021 up 49 days, 10:25, 2 users, load averages: 1.22, 1.45, 1.37

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.