![]() |
|
|
#1 |
|
I quite division it
"Chris"
Feb 2005
England
31×67 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Undefined
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair
2·19·163 Posts |
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
I quite division it
"Chris"
Feb 2005
England
1000000111012 Posts |
That explains it then.
Last fiddled with by Flatlander on 2011-08-23 at 13:08 |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
72×131 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Bamboozled!
"πΊππ·π·π"
May 2003
Down not across
29×3×7 Posts |
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 | |
|
Dec 2010
Monticello
5·359 Posts |
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 | |
|
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA
22×3×641 Posts |
:-)
Quote:
Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 2011-08-24 at 08:33 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 | |
|
Bamboozled!
"πΊππ·π·π"
May 2003
Down not across
2A0016 Posts |
Quote:
Paul |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101Γ103 Posts
100110001110002 Posts |
Why was the mirror so perfect, yet in error? Maybe the blank met the right yet wrong spec.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 | |
|
Dec 2010
Monticello
179510 Posts |
Quote:
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.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Bamboozled!
"πΊππ·π·π"
May 2003
Down not across
29·3·7 Posts |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Value of expensive chipsets | stars10250 | Hardware | 16 | 2008-10-13 02:20 |