A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Hubble succesor is edging towards $10 billion price tag



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 27th 11, 04:27 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Anonymous Remailer (austria)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 28
Default Hubble succesor is edging towards $10 billion price tag


http://spacenews.com/civil/110826-jw...t-billion.html

I predicted that it would creep towards $10 billion before it's finally
axed. Why, oh why didn't they just build another Hubble? One with a
slightly bigger mirror and modular construction to allow servicing by
robotic missions which could swap out the reaction wheels, replace the
batteries and change the avionics.

NASA now admits that JWST will cost $2.2 billion more than originally
envisioned ($8.7 billion). It's time to kill this turkey before it
wrecks NASA's budget!!


  #2  
Old August 27th 11, 11:33 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Brian Thorn[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,266
Default Hubble succesor is edging towards $10 billion price tag

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 17:27:10 +0200 (CEST), "Anonymous Remailer
(austria)" wrote:


NASA now admits that JWST will cost $2.2 billion more than originally
envisioned ($8.7 billion). It's time to kill this turkey before it
wrecks NASA's budget!!


"Originally?"

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=8631

"The NGST telescope, estimated to cost $1 billion by a 2001 National
Academy of Science report, will be built by an industry team that NASA
will select later this summer."

Kill the damned thing. Now.

Brian
  #3  
Old August 28th 11, 05:35 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Alan Erskine[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,026
Default Hubble succesor is edging towards $10 billion price tag

On 28/08/2011 8:33 AM, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 17:27:10 +0200 (CEST), "Anonymous Remailer
wrote:


NASA now admits that JWST will cost $2.2 billion more than originally
envisioned ($8.7 billion). It's time to kill this turkey before it
wrecks NASA's budget!!


"Originally?"

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=8631

"The NGST telescope, estimated to cost $1 billion by a 2001 National
Academy of Science report, will be built by an industry team that NASA
will select later this summer."

Kill the damned thing. Now.

Brian


Don't feed the troll
  #4  
Old August 28th 11, 05:35 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Alan Erskine[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,026
Default Hubble succesor is edging towards $10 billion price tag

On 28/08/2011 1:27 AM, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
http://spacenews.com/civil/110826-jw...t-billion.html

I predicted that it would creep towards $10 billion before it's finally
axed. Why, oh why didn't they just build another Hubble? One with a
slightly bigger mirror and modular construction to allow servicing by
robotic missions which could swap out the reaction wheels, replace the
batteries and change the avionics.

NASA now admits that JWST will cost $2.2 billion more than originally
envisioned ($8.7 billion). It's time to kill this turkey before it
wrecks NASA's budget!!



Coward. If you haven't got the guts to say it with a genuine email
address, you are a coward.
  #5  
Old August 28th 11, 10:50 AM posted to sci.space.policy
jacob navia[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 543
Default Hubble succesor is edging towards $10 billion price tag

Le 27/08/11 17:27, Anonymous Remailer (austria) a écrit :
http://spacenews.com/civil/110826-jw...t-billion.html

I predicted that it would creep towards $10 billion before it's finally
axed. Why, oh why didn't they just build another Hubble? One with a
slightly bigger mirror and modular construction to allow servicing by
robotic missions which could swap out the reaction wheels, replace the
batteries and change the avionics.

NASA now admits that JWST will cost $2.2 billion more than originally
envisioned ($8.7 billion). It's time to kill this turkey before it
wrecks NASA's budget!!



This attacks are started by the republicans, in their ages old war
against science. The attacks are started by Frank Wolf, republican
representative in the House Appropiations committee.

This politician is a staunch conservative (against abortion, etc)
and has supported all spending in wars proposed by president Bush
and president Obama (Surge in Afghanistan, etc).

Among his more high-profile breaks with his party includes backing the
fall 2008, $700-billion financial bailout for poor banks and financial
institutions. On the other side sometimes he is not so generous:

quote
611. H.R. 5987, to provide a one-time payment of $250 to recipients of
Social Security, railroad retirement benefits, and veterans’ disability
compensation or pension benefits if there is no cost-of-living
adjustment payable in 2011. He voted *No*.
end quote

Source
http://wolf.house.gov/index.cfm?sect...13&itemid=1729)

Of course 700 billion for the banks is money well spent. 10 billion for
astronomy is too much.

Now, this anonymous remailer is continuing the campaign against the JWST
here.

Why this overruns?
------------------

In a study about JWST, the english science magazine "Nature" writes:
[1]

quote
With each iteration, the JWST’s science objectives swelled. The core
instrument package came to include a large field of view near-infrared
camera (NIRCam) and a multi-object near-infrared spectrograph (NIRSpec),
primarily for investigating the earliest stars and galaxies; a general
purpose mid-infrared camera and spectrograph for observing dust-shrouded
objects in the Milky Way; and a fine guidance sensor and tunable filter
imager to support the other three.

The primary mirror, too large to fit into any existing rocket fairing,
would have to be assembled in 18 hexagonal, adjustable segments that
would also unfold in orbit. Each segment would be painstakingly
chiselled from beryllium, then coated with gold and polished.

Arrays of electromechanical devices called microshutters would allow
NIRSpec to take spectra from up to 100 objects simultaneously, even if
some of those objects were faint and lay next to brighter stars. Each
individually controllable microshutter would be the width of a few human
hairs, and NIRSpec would require more than 62,000 of them.
end quote

All this has to go through launch vibrations and stresses, and remain
aligned to nanometer precision... You can see the beast?

This started as a simple scope but NASA couldn't hold back the
expectations of many scientists that kept adding features, hence
the cost overruns.

The complexity of this scope is incredibly high, since all this features
interact. Testing all the components at each step in construction is the
main costly issue remaining. The problem is that saving money in tests
can be even more costly: it was a decision to save money on testing
that allowed a defect in Hubble’s primary mirror to go undetected until
it was in orbit, nearly dooming the entire mission.

The JWST is NOT designed to be serviced by astronauts and anyway, now
that the U.S. has no manned capabilities of sending humans into
space that option is moot.




-------------
[1] Source: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101027/pdf/4671028a.pdf
  #6  
Old August 28th 11, 01:53 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Alan Erskine[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,026
Default Hubble succesor is edging towards $10 billion price tag

On 28/08/2011 7:50 PM, jacob navia wrote:
Le 27/08/11 17:27, Anonymous Remailer (austria) a écrit :
http://spacenews.com/civil/110826-jw...t-billion.html

I predicted that it would creep towards $10 billion before it's finally
axed. Why, oh why didn't they just build another Hubble? One with a
slightly bigger mirror and modular construction to allow servicing by
robotic missions which could swap out the reaction wheels, replace the
batteries and change the avionics.

NASA now admits that JWST will cost $2.2 billion more than originally
envisioned ($8.7 billion). It's time to kill this turkey before it
wrecks NASA's budget!!



This attacks are started by the republicans, in their ages old war
against science. The attacks are started by Frank Wolf, republican
representative in the House Appropiations committee.

This politician is a staunch conservative (against abortion, etc)
and has supported all spending in wars proposed by president Bush
and president Obama (Surge in Afghanistan, etc).

Among his more high-profile breaks with his party includes backing the
fall 2008, $700-billion financial bailout for poor banks and financial
institutions. On the other side sometimes he is not so generous:

quote
611. H.R. 5987, to provide a one-time payment of $250 to recipients of
Social Security, railroad retirement benefits, and veterans’ disability
compensation or pension benefits if there is no cost-of-living
adjustment payable in 2011. He voted *No*.
end quote

Source
http://wolf.house.gov/index.cfm?sect...13&itemid=1729)


Of course 700 billion for the banks is money well spent. 10 billion for
astronomy is too much.

Now, this anonymous remailer is continuing the campaign against the JWST
here.



What do you expect from a coward?
  #7  
Old August 29th 11, 12:15 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Hubble succesor is edging towards $10 billion price tag

On Aug 28, 5:50*am, jacob navia wrote:
Le 27/08/11 17:27, Anonymous Remailer (austria) a écrit :

http://spacenews.com/civil/110826-jw...t-billion.html


I predicted that it would creep towards $10 billion before it's finally
axed. Why, oh why didn't they just build another Hubble? One with a
slightly bigger mirror and modular construction to allow servicing by
robotic missions which could swap out the reaction wheels, replace the
batteries and change the avionics.


NASA now admits that JWST will cost $2.2 billion more than originally
envisioned ($8.7 billion). It's time to kill this turkey before it
wrecks NASA's budget!!


This attacks are started by the republicans, in their ages old war
against science. The attacks are started by Frank Wolf, republican
representative in the House Appropiations committee.

This politician is a staunch conservative (against abortion, etc)
and has supported all spending in wars proposed by president Bush
and president Obama (Surge in Afghanistan, etc).

Among his more high-profile breaks with his party includes backing the
fall 2008, $700-billion financial bailout for poor banks and financial
institutions. On the other side sometimes he is not so generous:

quote
611. H.R. 5987, to provide a one-time payment of $250 to recipients of
Social Security, railroad retirement benefits, and veterans’ disability
compensation or pension benefits if there is no cost-of-living
adjustment payable in 2011. He voted *No*.
end quote

Sourcehttp://wolf.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=413&parentid=5§iontree=...)

Of course 700 billion for the banks is money well spent. 10 billion for
astronomy is too much.

Now, this anonymous remailer is continuing the campaign against the JWST
here.

Why this overruns?
------------------

In a study about JWST, the english science magazine "Nature" writes:
[1]

quote
With each iteration, the JWST’s science objectives swelled. The core
instrument package came to include a large field of view near-infrared
camera (NIRCam) and a multi-object near-infrared spectrograph (NIRSpec),
primarily for investigating the earliest stars and galaxies; a general
purpose mid-infrared camera and spectrograph for observing dust-shrouded
objects in the Milky Way; and a fine guidance sensor and tunable filter
imager to support the other three.

The primary mirror, too large to fit into any existing rocket fairing,
would have to be assembled in 18 hexagonal, adjustable segments that
would also unfold in orbit. Each segment would be painstakingly
chiselled from beryllium, then coated with gold and polished.

Arrays of electromechanical devices called microshutters would allow
NIRSpec to take spectra from up to 100 objects simultaneously, even if
some of those objects were faint and lay next to brighter stars. Each
individually controllable microshutter would be the width of a few human
hairs, and NIRSpec would require more than 62,000 of them.
end quote

All this has to go *through launch vibrations and stresses, and remain
aligned to nanometer precision... You can see the beast?

This started as a simple scope but NASA couldn't hold back the
expectations of many scientists that kept adding features, hence
the cost overruns.

The complexity of this scope is incredibly high, since all this features
interact. Testing all the components at each step in construction is the
main costly issue remaining. The problem is that saving money in tests
can be even more costly: it was a decision to save money on testing
that allowed a defect in Hubble’s primary mirror to go undetected until
it was in orbit, nearly dooming the entire mission.

The JWST is NOT designed to be serviced by astronauts and anyway, now
that the U.S. has no manned capabilities of sending humans into
space that option is moot.

-------------
[1] Source:http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101027/pdf/4671028a.pdf


how many REALLY believe if built it will fly successfully?

given is complexity and lack of service capability I doubt it will
work at all.......
  #8  
Old August 29th 11, 04:24 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Alan Erskine[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,026
Default Hubble succesor is edging towards $10 billion price tag

On 29/08/2011 9:15 AM, bob haller wrote:

how many REALLY believe if built it will fly successfully?

given is complexity and lack of service capability I doubt it will
work at all.......



It's not really all that much more complex than Cassini; just a great
deal larger.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Hubble Telescope price tag ????? [email protected] Astronomy Misc 6 January 10th 05 05:22 AM
New Hubble Telescope price tag ????? [email protected] Research 0 January 6th 05 09:58 PM
Robotic Hubble mission would cost $2 billion BitBanger Policy 20 August 19th 04 09:32 PM
NASA Moon-Mars Price Tag at $229 Billion, not $1 Trillion Scott M. Kozel Policy 29 May 6th 04 03:44 AM
NASA Moon-Mars Price Tag at $229 Billion, not $1 Trillion Scott M. Kozel Space Shuttle 36 May 5th 04 09:18 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.