|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |