3 ms·

With the irony being that if BFR pans out, this mission could have ended up being launched on it and eliminate a pile of complexity in the process. The mirrors

• jvanderbot 7y ago
  Imagine going back to 1984, and telling the Hubble successor team "Just wait for a future heavy commercial space launch before planning any larger telescopes". Or to 1997, and telling Goddard "Your specs will require technological development that we feel should be halted until a commercial spaceflight program develops. We're pretty sure next year someone will found a e-commerce business that will make him a billionaire, and he'll sort it all out." Or to 2002, when tech internet tech was booming and paypal was going IPO, to tell TRW that the $824 million they just acquired should be put on a shelf until about 20 years later. Or to 2005, 12 years before BFR was announced, when it appeared cost growth was a factor (not at all related to northrup aquisitions). Again, 2010 it passed review, 7 years before announcement. Is it really irony or somehow a waste? I don't think so. (Full disclosure: I'm working on alternative tech to deoployables for large-aperture telescopes, but I greatly appreciate their efforts on JWST, given what we had over the last 20 years).