3 ms·
Having worked at NASA, let me tell you that number is 100% BS on all levels. You have to go out of your way to make a satellite cost that much, which they did.
by garmaine 6y ago
Having worked at NASA, let me tell you that number is 100% BS on all levels. You have to go out of your way to make a satellite cost that much, which they did.
Look at how, say, Planetary Resources was putting together their much smaller telescopes and you'd get an idea of how it could be done on the cheap. Then to scale up you'd focus on cost effectiveness instead of maximizing capability at all cost. Do multiple cheap launches ($100m each) instead of spending billions on a complicated automated unfurling mechanism, etc.
- cryptonector 6y agoI bet SpaceX could assemble a huge telescope in space from smaller telescopes, and they could do it for much less than NASA ever could. NASA is a jobs program.
- mike_d 6y ago> NASA is a jobs program NASA is first and foremost our nation's science program. Everything from the network card driver your AWS instance is using to the planes flying into hurricanes to determine how strong they will hit was built with major contributions from NASA engineers. LASIK eye surgery, the nutritional supplements in baby formula, solar panels affordable for consumers, OpenStack, even the BowFlex were all developed by NASA or under NASA funding programs. You could at best say NASA is a jobs program for HN readers. :)
- garmaine 6y agoIt is correct to call NASA’s human space flight a jobs program. It is specifically engineered to maximize the number of jobs spread across key congressional districts and states. And unfortunately this makes it extremely wasteful.