4 ms·
A decade old study, using only NASA telescopes, using only super expensive launch systems. Now the Falcon Heavy can lift over double the payload mass of the Sp
by valuearb 6y ago
A decade old study, using only NASA telescopes, using only super expensive launch systems.
Now the Falcon Heavy can lift over double the payload mass of the Space Shuttle to orbit, for less than 1/40th the cost per pound.
- SiempreViernes 6y ago> using only super expensive launch systems. And _yet_, despite launch cost supposedly being suuuuper large, weight played no clear role in total cost. Not sure how that is a counter argument?
- altacc 6y agoLaunch costs are only a fraction of the cost. The cost of a space telescope itself is massive, regardless of launch cost. The James Webb telescope is massively over budget but even it’s original $1 billion cost and 10 year build time is much more than many ground based observatories would have costed at the time. Currently it’s cost is about x10 it’s original estimate and 14 years late, partially because it’ll be on its own once it’s launched. On the ground, $1 billion or less buys you an extraordinarily large telescope such as a 40 metre mirror or a distributed array. These are needed to study very distant objects in detail and impossible to build in space.
- valuearb 6y agoTrue, but if James Webb launched in a fairing as big as Starship, the unfolding mechanism that’s driven most of it’s delays and cost overruns would have been far simpler. And space telescopes don’t suffer from atmospheric distortion, can focus on the same spots for days straight to collect more light, etc. those are huge advantages.