4 ms·

It wasn't "the government" that built JWST, though, it was companies (and universities). edit: I'm also getting tired of the "but rockets!"-trope. It's not a ne

by qayxc 5y ago

It wasn't "the government" that built JWST, though, it was companies (and universities). edit: I'm also getting tired of the "but rockets!"-trope. It's not a new invention, Saturn V was more powerful, and a rocket is not a space telescope.

spullara 5y ago
I don't think you understand how contracting works, but ok. The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST or "Webb") is a joint NASA–ESA–CSA space telescope
- qayxc 5y ago
  Maybe you should look at what was actually done for JWST. The ignorance is really getting on my nerves. The mirror required a primary mirror segment assembly capable of surviving a rocket launch and still being able to be deployed in space at precision. This technology didn't exist back when JWST was approved and had to be developed from scratch, which was (successfully!) done by NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. The prime contractor for the telescope (that includes building flight hardware) is Northrop Grumman, which, last time I checked, is not government owned. ESA's main contribution is the launch vehicle, built and operated by Arianespace - also a private company. The other contribution from ESA is MIRI, a scientific instrument designed, tested, and built by a consortium also including some private companies like RUAG and EADS. CSA contributes the Fine Guidance Sensor and the NIRISS instrument, both built by Honeywell, which, again is a private company. [0] So while a ton of research and design work was done in government run labs, universities and NASA facilities, most of the actual construction was done by private companies. So I really don't understand what you are trying to imply here. JWST was overambitious and pioneered way too many ground-breaking technologies at once while requiring absolute precision and "getting things right" due to its non-serviceability. That's why all the delays and cost overruns happened and there was very little (of course not none) management and bureaucracy errors/overhead at fault here. NASA had simply bitten off more than they could chew with this one and there's absolutely no indication that any one company could've done better. So you seem to have absolutely no clue what the heck you're even on about and what actually went into making of JWST and why it took so long. [0] https://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/satellites/jwst/canada-role.asp https://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/satellites/jwst/canada-role.as...
  - spullara 5y ago
    If you say so. All I see is something they said would cost $500m and due to government involvement it is now unbelievably expensive. Since this almost always happens with NASA I can only think that it is something about how these projects are funded. Maybe there is more to it than it just being hard.
    - qayxc 5y ago
      > All I see is something they said would cost $500m and due to government involvement it is now unbelievably expensive. Again with the ignorance: I just showed that it's not the government involvement that drove cost. It was because it turned out to be much harder than anticipated. > Maybe there is more to it than it just being hard. In this particular case, no there really isn't as annoying as that might be to the anarcho-capitalist/neo-liberal anti-government crowd. The thing about NASA is that they're open and that includes their successes and failures alike. Delays are commonplace in private industry as well, but failure in particular more often than not results in bankruptcy and thus you never hear about it. Just ask a venture capitalist how many high-risk tech investments actually turned a profit and within the anticipated timeframe. You only hear about the unicorns that made it or the ones that crashed and burned so brightly it could be seen from orbit. The majority dies like a drowning child - quietly and unnoticed.

by qayxc 5y ago

spullara 5y ago

I don't think you understand how contracting works, but ok. The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST or "Webb") is a joint NASA–ESA–CSA space telescope

qayxc 5y ago
Maybe you should look at what was actually done for JWST. The ignorance is really getting on my nerves. The mirror required a primary mirror segment assembly capable of surviving a rocket launch and still being able to be deployed in space at precision. This technology didn't exist back when JWST was approved and had to be developed from scratch, which was (successfully!) done by NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. The prime contractor for the telescope (that includes building flight hardware) is Northrop Grumman, which, last time I checked, is not government owned. ESA's main contribution is the launch vehicle, built and operated by Arianespace - also a private company. The other contribution from ESA is MIRI, a scientific instrument designed, tested, and built by a consortium also including some private companies like RUAG and EADS. CSA contributes the Fine Guidance Sensor and the NIRISS instrument, both built by Honeywell, which, again is a private company. [0] So while a ton of research and design work was done in government run labs, universities and NASA facilities, most of the actual construction was done by private companies. So I really don't understand what you are trying to imply here. JWST was overambitious and pioneered way too many ground-breaking technologies at once while requiring absolute precision and "getting things right" due to its non-serviceability. That's why all the delays and cost overruns happened and there was very little (of course not none) management and bureaucracy errors/overhead at fault here. NASA had simply bitten off more than they could chew with this one and there's absolutely no indication that any one company could've done better. So you seem to have absolutely no clue what the heck you're even on about and what actually went into making of JWST and why it took so long. [0] https://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/satellites/jwst/canada-role.asp https://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/satellites/jwst/canada-role.as...
- spullara 5y ago
  If you say so. All I see is something they said would cost $500m and due to government involvement it is now unbelievably expensive. Since this almost always happens with NASA I can only think that it is something about how these projects are funded. Maybe there is more to it than it just being hard.
  - qayxc 5y ago
    > All I see is something they said would cost $500m and due to government involvement it is now unbelievably expensive. Again with the ignorance: I just showed that it's not the government involvement that drove cost. It was because it turned out to be much harder than anticipated. > Maybe there is more to it than it just being hard. In this particular case, no there really isn't as annoying as that might be to the anarcho-capitalist/neo-liberal anti-government crowd. The thing about NASA is that they're open and that includes their successes and failures alike. Delays are commonplace in private industry as well, but failure in particular more often than not results in bankruptcy and thus you never hear about it. Just ask a venture capitalist how many high-risk tech investments actually turned a profit and within the anticipated timeframe. You only hear about the unicorns that made it or the ones that crashed and burned so brightly it could be seen from orbit. The majority dies like a drowning child - quietly and unnoticed.