5 ms·
I wonder how much of the vehicle's final cost is directly attributable to the complexity of deployment. I.E. how much easier would this be if we had a launch ve
by TrainedMonkey 5y ago
I wonder how much of the vehicle's final cost is directly attributable to the complexity of deployment. I.E. how much easier would this be if we had a launch vehicle with a fairing capable of fitting fully deployed configuration.
- bregma 5y agoYou would probably make up for the cost savings by building something strong enough to withstand the forces of achieving Earth escape velocity in a fully deployed configuration, not to mention all the increased mass that would be required. Since it's impossible to do maintenance on this observatory while it's in solar orbit, and since launches have strong vibrations and forces, it's important that the delicate and sensitive equipment be stowed in a way to minimize the effects of launch forces and minimizate the requirements for after-launch maintenance.
- pirate787 5y agoThis is exactly the promise of SpaceX Starship.
- jltsiren 5y agoThe Starship is way too small to carry the fully deployed James Webb telescope. The sunshield is roughly 20 m x 14 m, while the diameter of the Starship is only 9 m.
- m4rtink 5y agoStill the segments could be biggearand or heavier, possibly reducing complexity.
- kortex 5y agoFolding in half is still better than crazy origami robot yoga (that's my new band name). Also I could readily envision a supersize fairing built on the Starship/heavy booster platform. More lift capacity also means less weight optimization and more emphasis on robustness, reliability, redundancy, and power.