3 ms·

I'd expect the largest part of why is that the marginal costs of launches to space unfortunately don't go down. Each launch is nearly as expensive as the first.

I'd expect the largest part of why is that the marginal costs of launches to space unfortunately don't go down. Each launch is nearly as expensive as the first. The marginal cost on the ground is one thing, and it sounds like Nasa often builds things in triplicate or more on the ground, but then uses the parts in training exercises or for debugging purposes. Nasa probably made three or four equivalents to Hubble. Probably plenty more than that to do all the underwater training on the incredible repair missions for Hubble that extended its lifetime from a projected 5, then a sad "failed mission", then finally the 30+ years we should be grateful to have gotten at all. They just have never had the budget in launch costs to ever launch more than one.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> the marginal costs of launches to space unfortunately don't go down Until recently, neither launch nor satellites had economies of scale. With reusability, launch does. And with common platforms and constellations, satellites are beginning to.
bumby 5y ago
>marginal costs of launches to space unfortunately don't go down. Some aspects certainly do, like ground-support-equipment and basic launch infrastructure.
Rebelgecko 5y ago
Even in the Hubble days, launch costs were a relatively small piece of the pie compared to the costs of actually building the thing. I think for Hubble it was less than 10% (depending on how you count the servicing missions). For Webb it's significantly lower.