4 ms·

> I'm guessing a big part of the cost is figuring out how to actually invent stuff needed for the project. We're talking about marginal costs, not development

> I'm guessing a big part of the cost is figuring out how to actually invent stuff needed for the project. We're talking about marginal costs, not development costs. So the cost to invent a component is already out of the equation. The high production cost of something like Hubble comes from testing and validation more than materials or fabrication. The failure modes for something big in space can be extremely dangerous. Even a tiny "cheap" cubesat requires a lot of relatively expensive testing so there's a reasonable assurance it won't fail in some catastrophic fashion and destroy the entire rocket. Testing space hardware is additionally difficult because you can only just approximate the hardware's operating environment on the ground. Space hardware also can't be easily repaired or repaired at all once launched. So you've got to test actual flight hardware and if it fails possibly rebuild it from scratch testing and validating the entire way. Developing space hardware and high precision science instruments is expensive and difficult. But it's just a small portion of the overall mission cost for something like Hubble or JWST.

mbfg 5y ago
I defer to your knowledge, i'm not trying to be a jerk. But Hubble took like 30 years? or so to develop and build? How long would a second Hubble take? I'd have to imagine it's less than 5 years, no? That has to be a huge cost savings. The testing process would have to be more streamlined or efficient, i would think. You have a much better understanding of failure modes.
- giantrobot 5y ago
  The Hubble took a little over ten years to build and develop. It's launch was postponed to 1990 because of the Challenger disaster. > The testing process would have to be more streamlined or efficient, i would think. Why do you automatically assume testing for a complicated and delicate machine is inefficient or not streamlined? That's a pretty bold assumption with zero evidence. Understanding failure modes doesn't help test and validate something any faster. There's a finite number of hours in a day and components need some proscribed amount of testing.
- Hextinium 5y ago
  Hubble took ~12 years from initial funding to launch with the challenger disaster postponing it 4 years out of that. Additionally if the decision was made to use traditional mirror techniques the Hubble was predicted to launch in 5 years already, instead of the difficulty they found with the alternative method but they didn't know that at the outset.

mbfg 5y ago

I defer to your knowledge, i'm not trying to be a jerk. But Hubble took like 30 years? or so to develop and build? How long would a second Hubble take? I'd have to imagine it's less than 5 years, no? That has to be a huge cost savings. The testing process would have to be more streamlined or efficient, i would think. You have a much better understanding of failure modes.

giantrobot 5y ago
The Hubble took a little over ten years to build and develop. It's launch was postponed to 1990 because of the Challenger disaster. > The testing process would have to be more streamlined or efficient, i would think. Why do you automatically assume testing for a complicated and delicate machine is inefficient or not streamlined? That's a pretty bold assumption with zero evidence. Understanding failure modes doesn't help test and validate something any faster. There's a finite number of hours in a day and components need some proscribed amount of testing.
Hextinium 5y ago
Hubble took ~12 years from initial funding to launch with the challenger disaster postponing it 4 years out of that. Additionally if the decision was made to use traditional mirror techniques the Hubble was predicted to launch in 5 years already, instead of the difficulty they found with the alternative method but they didn't know that at the outset.