5 ms·
That's part of the problem, another part is lack of scale in the space launch market, which results in relatively small and expensive launchers. Lots of complex
by Denvercoder9 5y ago
That's part of the problem, another part is lack of scale in the space launch market, which results in relatively small and expensive launchers. Lots of complexity and thus cost in JWST could've been avoided if it could be heavier and larger.
- bumby 5y agoHow would you propose to fix that problem? I suppose we could get some asteroid barons that bring in a profit motive but fundamental science rarely has a profit since, by definition, it hasn’t found an application yet
- XorNot 5y agoSpaceX dropping launch costs with Falcon 9 already did that. The IXPE mission launched last week went up in a gigantic, barely filled fairing, because SpaceX bid below what the previous "cheap" launch was going to be.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- LeifCarrotson 5y agoTwo tools: One, commoditize your complements. The complement of satellites is rockets, make rockets cheaper and you simplify the process of getting to space. Second, build towards economies of scale. A one-off is going to be ludicrously expensive, even the Apollo program saved money by reusing technology from military missiles. SpaceX has built more than a hundred rockets and launched more than a thousand satellites. Asteroid barons launching megatons to orbit would certainly make launching a 6.5 ton payload a non-issue. The complexity in the smartphone in my pocket boggles the imagination, I bought it for $200 but if it was a one off you'd have to be Bruce Wayne to afford it.