4 ms·

it seems weird to spend $10billion on a telescope that lasts for 4-5 years and then not spend the money on a communication system that isn't limited by traffic

it seems weird to spend $10billion on a telescope that lasts for 4-5 years and then not spend the money on a communication system that isn't limited by traffic and is 'expensive', or a spare drive to double its lifespan.

count 4y ago
Ground comms is a construction project, which, as a federal govt thing, means it'd take even longer and be another billions of dollars.
- LegitShady 4y ago
  I don't think you understand how much "billions of dollars" is for construction projects. We're talking a communication system, not the large hadron collider.
  - count 4y ago
    Having worked federal construction projects in...adjacent venues, I'm exactly aware of what is involved and the scope.
    - Sporktacular 4y ago
      How many multi-billion dollar, federally constructed ground segments are there?
      - count 4y ago
        More than you would expect.
dotnet00 4y ago
It's kind of important to remember that they didn't intend to spend $10B on the telescope and that it's going to last for ~20 years. The original price was expected to be $500M and it would have never been approved if the original price was $10B. It only ended up being able to get to such a cost because of gradual overruns over 20+ years and sunk cost. That said, NASA have been expanding the DSN for the past decade with four new antennae added so far (remaining two expected by 2025), it's just slow progress as usual with most of what they do lately. DSN antennas don't bring in jobs (and thus votes) for senators the way decades long flagship projects like JWST or SLS do.
joshvm 4y ago
Lifespan is not dictated by hard disk space, it's dictated by consumables like liquid helium, other cryosystems and fuel for stationkeeping thrusters. Most big NASA projects are specced to just promise enough to get funded (in terms of science) and overengineered, so what gets built will often be stretched longer than the intial deliverables demanded anyway (see basically all the recent Mars rovers).

count 4y ago

Ground comms is a construction project, which, as a federal govt thing, means it'd take even longer and be another billions of dollars.

LegitShady 4y ago
I don't think you understand how much "billions of dollars" is for construction projects. We're talking a communication system, not the large hadron collider.
- count 4y ago
  Having worked federal construction projects in...adjacent venues, I'm exactly aware of what is involved and the scope.
  - Sporktacular 4y ago
    How many multi-billion dollar, federally constructed ground segments are there?
    - count 4y ago
      More than you would expect.

dotnet00 4y ago

It's kind of important to remember that they didn't intend to spend $10B on the telescope and that it's going to last for ~20 years. The original price was expected to be $500M and it would have never been approved if the original price was $10B. It only ended up being able to get to such a cost because of gradual overruns over 20+ years and sunk cost. That said, NASA have been expanding the DSN for the past decade with four new antennae added so far (remaining two expected by 2025), it's just slow progress as usual with most of what they do lately. DSN antennas don't bring in jobs (and thus votes) for senators the way decades long flagship projects like JWST or SLS do.

joshvm 4y ago

Lifespan is not dictated by hard disk space, it's dictated by consumables like liquid helium, other cryosystems and fuel for stationkeeping thrusters. Most big NASA projects are specced to just promise enough to get funded (in terms of science) and overengineered, so what gets built will often be stretched longer than the intial deliverables demanded anyway (see basically all the recent Mars rovers).