5 ms·
An absolute ton of the cost of this was down to the extremely precise manufacturing required to make it. Some of that would be reduced now that they've made it
by digdugdirk 4y ago
An absolute ton of the cost of this was down to the extremely precise manufacturing required to make it. Some of that would be reduced now that they've made it once, but we're still talking about one-off components here. It won't be an order of magnitude.
One thing I am curious about is how many spare parts were produced - in small scale high precision manufacturing like this there's often multiples of components produced, with only the highest spec components shipped out. What could we cobble together with the rejects and leftovers? And what would that give us, results wise?
- nickff 4y agoThe other huge cost drivers are testing and calibration. Even if you have all the parts to make another one, you'll spend a lot on expensive labor to put it together, tune, calibrate, and verify it.
- jeffnappi 4y agoFor example check out this video from Smarter Every Day[1] Measuring the sun shield alone was a 5+ year long project. [1] https://youtu.be/Pu97IiO_yDI https://youtu.be/Pu97IiO_yDI
- samstave 4y agothat vid needs its own post
- grogenaut 4y agoMy understanding from that was they were measuring it to make and test a computer model to simulate the shield in 0 g, not to get exact measurements to "it to the right size". Now its in space, they know how it performs and how accurate the model is. I definitely could be wrong.
- samstave 4y agoyes that was the point. now we have that datum to extrapolate for future
- elicash 4y agoI'm reminded of this quote from the movie Contact: "First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ2nhHNtpmk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ2nhHNtpmk
- totallyblasted 4y agoOne of the best films ever made!
- themitigating 4y agoDidn't that work out for them in the film because some crazy person blew up the first one?
- jumboshrimp 4y agoYes, Gary Busey’s son playing himself.
- m463 4y agodoes that mean twice the price, each?
- structural 4y agoThis is actually where NASA gets a significant amount of hardware: manufactured parts from intelligence programs that were the rejects from those production lines. Hubble was a prime example of this, but there are many others.
- SiempreViernes 4y agoYou got any source for that claim?
- themitigating 4y agoWhy does he need proof? People always say government is bad and evil therefore can't you just "feel" this is true? Now take this as a fact and next time someone makes an accusation use it to show a history.
- MichaelCollins 4y agostructural didn't suggest that NASA repurposing military tech is "bad and evil". Why would it be? That's just your own bias, and one I doubt you can back up with much rational argument. Was the Gemini program "evil and bad" because the Titan II boosters used were originally developed as ICBMs? That wasn't evil, that was smart. Anyway, he's substantially if not completely correct and it's not hard to find sources backing up the connection between the HST and KH-11 spy satellites if you bother to look it up. In the sibling comment to yours, I provide a link to a book about NASA, hosted on NASA's website a few years ago, that says Hubble's primary mirror was fabricated using technology developed for the military, that a 2.4 meter mirror was specifically chosen to make that reuse possible. The mirrors were almost certainly manufactured by the same people on the same tools. Read the wiki page for the KH-11 and you'll see that the apparently similarities run deeper than that. Dimensions and general structure of the satellites are also believed to be the the same. None of this is fringe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_KENNEN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_KENNEN And if any of the above is too speculative or unsubstantiated for you, try this on for size: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_National_Reconnaissance_Office_space_telescope_donation_to_NASA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_National_Reconnaissance_O... And this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMT_Observatory#Multiple_Mirror_Telescope_(1979%E2%80%931998) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMT_Observatory#Multiple_Mirro...
- Gustomaximus 4y agoI would assume at least one duplicate part, as when a friend made a component for a sattelite he had to build a second so they had an identical part on earth to study/test in case of later issues. I'm guessing this is standard practise.