3 ms·

It's relevant because they wouldn't be relying on terrestrial telescopes in the first place if they had access to space telescopes. Why do they not have access

• ethanbond 3y ago
  > Cheaper launches could also indirectly make the build cost a lot cheaper. This seems very handwavy. It appears space telescopes are actually more expensive because space telescopes are really expensive, not because it’s hard to move them to space. Yes better/cheaper launches would reduce the risk, but that risk is 100% baked into the design and cost of the launch. There’s nothing the payload can do to mitigate the risk of the rocket failing, so there’s no reason to think x% of the telescope’s cost is actually due to the risk of the launch itself.
  • max51 3y ago
    When you tell a team of scientist that budget only allows for a single launch in the next three decades, the cost of that telescope will inevitably be higher because they will want to optimize it and put as many instruments as possible. They will try to get as much science per kg as possible and verify a million times that nothing could ever fail. If deep space payload was a "cheap" commodity and the team designing the JWST were told they get to send 15 units instead of one, it would have been a much different situation.
    • ethanbond 3y ago
      Why would they only have a single launch for the next three decades? They could take 10% of the JWST budget (not including launch) and buy back 6+ launches. Seems to me launches are not super relevant.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]