[HN Gopher] Greg Robinson fixed NASA's James Webb Space Telescop... ___________________________________________________________________ Greg Robinson fixed NASA's James Webb Space Telescope, reluctantly Author : wallflower Score : 110 points Date : 2022-07-15 16:22 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com) | crikeyjoe wrote: | kepler1 wrote: | Not to take away credit from Greg Robinson (or other many people | involved in the project management), but to say that he fixed it | as if a miracle happened is exaggerating. | | The project had to be delayed, cost-overrun, de-scoped in some | small areas, to get it onto _some_ schedule that could then be | followed and predictable. If you cut enough things you can | "rescue" a project back onto schedule. | | It's not like he (or anyone else) turned back time and gave us a | miracle. It's an interesting "people story" though. | gsk22 wrote: | Ctrl-F "miracle" 0 results. Kinda feels like you're the one | exaggerating... | | Of course he shouldn't get 100% of the credit, or perhaps even | a majority of the credit, but it's clear from the article that | the project was languishing when he took the job, and he | quickly made several improvements to get it back on track. | neonate wrote: | https://archive.ph/pb3vq | | See also: | | https://www.wsj.com/articles/nasa-james-webb-space-telescope... | | https://archive.ph/AEzFQ | anewpersonality wrote: | The most surprising thing about JWST is that Mark Adler didn't | work on it. | Rafuino wrote: | I remember working on an audit of JWST back in 2012-ish and | thought that it would never be launched or, if it did, something | critical would fail. I'm happy my doubts were proven wrong | nonethewiser wrote: | What was this "audit"? And why did you think it would never | launch, or fail? | jffry wrote: | NASA performs a variety of audits as part of its annual | financial reporting, for example here's the 2012 report: http | s://www.nasa.gov/pdf/707292main_FY12%20AFR%20111512%20FI... | | Perhaps it was one of these audits? | netsharc wrote: | Seems like at least 2 people on this reply thread didn't | read the article. It could be 3, since OP wrote "an audit", | if OP did the audit mentioned in the article they would've | written "the audit". | jffry wrote: | The audit discussed in the article was "several years" | after 2011. The document I linked discusses, on page 17, | a 2012 GAO report on 21 large NASA projects and discusses | how its cost overruns are affecting other programs, which | could be motivation to can the project or otherwise give | the impression it will "never get off the ground" | | I brought it up because it more closely fit GP's "2012" | timeline and shows that even before the audit in the | article, there was good reason to doubt the future of the | mission. | | Please also remember the HN commenting guidelines | ("Please don't comment on whether someone read an | article."): | motoboi wrote: | You are assuming people only comment if they read the | article. | derekp7 wrote: | Question -- Is the cost of projects such as Webb so high because | of high launch costs, which in turn has a cascade effect on | limiting the the projects that get launched to space, and | therefore requiring that they be built to higher specifications | because you only get one shot at it? If so, then will the lower | cost of space access from future vehicle development (such as | Star Ship, and others that may follow) make projects such as | future James Webb scopes and deep space probes much cheaper, if | they know they can easily launch replacements and iterate the | designs? Or is this just fantasy at this moment? I haven't really | found much other than speculation comments (such as mine), but | would like to see a professional's opinion. | jmyeet wrote: | The cost of launch is relatively low, meaning several hundred | million out of a a $15-20B budget. | | But a given launch system is deeply intertwined with designing | the mission. The size, the weight and the mass distribution. | | Moving parts are a nightmare for reliability. Every moving part | is something that can cease up and go wrong. It's a motor that | can fail and gears that can get jammed. | | JWST has two key components that involve a lot of moving parts: | | 1. The mirror. Hubble was smaller enough to be deployed fully | constructed in the Space Shuttle so didn't have to deploy in | space. JWST's mirror is 3-4x larger an there's no current | launch vehicle that could launch it fully assembled. That's why | you have all the beryllium hex mirrors that had to deploy the | mirror once in orbit. These motors, actuators, assemblies, etc | need to be _incredibly_ precise and reliable; and | | 2. The heat shield. JWST has to be incredibly cold to operate | (5K IIRC). The only way to get rid of heat in space is to | radiate it away. The heat shield separates JWST from the Sun, | the Earth and Moon (each of which reflect enough light to | interfere with operations). The shield is several layers and | it's large, like tennis-court sized. Obviously this too had to | be deployed in space. | | There were like 10 technologies for JWST that had to be | invented to make the mission possible. That's less than ideal. | It adds to the cost, the complexity and the timelines. | | In hindsight it probably would've been worth having a stepping | stone between Hubble and JWST that proved some of these | technologies in a cheaper and less risky way, probably with a | smaller mirror. But here we are. | capableweb wrote: | > In hindsight it probably would've been worth having a | stepping stone between Hubble and JWST that proved some of | these technologies in a cheaper and less risky way, probably | with a smaller mirror. But here we are. | | That doesn't really seem to be in NASAs DNA, to do smaller | incremental improvements. Instead, they really upgrade big, | in chunks with long time in-between. I don't know why they do | it, but in their webcasts it been mentioned a couple of times | related to James Webb. | KerrAvon wrote: | My (minimally educated) guess is the funding model: they | need to give lots of congresspeople stuff for their | districts. Big projects provide much more stuff and are | easier to sell if everyone can get a piece at once rather | than Alabama getting this one piece one year and Colorado | getting this other piece the next year. | swores wrote: | Seems a reasonable guess, but I'd hope that if that were | the main stumbling block then it wouldn't be too hard to | still sell it as a multi-state project that's also multi- | stage, either sharing the work at each stage or signing | off up front which stage goes where. | mrguyorama wrote: | Remember that for congresscritters, it's infinitely | easier to cull $20m from NASA's budget than $5 from the | DOD. | | Also remember that a non-trivial amount of Americans | believe the moon landing was faked, or that the earth is | flat and NASA is part of some conspiracy. Or that a | certain political party has spent literally three decades | saying "the nerds at NASA are lying, there is no global | warming" and you might start to understand the complete | lack of political will to give NASA the funding to do | even literally the basics. | l1tany11 wrote: | My understanding is that not only did the heat shield have to | unfurl, but construct a particular geometry such that it | created a waveguide to channel the light out the sides and | avoid too much entrapment or too slow of transport. Being the | material it is, there's also no way to model exactly how it | will unfurl so it's difficult to develop. Just the metrology | effort on the ground to validate the shape was quite great. | | The sun shield is held up as this big challenge but I don't | think they do a good job explaining why it was so difficult. | | There's a popular YouTube whose father was a metrologist | working on the sun shield. https://youtu.be/Pu97IiO_yDI | WalterBright wrote: | A while back I raised a bit of a furor here saying that a | duplicate could be made and launched at a tenth of the cost. | A lot of people said I don't know what I'm talking about, | that little money would be saved. | | But it seems patently obvious. After all, 10 technologies | don't have to be reinvented. No research would need to be | redone. No test rigs would need to be redesigned and | duplicated. And on and on. | | The most bizarre argument against building a duplicate was | there wouldn't be anything extra worth looking at. Yet I | watched the NOVA episode on the scope last night, and | everywhere they look where we thought there was "nothing" | turns out to be crammed with 10,000 galaxies and stars. | wrycoder wrote: | Olbers' Paradox[0] resurgent. | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox | zabzonk wrote: | I take your point, but it does seem to have actually | worked. | WalterBright wrote: | Obviously a great deal of the cost also came from making | sure it would work, because there wouldn't be another. | | What if 10 were built, each with only a 10% chance of | success? What would that have cost? After all, it doesn't | need the expense of being man-rated. | mmazing wrote: | What is the measure of success though? | | Successful launch and arrival at the observation point? | The 6 month setup period before observations can be made? | | I contend that success here is a full mission that yields | science data over decades of observation. If we cut down | the acceptable error rate so we can launch early, how | does that impact longevity? | zmgsabst wrote: | I think the question is, imagine we built 10 -- and got | an outcome like: | | 2x -- failed to deploy, mission lost | | 4x -- early operation error, 6mo lifetime | | 3x -- lower performance, 3 year lifetime | | 1x -- mission successful, 10 year lifetime | | ...do we get a better deal building them with larger | faults, at a lower cost? | | A lot of expense is in developing technologies, assembly | tooling, and test rigs -- all of which is easier if we | don't need them to be as assured because only 1 in 10 | needs to succeed. | WalterBright wrote: | Right. And if they are launched serially, you've got a | chance to correct mistakes in the previous launches. Odds | of success increase with every launch. | mmazing wrote: | Yeah, makes more sense when I think about it like that. | Thanks! | zabzonk wrote: | > What would that have cost? | | No idea. Do you? Genuinely interested, particularly | regarding methodology. Not intending at all to be | insulting. | WalterBright wrote: | Look at SpaceX's rockets. They cut costs by what, 10x? | over NASA's? A part of that was not trying to build 100% | the first time, but to accept failure and iterate. | | My dad told me that Pratt&Whitney made the most reliable | aircraft engines by putting them on a test stand and | running them at full power until they broke. The | engineers would figure out why it failed, redesign the | part, stick that on the engine, and continued running | them at full power. | | It's straightforward, inexpensive, and it works. | noizejoy wrote: | Could it be, that iterating fast through additional | failures may be harder to finance with public funds, | because the general public hasn't caught up with the | recognition of failing early and often being a good | thing? | WalterBright wrote: | Government programs fail all the time, and they just get | a budget increase. Hire the salesmen who accomplish that. | noizejoy wrote: | lol - you do have a point there! | dekhn wrote: | Surely you can see that the P&W approach is only going to | discover a subset of problems that will affect the engine | in the wild. For example, engines don't run at 100% power | during the full flight, and they go through heating and | cooling cycles. It also doesn't address failure modes due | to manufacturing problems specific to a single engine- | for example, turbine blades are manufactured with serial | numbers and you can go back and get detailed process and | QA for that specific item to understand what went wrong | and why it failed and how to not do that during | manufacture again. | | Then there's all sorts of complex failures that aren't | addressed by single engines: " Prior to this crash, the | probability of a simultaneous failure of all three | hydraulic systems was considered as low as one in a | billion. However, statistical models did not account for | the position of the number-two engine, mounted at the | tail close to hydraulic lines, nor the results of | fragments released in many directions. Since then, | aircraft engine designs have focused on keeping shrapnel | from puncturing the cowling or ductwork, increasingly | utilizing high-strength composite materials to achieve | penetration resistance while keeping the weight low" | | (I'm not disrespecting P&W- I'm sure they have more tests | than just "100% power until it breaks, fix and repeat") | WalterBright wrote: | > Surely you can see that the P&W approach is only going | to discover a subset of problems that will affect the | engine in the wild. | | Keep in mind that my former job was designing gearbox | parts for the Boeing 757. This included doing the math, | and devising a test plan. I've spent a _lot_ of time on | "what could go wrong" scenarios in the real world. | | Also, when I prepare slides for a coding presentation, | the implementation code for a concept gets trimmed way | down to what will fit on a slide. | prpl wrote: | What is the timescale you are thinking of for 10% chance | of success? 10% first light success is different than 10% | 10-year survey success. | | There's physically not enough infrastructure (clean | rooms, testing facilities, vacuum chambers, etc...) nor | skilled manpower available to NASA to be able to build | more than one in parallel, so that would add to the cost | significantly. | WalterBright wrote: | What's being done with that infrastructure (clean room, | testing facilities, vacuum chambers, etc..) right now? | | Nothing? | | Of course, the sensible thing to do is to build the test | equipment, procedures, train the testers. Then test #1. | Then test #2. Then test #3. That's what everybody does. | | The cost of the Saturn V rocket was amortized over many | launch vehicles, despite a host of new technologies that | had to be developed for it, despite much of it being | hand-built. | zabzonk wrote: | But the cost of grinding the mirrors? | WalterBright wrote: | Consider the cost of designing the mirrors, designing a | machine to grind the mirrors, testing the machine, and | verifying the grind of the mirrors. | | All that adds to the cost of the first mirror, and adds | $0 to the second. | prpl wrote: | Other telescopes are being built, at least at places like | Goddard SFC. Probably WFIRST aka Nancy Roman Space | Telescope) there. Other facilities (Northrop Grumman) | would be competing with NatSec/OGA instruments. | toss1 wrote: | >>A lot of people said I don't know what I'm talking about, | that little money would be saved. | | Those are the ignorant ones. | | It isn't quite a "Those who know don't speak and those who | speak don't know" situation, but this is just blindingly | obvious to anyone who has done any R&D to manufacturing and | risk assessment. Heck, even just having a duplicate on the | ground to debug could save the mission (since there isn't | one, let's hope it doesn't come to that). | | On one-off projects of any size, the design, prototyping, | testing, & refining the design just overwhelm the cost of | fabricating the final parts -- and they do it by orders of | magnitude. Just for the carbon fiber parts I work in daily, | the initial R&D test program for a sizeable (scale of 1 | m^2) part might cost $25K, the first mold $12K, the first | part sells for $3K, the second part $2K and the fifth part | 1.7K. To get to volume production in the 100s, there's | probably another dev program & set of molds, and the 300th | part out the door might sell at $1200. | WalterBright wrote: | When I worked in engineering at Boeing, the cost of a | forged part was the cost of the tool&die machinist making | the die. The incremental cost of doing the actual forging | was a rounding error. The dies do wear, and the parts get | larger and larger until they're out of spec and a new die | is sunk. | googlryas wrote: | First rule in government spending: why build one when you | can have two at twice the price? Only, this one can be kept | secret. Controlled by Americans, built by the Japanese | subcontractors. | bornfreddy wrote: | There should be a movie with this plot. | motoboi wrote: | Never now if people are joking saying that but oh boy! | [deleted] | SkyMarshal wrote: | Wanna take a ride? | jasonwatkinspdx wrote: | You got much more detailed explanations in that thread. It | simply doesn't scale like that. These are extremely bespoke | systems, and the entire process is gated on vendors and | facilities that are both unique in the world and under high | demand. There is simply no way you get a 2nd unit at the | kind of discount you're assuming. | wolverine876 wrote: | We already had the discussion. Could you link to it? Is it | worth having it again? | WalterBright wrote: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30730726 | jmyeet wrote: | I'm not sure you're correct. | | Consider fabbing chips. Fabs spend an awful lot of time | verifying the produced chips. I've seen estimates that | verification cost exceeds fabrication cost. | | How much of the development cost of JWST 2.0 would be spent | on verification? I honestly don't know but I would guess | it's high. | | Another factor: part of making a production process is | predicated on how many you'd build. We had a process for | making Saturn-V rockets based on the number of Apollo | missions we planned for. If you then up and decide you need | 500 Saturn-Vs you might have to go through a whole new | process for something that will scale that high. | | Yet another factor: the launch vehicle. If you decide to do | JWST 2.0 in 10 years, what launch vehicle will you use? The | same one might not exist so the new mission will have to be | designed for what is available. | | And another: materials science changes. We don't make the | same materials that we did 50+ years ago for good reasons | but those materials are a key part of the design of | something like Saturn-V. | | So I imagine JWST 2.0 would be cheaper but 90% cheaper? I'm | not convinced. | dylan604 wrote: | I can't wait for JWST 2.0, but we're only talking about | JWST #2. We're not talking about upgrades, just another | copy. I mean, it should be easy, right? It's in the cloud | so to speak, so just spin up another instance and push to | a different region. No problemo. | saalweachter wrote: | The obvious number to make is 5; currently we only have | one at L2. What about L1, L3, L4 and L5? | rdevsrex wrote: | It will be so cool, if eventually we could deploy | telescopes on other plants, like in Ad Astra. | BurningFrog wrote: | It has to be L2, because Webb needs the shade. | | That still leaves the L2s of Venus, Mars, Jupiter etc. | | And you can probably fit a few more into Earth L2. | Hikikomori wrote: | It's actually not in the shade, its orbit around L2 is | quite wide. That's why it has the massive sunshield and | solar array, it needs a lot of power. | MereInterest wrote: | The advantage of L2 is that is stays in Earth's shadow at | all times. None of the other Lagrange points have this | benefit. | WalterBright wrote: | Why does it need the _sun_ shield, then? | polishTar wrote: | Earth is not big enough to fully eclipse the sun at the | L2 point, but it doesn't matter anyways since JWST was | deliberately put in an orbit around the L2 point that | never enters the earth's eclipse for energy reasons since | the solar panels are not large enough to provide | sufficient power during an eclipse. | | https://space.stackexchange.com/a/57378 | dylan604 wrote: | Ask the moon why during an eclipse it isn't completely | shadowed out. It's much closer than L2 | WalterBright wrote: | Good answer! Although the Earth is also much larger than | the Moon. | dylan604 wrote: | And the JWST is much smaller than the moon | LeifCarrotson wrote: | L2 means that the Earth and Sun are roughly in the same | direction. JWST orbits at a distance around L2 such that | it's actually never in the shade, so it doesn't need | energy storage and thermal controls other than constant | sun in a constant direction. | | It has an orbit around L2 of roughly 0.8 million km. L2 | is about 1.5 million km from Earth. The moon is only 0.36 | million km from Earth. | amluto wrote: | L3 may have some challenges with its Earth uplink, and we | wouldn't be able to see a satellite there very easily. | L3, L4, and L5 might need separate shielding from the | Earth and the sun. | WalterBright wrote: | What are the odds of two objects at L2 colliding? The | telescope does have maneuvering capability, as L2 isn't | stable. | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | The odds are astronomically small. ESA has at least 5 | other missions aimed at L2. [1] | | [1]: https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Scienc | e/Hersch... | WalterBright wrote: | > astronomically small | | That's what I supposed. | dylan604 wrote: | They aren't exactly at L2 as they are orbiting a point | that is L2. So just put each one in their own orbit. | Hopefully it doesn't get congested that we have to fear a | Kessler Syndrome incident at L2 | Teever wrote: | I dont know if your chip fab comparisom is correct. It | would be more comparable if you included the cost of | building the chip fab itself as well as the R&D cost of | several of the key technologies in the fab. | | Also, the entire Apollo infrastructure was actually | designed for many more launches than occured, that's why | some of that infrastructure is still in use to this day. | It's been a few years since I read a biography of Von | Braun but I remember him making design decisions for | Apollo that anticipated many more launches and manned | missions to Mars and Venus in the 1970s with a manner | Mars base by the early 80s. | somat wrote: | I always thought they should have planed to build and | launch two of them in case something happened to the | first(unlike hubble we cant get people out to L2), if you | are building one, then building the second is relatively | cheap. | nsxwolf wrote: | The universe at this distance seems very homogeneous. Won't | looking at different parts of the sky just yield more of | the same? It seems like you'll just see the same things | over and over again in any patch of sky. | ISL wrote: | One of the hypotheses that can be tested better than ever | by JWST is precisely this: Is the very-distant universe | homogenous? | | Modern cosmology assumes-so, but it need not be true. | TheMightyLlama wrote: | "Why build one when you can have two at twice the price" ~ | S.R. Hadden. Contact | baxtr wrote: | We could probably deploy 100k of them and still see only a | tiny fraction of the universe. | skykooler wrote: | Taking pictures the level of the first image released, it | would take about 3700 years for JWST to image the entire | sky. | motoboi wrote: | With really cheap space access you can do assembling in | space. No motors, just plain old human hands in space. | | Tennis court sized shield? Take it up like a long and | precious Persian mat and let the humans rig the thing in | orbit. | | From there, attach fuels tanks and you are good to go for | your insertion burns. | ars wrote: | > These motors, actuators, assemblies, etc need to be | incredibly precise and reliable | | Is it impossible to build to a lower level of reliability | then have humans available to fix/adjust things in orbit? | | Then once it's fully assembled in place, move it to its final | location? | WalterBright wrote: | Don't we also have 60 years of experience with motors, | actuators, and assemblies in space? | HideousKojima wrote: | Some of the parts are so sensitive them weren't deployed | until the telescope got into its final position at the | moon's L2 Lagrange point. If you had humans assemble it in | orbit it would still have to undergo the stresses of | acceleration to get to the L2 Lagrange point. | UmYeahNo wrote: | I don't think that's possible because, if I understand | correctly, many of the parts need to be adjusted | periodically to maintain accuracy. It's not a set-once-and- | forget type situation. Those parts need to be able to make | extraordinarily precise adjustments repeatedly for the life | of the mission. | | _" Aligning the primary mirror segments as though they are | a single large mirror means each mirror is aligned to | 1/10,000th the thickness of a human hair. This alignment | has to be done at 50 degrees above absolute zero! _[0] | | [0]https://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/features/webb- | actuato... | unyttigfjelltol wrote: | The Webb is orbiting the Earth/Sun system at a Lagrange | point. It's not in a normal Earth orbit. Astronauts have | not gone that far from Earth | jmyeet wrote: | Yes and no. It raises a bunch of questions/problems, wuch | as: | | 1. Where doe the telescope deploy? Ideally in LEO so you | have a chance fo fix things but then that complicated the | launch. You have to park in orbit and restart th eengine at | a later point. AFAIK JWST didn't enter a parking orbit so | would've required additional fuel. That might not have been | possible; | | 2. What if the launcher itself fails? Do you want to have | the capacity to launch another rocket, have it rock with | JWST and then go on? If so, that's a whole new level of | complexity and a set of problesm you have to solve as well | as things that can go wrong; | | 3. If you look at the flight plan there are a bunch of | turns. How would the G-forces affect, say, the deployed | heat shield? | | 4. JWST actually had to rotate during launch to point the | instruments away from the Sun so as not to destroy them. | This already added complexity. Doing this with the deployed | spacecraft would probably only further complicate this. | desmosxxx wrote: | Some of the design choices that went into JWST will be fixed | with larger diameter payloads. | | When we get into the government allocating funds it gets | tricky. Cheaper launch costs could just mean that the savings | go into the telescope rather than risk management. It's hard to | get funds for a backup telescope, even if it's cheaper overall. | wolverine876 wrote: | Musk has nothing to do with it. The cost is not due to lack of | Musk. | causality0 wrote: | The cost of projects like Webb is so high because there's zero | incentive for the contractors not to make them high. When the | Webb program was approved the estimated cost was 500 million | dollars. The final cost was ten billion dollars. What's a | reasonable punishment for a cost overrun equal to sinking a | Nimitz-class supercarrier? | efsavage wrote: | One question I love to know the answer to is why we only built | one, or how hard would it be for us to build more now? Would a | second one have cost 5%, 10%, 20% more? Surely it wouldn't be | near 100% as all of the research and testing scales. | upsidesinclude wrote: | The components are immensely expensive. The mirrors alone | required new manufacturing techniques to be _invented_ and | these components are largely invented by doctorate level | research scientists. | | Not to mention the spacecraft and all the deployable systems | must withstand intense G forces to achieve escape velocity. | | The design also requires complete verification. Each component | must be created and a test bench then has to be engineered to | ensure viability after launch. It is an immense undertaking to | develop experimental equipment (ultra-high vacuum, pulsed | powered laser physics background), to then add the additional | expectations of space launch and zero opportunity for | corrective intervention means the standards are exacting. | Laremere wrote: | Yes and no, with factors pushing both ways: | | There was a tremendous amount of r&d expense for James Webb. | However I think that sibling comments are underestimating how | much can be reduced by just expecting that the first few | attempts would fail. Take the sunshield, where Smarter Every | Day did a video showing the extent to which everyone worked to | ensure the exact shape was perfect: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu97IiO_yDI | | A lot of this difficulty was because you couldn't just put it | up there and see if it works. If an extensive test costs $100 | million, but a launch costs $177 million, you choose the | extensive test every time. I think overall a program which made | dozens of James Webbs, launching a couple times a year would | likely have been cheaper with better results. | | On the other hand, there's a big problem: Failure, even within | the expected threshold of failure, looks really bad in the | realm of public opinion. There's just the practical problem of | a NASA director having to stand in front of congress and | justify why the telescope program that has launched 6 failed | satellites over the last 3 years should still get funding. | | but this is still just an interested observer's speculation. | [deleted] | supernova87a wrote: | Here is my take on the confluence of factors at play: | | ** | | 1. The telescope and instruments are designed for a one-time | special use, shared by no one else (pretty much). That means | many if not all the requirements are being discovered as they | go, and it is not a very predictable process in terms of the | risks and unknowns. Many delays happen/happened because people | believed the requirements were set, and started building | things, only to have them change later, leading to wasted time | and resources. But that's how something in research phase goes. | | 2. The size, materials, instruments, etc were pretty much | unprecedented, aside from some very low level legacy | components. Everything had to be designed for the first time. | This often leads to many unexpected cost overruns. | | 3. It was a huge project, which is always in tension with | something that is R&D / being discovered as you go. It takes a | long time for many different and scattered teams to be able to | communicate their requirements and capabilities and schedules | to each other when they are so distributed. There really is | something to the idea that 6 people in one room can do things | that 100 people in multiple rooms cannot, but by the sheer size | required, and the fragmentation of expertise to do the job, it | had accompanying schedule and risk problems. | | 4. Because the telescope is a one-off and so valuable as a | project, it had to be risk-free or risk-minimal. When something | costs so much, it has to cost even more to protect it against | mistakes. That means that you can't cheap out and risk certain | things, leading to it taking more time and resources to get it | right. It is the opposite of the Mars program "fast and cheap | and fail quickly". It has advantages and disadvantages. | | 5. Also a sort of less tangible factor is that these projects, | even when delayed, have to keep a certain group of people | employed to maintain continuity of knowledge and technical | expertise. If you get delayed, you cannot just cut people from | the program, you will lose them to other projects and further | delay progress. So every year of delay incurs you a very high | cost. | | ** | | The costs were not the cost of launch. That was a relatively | small part of the project. Ariane, etc. are known factors at | this point. It was the fact that everything about the telescope | was new, will never be reproduced again, and had to be gotten | right the first time. | | I am probably oversimplifying some things that happened during | the process, and other related factors, but that's my opinion. | readthenotes1 wrote: | "Many delays happen/happened because people believed the | requirements were set, and started building things, only to | have them change later." | | The second part, 'changing requirements' has been the reality | of many NASA and DoD projects for decades. | | The "delays" happen because the vendors make gobs of money | working this way. | supernova87a wrote: | That is also true to some extent. | | I would also say that it is a product of the federal | government in recent decades gradually losing its ability | to keep people on staff (or pay them enough) to build the | knowledge about how to run/build such projects themselves. | And cost-effectively. | | If you recall the earlier days of aerospace, aircraft, | etc., technical experts in the military would basically | tell Lockheed, whoever, exactly what they wanted to design, | or would be equally qualified to set out the specs and be | deep in the design. | | Over the last decades, that capability (I believe) has | largely left the government/public institutions. We have | essentially outsourced the design and building of aircraft, | spacecraft to private contractors, and when that happens it | naturally costs more to do, to pay them to do that job (and | take on the risk of doing it). After all, they are profit- | seeking enterprises, while if that expertise had been kept | in government, it would not be. | | If you take it by examples, the era of WW2/shortly-post-WW2 | military aircraft was when Air Force/Navy/Army aircraft | engineers helped design planes that contractors would get | marching orders to go build (of course with their input). | Nowadays, we're in the era when Pentagon procurement office | tells LM / Boeing to go design us a plane to these | outcomes, which are cobbled together from 4 different | branches of the military and uncoordinated generals' wish | lists. | | And we're surprised that a fighter program ends up costing | $2T. | uoaei wrote: | Have you done any research into the budgeting process? | | Edit: I googled it. Here's the first paragraph of the first | link from DDG: | | > The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is expected to cost | NASA $9.7 billion over 24 years. Of that amount, $8.8 billion | was spent on spacecraft development between 2003 and 2021; $861 | million is planned to support five years of operations. | Adjusted for inflation to 2020 dollars, the lifetime cost to | NASA will be approximately $10.8 billion. | | So "spacecraft development" comprised about 90% of the total | budget. Of the remainder, 96% is allocated to "five years of | operations". So we have about $39 million left over, which I | assume covers the launch and everything around it. If you want | to try optimizing that, go ahead, but it is nearly a rounding | error (0.4% of budget) in the grand scheme of things. | | There is an argument to be made that a few million dollars | saved is valuable. I would propose a counterargument, that the | amount of friction induced by working with private contractors | (especially contentious and manipulative ones like those who | run SpaceX) would add to some of the development costs, so the | savings may not be as big as you think from a naive comparison. | bpodgursky wrote: | > especially contentious and manipulative ones like those who | run SpaceX | | I don't think you know anything about the space industry. | SpaceX is famous for being wildly easier to work with than | any other launch provider (including semi-national providers | like Arianespace). | wolverine876 wrote: | Famous among who? Are you in the space launch industry? | ghaff wrote: | Basically, it's the cost of designing and building a complete | one-off that's going to be launched off into space, deployed, | no opportunity to repair, etc. There are a million things | that can go wrong. And you have one shot. | | I know someone who was one of the test engineers on SDO | (solar dynamics observatory) and there were all manner of | concerns about this, that, and the other thing that were | really hard to say were almost absolutely certainly "just | fine." | throw0101a wrote: | > _Basically, it 's the cost of designing and building a | complete one-off_ [...] | | As a simple analogy: there's a difference between going to | 3-for-1 Suite Warehouse and going to Saville Row and | getting something bespoke. | | It's just there are no COTS satellites that do what JWST | do, so if you want to do cutting edge science you're paying | for Saville Row. | ghaff wrote: | Probably even worse than that. They're effectively often | designing special fabrics, threads, and tools to do the | sewing. Not that I have a need any longer, but custom | suits in lower cost of labor areas aren't a big deal and | even off-the-rack suits pretty much have to be tailored | for many of us to look good. | throwaway6734 wrote: | Is it possible that cheaper and more frequent launches will | keep and up dropping the development prices as maybe more | regular launches will enable the development process to be | less strict and leave more room for error? | dotnet00 wrote: | That is essentially what's driving the popularity of | smallsats and megaconstellations. Since launch costs are | dropping and flights are becoming more regular (eg SpaceX's | transporter flights, where the rocket flies regardless of | payload readiness and anyone who wasn't ready just moves to | another flight, eliminating the main issue from other | rideshare arrangements), it's potentially cheaper to make | more replaceable satellites. So far this mainly applies to | Earth observation and internet constellations. | | This doesn't really carry-over to large projects like JWST | yet though. | raisin_churn wrote: | Part of the huge cost to develop it was getting a mechanism | that could deploy the mirror segments into a large enough | array with sufficient accuracy, a task that would be | dramatically simplified by a a launch platform with a wider | fairing and greater mass to the L2 Lagrange point. So yes, if | SpaceX Starship was available, it would've saved a ton of | money on JWST, albeit mostly by relaxing the design | parameters of the telescope rather than through cheaper | launch costs. | wolverine876 wrote: | > if SpaceX Starship was available, it would've saved a ton | of money on JWST | | How much? How much did it cost for the actual JWST? Do you | have any evidence of this great cost? | | The glorification of Musk's ego is endless. Can JWST see | the farthest reaches of it? Is it expanding or contracting? | dotnet00 wrote: | It's pretty trivial to tell that a large portion of | JWST's delays were related to the unfolding mechanism | (first building it, then the 5 years of delays from a | ripped sunshield, loose screws and more), much of which | would be rendered unnecessary by Starship's wider payload | bay. Thus of course it would've saved a ton of money on | the telescope. The telescope wouldn't have needed so much | testing if it didn't have 344 single points of failure, | and it wouldn't have that many of those if it didn't need | its unfolding mechanism. | | If that isn't convincing enough, the budget plan | including all folding mechanisms etc before testing was | $6.5B, so the $3.5B extra was spent entirely on testing | and repairs. Thus, if a folding mechanism was not needed, | they could have saved at least that much on testing and | fixing said mechanism. | | Might be a good idea to take off your blinders before | complaining about someone being more successful than you. | Since your jealousy is blinding you so much, it would | have been just as convenient for costs if any other | rocket had a wider payload fairing than Ariane 5. | JacobThreeThree wrote: | I think OP is saying they would have had the space to | simply built one large mirror instead of many different | mirror segments that require complicated motors and | moving parts to deploy into position. | | The mirror segment deployment technology is surely a | significant percentage of the cost. | wolverine876 wrote: | > surely | | Is there a more common or obvious trap of reasoning? If | 'surely' worked, we wouldn't have needed the | Enlightenment, science, or the JWST to learn about the | universe. | | IIRC (much stronger evidence than 'surely', but still | lacking), it's in fact not significant to the cost. | raisin_churn wrote: | This has nothing to do with Musk. A larger payload | fairing diameter means fewer/no elements of the mirror | have to be folded up for launch, means reducing or | completely avoiding the multi-hundred step deployment | procedure, the design of which was both an enormous | engineering undertaking and most of the over 300 single- | points-of-failure[0] in the final design. It doesn't have | to be the SpaceX Starship, but there's no other launch | vehicle currently in development with a comparable | payload diameter. Since it's a purely hypothetical as the | entire design process took place with launching on Ariane | 5 in mind, I have no idea what the cost savings would be, | but it is self-evident they would be considerable. The | thing isn't made of $8B worth of metal, the cost was in | engineering it. | | [0] https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope- | deployment-... | wolverine876 wrote: | > it is self-evident | | Nope! It doesn't cost 8 billion to unfold a mirror. Seems | like a rather straightforward mechanical problem to me. | And your baseless theories and mine are worth nothing | without _evidence_. That 's the reason we built the JWST | - we need evidence. Baseless nonsense is the stuff of | cults of personality, not knowledge. We need much more of | the latter and much less (i.e., none) of the former in | our society. | raisin_churn wrote: | Okay, engineering time costs money. Absolutely staggering | amounts of engineering time were spent ensuring that the | extremely intricate, highly prone-to-failure deployment | process would be successful. With a larger payload | diameter, the mirror deployment process could have been | dramatically simplified, thus saving some percentage of | the staggering amounts of engineering time expended, thus | saving some percentage of the billions of dollars spent | to get the telescope to the launchpad. I do not care what | company produces the launcher with the bigger payload | diameter, OP specifically asked about Starship, and the | answer is YES, a launcher with a significantly larger | payload diameter than what is currently available, like | Starship if it is ever successful, would make an | undertaking like the JWST easier to design, and thus | cheaper to design. I dislike Musk as much as any | disinterested party (I'm sure people he's scammed with | his "FSD next year" or people he's sexually harassed, and | definitely his children dislike him more), but a better | launch vehicle WILL make bleeding-edge space missions | cheaper, and better. That is wholly unrelated to one | obnoxious egomaniac. | WalterBright wrote: | An engineering way to deal with inaccuracy is to make | things adjustable with feedback. | | It's like the silly analogy I hear now and then that | sending a probe into the solar system is like throwing a | baseball from LA to NYC and hitting a small target there. | It isn't like that at all. The probes undergo course | corrections as necessary. | ccooffee wrote: | What lessons are to be learned by the process of the JWST? I'm | amazed that such an ambitious project, which required many | advances in the "state of the art" has been successful so far, | even with the 12 year delay. | | It gives me hope for reversing climate change, though the scale | and scope of the projects are absurdly different. 1000 gigatons | of CO2 is a lot, but we'll have to start somewhere. | ligerzer0 wrote: | What I find scary is that we might invest lots of resources | into "reversing" climate change, and while under this belief | that the reversal is just around the corner, we let the | degradation continue at unnecessary rates, pretty much creating | a race between the ability to reverse it, and it reaching a | point of no reversal | KerrAvon wrote: | What's scary is that we might not invest any resources either | to deal with or reverse climate change, because the | billionaires in charge are planning to jet to New Zealand | until the waters recede (they're not generally very bright). | mrguyorama wrote: | They aren't smart, but they are old and they know that. The | don't expect to live long enough to see the bad shit they | are causing, so they don't care. | harshreality wrote: | That managing projects require a combination of social ability | | > he can go into a room, he can sit in a cafeteria, and by the | time he leaves the cafeteria, he knows half of the people. | | and ability to think technically/rationally | | > He earned a bachelor's in math from Virginia Union and a | bachelor's in electrical engineering from Howard. | | ...to be able to carefully reason through what's required for a | technical project, and get stakeholders on board. | wolverine876 wrote: | I don't doubt Robinson's technical ability at all, but the | credential that matters is the track record at NASA. | Bachelors degrees in math and EE don't signify much at all; | plenty of irrational thinking and people in SV have better | STEM degrees than that. Personally, I'd trust someone more if | one of the degrees was in the humanities, showing an ability | to deal with questions that aren't solvable with algorithms. | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | My most brilliant engineer had a high school diploma. | | He regularly stunned the Ph.Ds in Japan, and they were no | slouches. | vba616 wrote: | Lewis Hamilton started karting at about 8 years old. I | don't even follow F1; I _guessed_ that, and Googled it to | confirm, because that 's how _all_ race drivers start - | let alone the best ever. | | It would be a different, and strange, world where people | typically got to be professional drivers by taking out | loans at 18 to buy brand new 500 hp sports cars and | majoring in "Race Car Driving" at universities. | motoboi wrote: | Yeah, but can he make decisions with incomplete | information in the middle of department fights being | aware of backstabbing? | | This is what put projects on track again. | yaya69 wrote: | Plants | dylan604 wrote: | watered with what water? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-07-15 23:00 UTC)