[0]https://www.northropgrumman.com/space/space-logistics-servic...
I recall a thread here when it was launched where I suggested building a twin simultaneously, and that the increment in cost was likely to be 10% of the cost of one.
One of the critics of this idea said there was no need for another, as there was only so much the JWST could discover. But it's hardly been turned on before people are trying to figure out how to make it last longer. Sigh.
P.S. I found out later that in the past NASA would build probes in pairs, and made extra parts in case one was damaged or didn't work. So it really couldn't be that expensive to have built a twin.
I can't imagine how that could come about.
> There's no way that a twin of JWST would cost only 10%.
It's kind of the way building things works. The cost of the prototype is enormous compared to the next one. For one thing, the additional R+D cost is $0. The additional cost of the software (and I bet the custom software is a big chunk) is $0. The additional cost of committee meetings to discuss competing alternatives is $0. And on and on.
When cutting parts, the cost isn't in cutting the parts. The cost is setting up the machine to cut the parts. The cutting cost is trivial.
When you're building a one-off, you aren't setting up a machine to cut the parts. You're just cutting the parts more or less by hand. It'd be too expensive to set up the machine, and calibrate, and run all of the prototypes to make sure it works, if all you need is a couple of pieces out of it.
Most components of the JWST are not within spec as they leave the factory floor; for many components, the precision required cannot be achieved with machining metrology alone. Remember that system error compounds with every new component that is incorporated. Components have to be constructed, integrated, and then measured/validated with sophisticated metrology equipment after full assembly. If you're lucky, you can modify the components you have to achieve the desired overall tolerances. But a lot of the time, you have to bin the same component a dozen times until you get a batch which happens to be correct (much like in microchip manufacturing).
And this is just for physical manufacturing -- there are multiple other dimensions which are impossible to get right the first time, requiring multiple iterations until your integration tests pass. Many of these test scenarios are extremely expensive to simulate (e.g. full-size vacuum chambers, launch and zero-g simulators), and must be done to validate every single phase of a 5-year mission to an extremely high chance of success (from transport to launch site -> launch -> full deployment -> science operations). Something as simple as a wrongly-tensioned cable is enough to scrap an entire mission -- the validation is absolutely essential to ensure that anything from a manufacturing defect to a simple human error doesn't make it through to launch.
Even in spite of all the lessons learned from JWST 1, I would be surprised if JWST 2's cost was less than 50% of JWST 1 (realistically, I'd peg it at ~80%). The testing costs are a very high fixed cost that must be paid for every unit you make. There's no other way around it.
> The testing costs are a very high fixed cost
I'm sure they are. But you won't have to design the tests and build the test rigs and validate the test procedures a second time. Secondly, you'll inevitably learn from the first test runs to need less iteration.
For example, the full-size vacuum chamber. You would already have it on hand, and not need to build another one. Having already just run #1 through it, you'd know just what to do to get #2 through.
For example, the first time I took the heads off my Mustang it took 4 hours. The second time 2 hours. The third time 20 minutes. The procedure was already all laid out for me in the shop manual. But knowing just what to do cut the time enormously.
But they did come up with a design that worked. Phew!
The cost of that special building, the building's design, the special machinery that filled it, and all those months of testing various parachute designs must have been enormous, and all count for the cost of parachute #1. The construction of parachute #2, after all that, was likely insignificant in comparison.
Namely:
These devices are one of a kind items, fabricated, integrated, and tested manually, not on some kind of assembly line. There isn’t an economy of scale.
Your conjecture is just not correct. It’s remarkably hubristic to think the people who design these space telescopes have continued to do it wrong because making duplicates has not occurred to them.
I've fabricated many things with my hands and machine tools. The second one takes dramatically less time, in every case. Even the 2nd set of materials cost less. For example, I ordered a needle bearing the other day for $7, but with shipping the total came out to $20. If I ordered two bearings, the total cost would have been $27, not $40.
It took me 20 minutes or so to install it. If I installed it a second time, I could have done it in 5 minutes.
The reason is simple. I had the right tools laid out, and I knew exactly what to do the second time.
So, yeah, I was quite unconvinced in the last thread.
P.S. I did not say they were doing it wrong.
It wouldn't surprise me if there were already more than one made for many of the bespoke components used in the telescope. Nobody makes a one-off component without some iteration and covering of their own ass in case something goes awry in shipping or assembly.
I’d suggest that it’s on you to demonstrate why these analogies should hold.
The point is they wouldn't be one of a kind if #2 was built. Planning, designing, iterative prototypes, designing tests, designing test equipment, building test equipment, devising test plans, writing the enormous amount of software require for all of that, for the ground stations, etc., all add nothing to the cost of building #2.
Normally, people take the cost of a program and divide it by the number of units built, and call that the per-unit cost. That's an accounting fiction. The first one costs the bulk, the rest cost far less per unit.
> no reason
The reason is I can't think of any endeavor where the incremental cost of #2 doesn't drop dramatically.
But what would buy us the money spent on a second telescope. One often named reason is protection against failure. That is not so straigth forward, as it sounds. If there is a random chance for failure, then a second telescope lowers the risk accordingly. However, if there is a systematic problem with the design, you would have two defective telescopes. That means, you would have even wasted more money.
Then, if both succeed, you would have increased the "bandwidth", as they could be operated in parallel. But you wouldn't have added the capability to do things differently. With Voyager 1 and 2 and Spirit and Opportunity, they at least were sent on different mission profiles and thus justified the expense.
The thing is, 10 Billion is a huge amount of money, if another JWST had cost like 5 Billions, thats a lot of scientific projects not done because of building a second space telescope. I would rather see the money spent onto different capabilities. Hubble for example is failing, we should have another telescope in the visual range ASAP. As soon as Starship reaches orbit, plans should immediately start to convert one starship into a humungeous Hubble successor.
An instrument like the Thirty Meter Telescope costs just 1 Billion. There is so much other science those 5 Billion would finance. Even if you look around only in the field of astronomy and cosmology.
I really like what they did with Curiosity/Perseverance. They used a proven platform for a second mission with updated sensor and mission profiles. So in my eyes, it would be good to invest the money not spent on a second JWST to begin construction of a true successor, which should be operational before the end of the life time of JWST. With upgraded sensors and based on anything we learn in the first years JWST is used.