Hacker News Reader

Comment by kitrose | Hacker News Reader

Can someone explain to me why we don't replicate some of these key platforms like the Hubble and James Webb ST?

It seems like the major limitation for discovery is getting enough observation time for whatever certain point in the sky that scientists are researching.

Why don't we launch a second copy of James Webb?

View on HN

It looks like the James Webb cost $8.7B to launch. The Hubble $4.7B at launch and $10B through till 2010. So it seems cost is the limiting factor. Replicas might be cheaper, but they wouldn't be kickstarter cheap.

In an attempt to avoid the appearance of politicking, I'd offer that this is not as significant a sum as it may seem initially, viewed in relative terms to... other governmental expenditures.

You should remember that youre not the only one trying to take and spend tax money.

I'd love to see a breakdown of R&D vs Manufacturing, Launch and ongoing operations.

I'm under the impression that R&D is a significant component of the cost in these sorts of "one off" science projects/devices and consequently, manufacturing, launching and operating a second one might not cost anywhere near as much as the first one.

A Hubble or James Webb is easily a billion dollar effort, making it THE major limitation for discovery. No one is investing that sort of money for no return. Honestly, even if they did, it would be frowned upon considering the more important humanitarian investments at hand.

"In 1970, a Zambia-based nun named Sister Mary Jucunda wrote to Dr. Ernst Stuhlinger, then-associate director of science at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, in response to his ongoing research into a piloted mission to Mars. Specifically, she asked how he could suggest spending billions of dollars on such a project at a time when so many children were starving on Earth."

I encourage you to read his reply.

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/why-explore-space.html

The voyage to Mars will certainly not be a direct source of food for the hungry. However, it will lead to so many new technologies and capabilities that the spin-offs from this project alone will be worth many times the cost of its implementation.

Supposedly he is right and NASA money is well spent, it still not implies it is efficiently spent. Furthermore, he seems to writes off aids as a net loss in his analogy, without considering the benefits of children not starving (to death). Which is especially weird with the follow up

We need more young men and women who choose science as a career

/devils advocate

Reply on news.ycombinator.com