4 ms·
arguably we wouldn't have JWST without Hubble, so cost adjusted they're about the same, then again, there is probably some "prior art expensive project" associa
by codezero 2y ago
arguably we wouldn't have JWST without Hubble, so cost adjusted they're about the same, then again, there is probably some "prior art expensive project" associated with Manhattan, but I didn't check :)
- dredmorbius 2y agoThat's ... a somewhat freighted avenue, and it's difficult to determine where to draw lines. Hubble itself strongly leveraged Key Hole, as a further extension: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_KENNEN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_KENNEN> As for the Manhattan Project, it was sufficiently close to the first direct theoretical and applied theory and proofs of sustainable nuclear chain reactions (roughly a decade or less following each), and a lack of understanding of the corresponding risks (which greatly increase costs) that there simply wasn't time to have spent all that much money. By contrast, Hubble and JWST are both late-stage, highly-evolved technologies, pushing the engineering envelope in many dimensions simultaneously, all of which tends to increase costs. See for example the ELT (extremely large telescope), an Earth-based instrument currently under construction in Chile as part of ESO (European Southern Observatory). Tom Scott's 'splainer video on the project explains how costs risk exponentially with increased size for numerous reasons. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_Large_Telescope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_Large_Telescope> <https://yewtu.be/watch?v=QqRREz0iBes https://yewtu.be/watch?v=QqRREz0iBes>