News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:SpaceX exploring mission to boost Hubble by WalterBright on Wednesday October 05, 2022 @03:26PM (#33100187)
Things only cost that much per unit because they are one-offs. The trick to saving pots of money is to build duplicates, which will not incur research, design, tooling, test rig, etc., costs.
Re:SpaceX exploring mission to boost Hubble by WWLink on Wednesday October 05, 2022 @03:32PM (#33100247)
The other problem with these is the big super high quality optical mirrors. Going to a production line with those would be really interesting! I don't think you'd get a big enough economy of scale to mass produce them in a just-in-time pipeline though.
Re:SpaceX exploring mission to boost Hubble by WalterBright on Wednesday October 05, 2022 @04:29PM (#33100897)
Once you've designed and built the grinding machine (I saw a picture of it, it fills a special room) you've done most of it. Same for the custom test rig.

SpaceX shows what happens to costs when you re-use designs and tooling.

Re:SpaceX exploring mission to boost Hubble by zopa on Wednesday October 05, 2022 @03:40PM (#33100344)
True but there's also decreasing marginal utility for each duplicate. A second telescope in any given class would be awesome but it's always going to be less groundbreaking and useful than the first one.
Re:SpaceX exploring mission to boost Hubble by WalterBright on Wednesday October 05, 2022 @04:23PM (#33100842)
The universe is so big, and so many things to look at, I find it hard to believe we couldn't productively use 100 Hubbles.
Re:SpaceX exploring mission to boost Hubble by mhh__ on Wednesday October 05, 2022 @06:35PM (#33102068)
100 Hubble's would be great but 100 Hubble's and nothing else would not be
Re:SpaceX exploring mission to boost Hubble by jjk166 on Wednesday October 05, 2022 @04:57PM (#33101174)
Well if we had built a warehouse full of Hubbles, then launching a duplicate would make a lot of sense, but we didn't and now the cost of making a replacement after all the custom tooling and talent has been lost is just as expensive as the first time around.