> The thing could simply blow up on the launch pad, for goodness sake!
exactly, I’ve wondered why they don’t build e.g. 2 or 3 of them in tandem since it’d likely be cheaper/easier to do up front vs after the fact if things went wrong. They would then have the additional telescopes if things went right, offering even greater access.
You're correct - building constellations is definitely much cheaper.
For an observational/capability platform such as for DoD or NOAA, making a large number in a series makes sense. For a research platform (NASA/NSF) that same idea doesn't apply, since science objectives dominate the discussion.
With Mars landers, they do build two of them. When they have an issue with the one on Mars, they break out the one here on Earth and start debugging. When they have a solution that works, then they know what to do with the one on Mars.
I don't know if that would work on telescopes, though - I suspect that the copy wouldn't have the full optics installed.
Ever since it was announced I have been anxious about it all going to plan.
Sometimes I put myself in the shoes of the engineers and controllers, and I can’t imagine how nerve wracking it must be, waiting and waiting!
The thing could simply blow up on the launch pad, for goodness sake!