> I think other actors can do similar things much cheaper and faster.
Think again. JWST was criticised for being too ambitious and rightly so. It uses technology that was (and in some areas still is) cutting edge.
It baffles me how people always seem to assume that some company can miraculously solve scientific and engineering challenges quicker and cheaper than the teams that are working on it.
JWST was designed with no serviceability in mind, that is, unlike HST it absolutely has to work. Every detail, from the folding mirror, to the sun shield, to the computer systems to the instrumentation. ZERO room for error and no "fail early, fail often"-option here.
Most of the delays have been caused by engineers and scientists wanting to make 100% sure they get it right, because there's no STS servicing for fixing imperfect mirrors or switching out hardware.
We live in an age where companies can and do almost miraculously solve technical problems that the government has failed to do, so it isn't surprising to me.
It wasn't "the government" that built JWST, though, it was companies (and universities).
edit: I'm also getting tired of the "but rockets!"-trope.
It's not a new invention, Saturn V was more powerful, and a rocket is not a space telescope.
Maybe you should look at what was actually done for JWST.
The ignorance is really getting on my nerves. The mirror required a primary mirror segment assembly capable of surviving a rocket launch and still being able to be deployed in space at precision. This technology didn't exist back when JWST was approved and had to be developed from scratch, which was (successfully!) done by NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.
The prime contractor for the telescope (that includes building flight hardware) is Northrop Grumman, which, last time I checked, is not government owned.
ESA's main contribution is the launch vehicle, built and operated by Arianespace - also a private company. The other contribution from ESA is MIRI, a scientific instrument designed, tested, and built by a consortium also including some private companies like RUAG and EADS.
CSA contributes the Fine Guidance Sensor and the NIRISS instrument, both built by Honeywell, which, again is a private company. [0]
So while a ton of research and design work was done in government run labs, universities and NASA facilities, most of the actual construction was done by private companies.
So I really don't understand what you are trying to imply here. JWST was overambitious and pioneered way too many ground-breaking technologies at once while requiring absolute precision and "getting things right" due to its non-serviceability.
That's why all the delays and cost overruns happened and there was very little (of course not none) management and bureaucracy errors/overhead at fault here. NASA had simply bitten off more than they could chew with this one and there's absolutely no indication that any one company could've done better.
So you seem to have absolutely no clue what the heck you're even on about and what actually went into making of JWST and why it took so long.
If you say so. All I see is something they said would cost $500m and due to government involvement it is now unbelievably expensive. Since this almost always happens with NASA I can only think that it is something about how these projects are funded. Maybe there is more to it than it just being hard.
> All I see is something they said would cost $500m and due to government involvement it is now unbelievably expensive.
Again with the ignorance: I just showed that it's not the government involvement that drove cost. It was because it turned out to be much harder than anticipated.
> Maybe there is more to it than it just being hard.
In this particular case, no there really isn't as annoying as that might be to the anarcho-capitalist/neo-liberal anti-government crowd.
The thing about NASA is that they're open and that includes their successes and failures alike. Delays are commonplace in private industry as well, but failure in particular more often than not results in bankruptcy and thus you never hear about it.
Just ask a venture capitalist how many high-risk tech investments actually turned a profit and within the anticipated timeframe. You only hear about the unicorns that made it or the ones that crashed and burned so brightly it could be seen from orbit. The majority dies like a drowning child - quietly and unnoticed.
I understand your sentiment – I’d expect NASA to have some overhead – but, as you asked, who else is building space telescopes? How do we determine if the cost of a telescope is “too high”? What kind of mission profiles should be targeted?
I am sure someone can build a cheaper space telescope, but for whom and to what end?
JWST costs upwards to 9 billion USD. An Ariane 5 launch maybe 200 million.
Just because the launch is cheaper doesn’t make the rest of the project less complicated and costly.