NASA is notorious for this. The Mars Rover was supposed to operate for what, 3 months? Voyager, etc... all those were 10X+ longer-lifed than expected. Maybe 100X.
But hey, if you're going to err, do it over rather than under. Right?
NASA is notorious for this. The Mars Rover was supposed to operate for what, 3 months? Voyager, etc... all those were 10X+ longer-lifed than expected. Maybe 100X.

For NASA or one of the other space agencies ... heck yes. When a mission fails people bitch about the cost. When a mission succeeds nobody gripes about the cost.
Optical Society of America old name for Optica.
Forwarding to my son the recent Physics major.abscate wrote: ↑21 May 2022, 00:44 Went to David Eisenstein talk at our local OSA section meeting this week. First one in two years.
He is one the people who will be using Webb for the next 10-20 years to image the far reaching galaxies.
The launch was so perfect they used half as much propellant as planned. This means the mission might run 20nyears instead of the expected 10. The propellant Is the limiting factor. You need it to maintain it at the Langragian node. Kind of like slipping the clutch to keep it just before the crest of a hill, if you go over the hill, you get blinded by scattered light.
They detect a photon every 10 seconds or so. After 1500 seconds, the dark count ( background exposure) swamps the signs
Each scientist positions the telescope, collects her 150 photons, then off to analysis.
If we don’t fund another scope andget them a new tool in 20nyears , their careers end and they go and short derivatives on Wall Street instead of studying our universe.