scrapbook
The resemblance between the early conceptual design shown in Fig. 1, and Chandra is no accident and is of importance in considering the way we (the scientific community) design our missions. Chandra was based only on achieving its scientific requirements, principally to be able to resolve the faint background sources. Chandra was not built on flying “what we can do.”
I feel it is important for one to know that these objectives were never compromised during the entire 23-year development, measured from the submission of this proposal to the launch in 1999. Nor did they lose their relevance during this time. This is in contrast to many [but not all (e.g., the Wide Field X-Ray Telescope)] missions, which suffer from what I call “cost-credibility paranoia,” wherein one can only convince others of the cost reliability of the mission if one has essentially already built it. In too many cases, I feel this approach has forced one to compromise scientific objectives and to adopt a “we will build it, you will use it” approach to science. In these cases, too often are the scientific requirements adjusted to be compatible with the existing technology, as opposed to driving the technology. The approach is not terrible, because missions such as the Rossi Timing X-Ray Explorer have had, despite outdated technology, a high measure of success. Nevertheless, Chandra is an outstanding example of the power of the science-driven approach.
…
Additional benefits were the camaraderie and friendship that developed as scientists, engineers, and managers from the various different teams (e.g., MSFC Project Science, SAO MST, HRC, ACIS, LETG, HETG, MSFC Project Management, MSFC Engineering, TRW, Ball Aerospace, Eastman Kodak) worked together “24/7” throughout the longer than 6-month period (Fig. 10). The experience was a major contributor toward changing people’s perception of each other, particularly in becoming “we” as opposed to “us and them.”