Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday January 01 2018, @12:12PM   Printer-friendly
from the is-that-a-question-or-a-challenge? dept.

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), an infrared space observatory with an $8.8 billion budget, will be transported to South America to launch atop an Ariane 5 rocket, presumably in Spring 2019. The JWST was not intended to be serviceable at the Earth-Sun L2 point. Will there still be a "Golden Age of astronomy" even if the JWST fails?

[Due] to its steadily escalating cost and continually delayed send-off (which recently slipped from 2018 to 2019), this telescopic time machine is now under increasingly intense congressional scrutiny. To help satisfy any doubts about JWST's status, the project is headed for an independent review as soon as January 2018, advised NASA's science chief Thomas Zurbuchen during an early December congressional hearing. Pressed by legislators about whether JWST will actually launch as presently planned in spring of 2019, he said, "at this moment in time, with the information that I have, I believe it's achievable."

[...] Simply launching JWST is fraught with peril, not to mention unfurling its delicate sunshield and vast, segmented mirror in deep space. Just waving goodbye to JWST atop its booster will be a nail-biter. "The truth is, every single rocket launch off of planet Earth is risky. The good news is that the Ariane 5 has a spectacular record," says former astronaut John Grunsfeld, a repeat "Hubble hugger" who made three space-shuttle visits to low-Earth orbit to renovate that iconic facility. Now scientist emeritus at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, he sees an on-duty JWST as cranking out science "beyond all of our expectations."

"Assuming we make it to the injection trajectory to Earth-Sun L2, of course the next most risky thing is deploying the telescope. And unlike Hubble we can't go out and fix it. Not even a robot can go out and fix it. So we're taking a great risk, but for great reward," Grunsfeld says.

There are, however, modest efforts being made to make JWST "serviceable" like Hubble, according to Scott Willoughby, JWST's program manager at Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems in Redondo Beach, California. The aerospace firm is NASA's prime contractor to develop and integrate JWST, and has been tasked with provisioning for a "launch vehicle interface ring" on the telescope that could be "grasped by something," whether astronaut or remotely operated robot, Willoughby says. If a spacecraft were sent out to L2 to dock with JWST, it could then attempt repairs—or, if the observatory is well-functioning, simply top off its fuel tank to extend its life. But presently no money is budgeted for such heroics. In the event that JWST suffers what those in spaceflight understatedly call a "bad day," whether due to rocket mishap or deployment glitch or something unforeseen, Grunsfeld says there's presently an ensemble of in-space observatories, including Hubble, and an ever-expanding collection of powerful ground-based telescopes that would offset such misfortune.

Previously: Space science: The telescope that ate astronomy
Telescope That 'Ate Astronomy' Is on Track to Surpass Hubble
Launch of James Webb Space Telescope Delayed to Spring 2019
Launch of James Webb Space Telescope Could be Further Delayed


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 02 2018, @04:30AM (5 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 02 2018, @04:30AM (#616617) Journal

    No redneck, ever, came close to the utter ballsy faith in everything gonna work out and this is gonna be EPIC demonstrated by the Mercury and Gemini astronauts.

    I count three from Texas and one from Oklahoma. Some of the others might be as well, depending on whether you think rednecks live in places like the Midwest.

    And risk taking is not faith. If you think getting on a 10 or 30 story rocket with the explosive power of a small atomic is riskier than getting drunk and doing stupid stuff that almost gets you killed, then you don't understand risk. The stakes are higher, the astronauts are ballsier, the risks aren't. Nobody would do stuff like that, if they thought there was a large chance that someone would die as a result. But the drunk redneck not only doesn't know how to evaluate risk, they have deliberately impaired their own judgment, doubling down on what was already a weak hand.

    Elon launching a Tesla is weak tea by comparison.

    So what? Virtually everything we do pales in comparison. But putting your favorite car in orbit around Mars is still pretty metal.

  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday January 02 2018, @08:06PM (4 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday January 02 2018, @08:06PM (#616861)

    Risking money, whether yours or investors' or the tax payers', is not the same thing as risking your life.

    Launching the car, instead of some cement ballast, is a brilliant twist - but also demonstrates the disjointed scales of money we're talking about - a $100K car is in the rounding error for a Mars launch budget.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 02 2018, @08:44PM (3 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 02 2018, @08:44PM (#616880) Journal

      Risking money, whether yours or investors' or the tax payers', is not the same thing as risking your life.

      That is irrelevant. The drunk redneck and the astronaut are both risking their lives. Learn what risk is.

      Launching the car, instead of some cement ballast, is a brilliant twist - but also demonstrates the disjointed scales of money we're talking about - a $100K car is in the rounding error for a Mars launch budget.

      Welcome to risk 101. SpaceX is willing to risk a $100k car on a high risk mission not tens of millions of dollars of some client's payload.

      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday January 02 2018, @09:44PM (2 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday January 02 2018, @09:44PM (#616907)

        So, the adversarial process is making me out to be an Elon hater, which I am not (though I don't love him as much as some do...)

        I will say, though, no matter how you slice it: that car is not at risk, that car is expended as a publicity stunt. In the event of successful deployment, it is also step one of a future publicity stunt recovering it and putting it in a museum.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 03 2018, @11:35PM (1 child)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 03 2018, @11:35PM (#617412) Journal

          I will say, though, no matter how you slice it: that car is not at risk, that car is expended as a publicity stunt. In the event of successful deployment, it is also step one of a future publicity stunt recovering it and putting it in a museum.

          So what? SpaceX has managed the risks well as a result. NASA usually does the same with its astronauts - and quite a few astronaut missions have been in part publicity stunts as well.

          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 04 2018, @12:07AM

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 04 2018, @12:07AM (#617433)

            quite a few astronaut missions have been in part publicity stunts as well.

            From some perspectives, the entire Mercury, Gemini, Apollo program series was a publicity stunt for U.S. missile technology.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]