SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the hurricane-blew-schedule-out-of-the-water dept.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is warning of possible further delays to the launch of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST):
A government watchdog is warning that the launch of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the long-awaited successor to the Hubble that's been beset by schedule snafus and cost overruns, might face further delays. NASA announced in September it had pushed back the launch date of the JWST from late 2018 to some time in the spring of 2019 due to testing delays partly blamed on Hurricane Harvey's impact on Texas' Gulf Coast in August.
On Wednesday, lawmakers on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee were told it could take even longer to launch the world's most powerful telescope. "More delays are possible given the risks associated with the work ahead and the level of schedule reserves that are now (below) what's recommended," said Cristina Chaplain, director of Acquisition and Sourcing Management for the Government Accountability Office.
[...] Thomas Zurbuchen, NASA's associate administrator for science missions, told lawmakers he expects the space agency will be able to meet the spring 2019 schedule. "I believe it's achievable," he said.
Previously: James Webb Space Telescope Vibration Testing Completed
Launch of James Webb Space Telescope Delayed to Spring 2019
Related: Maiden Flight of the Space Launch System Delayed to 2019
NASA Unlikely to Have Enough Plutonium-238 for Missions by the Mid-2020s
WFIRST Space Observatory Could be Scaled Back Due to Costs
(Score: 5, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday December 07 2017, @09:12AM (23 children)
I mean, it is not like it is rocket science, or something. Except it is? Delay and expense are worth it to ensure that the scope actually makes it into space, and the proper position, and actually works. Otherwise all the investment so far will be lost as well.
Consider: when they screwed up on the Hubble, we were able to go up there and fix it. Probably not going to be feasible with the Webb. So let's get it right the first time, since it will be the only time.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @09:28AM
Uh-oh, this is not a balanced comment.
I see a strong bias towards the first time, like the first time is some sort of a special snow flake. That's cherry picking, not scientific at all.
(Score: 4, Funny) by FatPhil on Thursday December 07 2017, @09:56AM (5 children)
You know, I think I may have just worked out how they could get more funding for this...
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @10:07AM (1 child)
A laser in space that can fry you like an ant, or a microwave laser in space that can make your head heat up and explode (the latter, like in Scanners)?
You should be very careful what you wish for, because the shit that is capable today.... well it is enough to piss yourself, even if you're not incontinent...
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday December 07 2017, @11:48AM
We can't win the War on Terror without orbital space lasers capable of cooking individual Americans from on high.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday December 07 2017, @03:13PM
I was going to say they should have included a "defense" laser from the beginning, to secure military funding.
If you can't compete with the military, join them?
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday December 07 2017, @06:10PM (1 child)
Or, you know, someone could hitch a ride with SpaceX and get up there to fix it.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday December 07 2017, @09:35PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 5, Interesting) by takyon on Thursday December 07 2017, @11:28AM (4 children)
It has been argued that space telescopes gobble up funding [nature.com] that could be used by productive ground-based astronomy. But the capabilities you can get in return are just too overwhelming.
https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/display/JSP/JWST+GTO+Observation+Specifications#JWSTGTOObservationSpecifications-ObservationsofSolarSystemObjects [stsci.edu]
Many of the most interesting astronomical targets (exoplanets, protoplanetary/debris disks, brown dwarfs, KBOs) require infrared observations which will never be as good from the ground, even with the help of adaptive optics. In fact, its location at L2 forgoes even more observation-interfering heat than would be possible at LEO (like Hubble).
JWST is past the point of cancellation. Now it has to get up there and work properly. If the launch vehicle explodes or the telescope fails to work, it will be the biggest blow to astronomy in a long time. This thing has a credible chance of finding evidence of life on exoplanets, will provide the best ever views of many objects in and out of the solar system, etc. We will be lucky to get ATLAST [wikipedia.org]/HDST [wikipedia.org]/LUVOIR [wikipedia.org] in the 2030s, especially if JWST fails. Apparently, future flagships would have to be serviceable due to a law Congress passed in 2010. Hopefully, someone will come up with a relatively cheap way to refuel JWST once it becomes unable to do any more station-keeping.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday December 07 2017, @03:53PM (3 children)
If we had a permanent human presence on the Moon, this might not be such an issue: we could build ground telescopes on the Moon cheaper than space telescopes, and they'd be a lot easier to service. The main disadvantage is you wouldn't have as much flexibility in which direction you point them. Of course, this would only work with a significant human presence there already: manufacturing facilities, people on hand to build them, qualified people who can take a rover out and service a telescope if there's a problem, etc. With a space telescope, if it doesn't work perfectly right away, you have to spend tons of money on a manned mission to send someone up there to fix it.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday December 07 2017, @04:09PM (2 children)
I don't see any reason why it can't be done with robots. The not-designed-to-be-serviced JWST faces a very simple challenge to its maximum lifespan: it will run out of propellant for station-keeping. If it can't be refueled or maintained by an external thruster, then that would be very. UNFORTUNATE.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @08:29PM (1 child)
It's orbit would degrade, from a LaGrange point? And then it would plummet back to earth? Your point is taken, takyon, but not for station-keeping, for aiming the darn thing, and keeping its solar shield pointed, you know, toward the sun.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday December 07 2017, @09:05PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope#Orbit [wikipedia.org]
L2 is "metastable", not stable like L4 and L5.
https://jwst.nasa.gov/realworld_parrish.html [nasa.gov]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @03:51PM
Damn you. Stop being right. I've gotten into the habit of just modding you down all the time. Dammit, you screwed things up. I've told you before to stop doing that!! Just be your reliable self, and post troll comments, and make my modding chores easier.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 07 2017, @07:59PM (9 children)
This illustrates a common problem with NASA projects. The JWST (James Webb Space Telescope) is a one-off, that is, it is one of a kind. That makes it particularly costly, since the considerable R&D costs can only be spread over one vehicle. Similar, it has very high risks associated with launch and deployment since there are no backup vehicles to take its place. My view is that NASA should instead have built multiple space telescopes, each less individually capable than the JWST, but with lower cost per telescope, greater overall scientific output, quicker deployment times (no 23+ year delay from start to launch as with the JWST), less overall risk (you can lose a telescope without losing the entire investment) and greater reliability (you have the opportunity to fix problems in the rest of your telescopes after deploying one).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday December 07 2017, @08:26PM (7 children)
It's science, khallow! Not capitalism! Remember, scientia potentia est, as Sir Francis Bacon used to say. Redundant JWTs, you say, because they are cheaper by the dozen, and with six you get egg-rolls? If you can barely get Republicans to fund one new space telescope, and you cannot get them to understand climate change is real, do you think Congress would fund your wacky "risk mitigation through redundancy" scheme? Not likely. Now go and play with your Bitcoin, and leave real science to the real scientists, m'kay?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 07 2017, @11:21PM (6 children)
Such games are firmly bipartisan. As far as Congress is concerned it's already game over. Most of the costs of the JWST have already occurred with launch being the last big payout. There's not much political value left to JWST except as a sop to voters. With all these delays, it's not much of a sop either. Having it launch successfully and then die in space would be ideal politically since the money is fully consumed and one can start over with another costly round of one-off development.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday December 07 2017, @11:28PM (5 children)
Why you so anti-science, khallow? Did you fail an astrophysics class, or something? Or is this the mothership speaking through you?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 08 2017, @05:34AM (4 children)
Science isn't a political body throwing money around. NASA space projects have devolved decades ago to US-based wealth redistribution to government bureaucracies and businesses that happens to do something in space as part of the activity. The science or other purposes thus becomes a minor part. That's why the US has only one space telescope and very few other missions active at a time (usually with one mission per identifiable niche). For the money being spent, 18 billion USD a year, one could do vastly more. But it involves at the least understanding the economics of space activities, including economies of scale (these are huge due to the remarkably low frequency of space activities), focused and reused technology development, and avoiding costly areas, like orbital launch where private enterprise already provides an adequate, cheap, reliable answer.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday December 08 2017, @08:27PM (3 children)
Aha! This explains why the Space Program of the Nation of Somalia is so much further along than the United States! None of that wasteful government bureaucracy in the Libertarian Paradise!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 09 2017, @06:28AM (2 children)
When Somalia had a government [wikipedia.org], it was even less capable of a space program than the present.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday December 09 2017, @09:17AM (1 child)
Truly, khallow, your head is so far up your ass that the possibility of rational argument is as remote as a bowel movement that would render you rational. So, what Somalia needs, to have a Space Program that rivals the US and the (former)USSR is even less centralized government than it has now? Is this much like the argument that the only thing keeping libertarians from solving homelessness is all these darn government regulations? khallow, I enjoy our talks, but you are really, really sick, bro!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 09 2017, @10:08AM
Here. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Thursday December 07 2017, @08:48PM
Light-gathering power goes up by the square of the aperture increase. So telescopes with an aperture of 1/3 have 1/9 of the light collection. JWST is 6.5 meters, Hubble is 2.4, Spitzer is 0.85. Yet it was Spitzer that discovered most of the TRAPPIST-1 exoplanets recently, even with roughly 2% of the light collection capability of JWST. So you have a point there. But it's still not satisfying to me.
What we should try to do is make them big and cheap. JWST is as big as it is because the mirrors fold, allowing it to fit onto current launch vehicles. The proposed HDST [wikipedia.org] would use the same approach. We should continue along those lines but make them out of crappier materials. Maybe plastic with a reflective coating spraypainted on. If the materials deform in space, fly in external corrective optics like Hubble's COSTAR. Fold together hundreds or thousands of mirror segments instead of JWST's 18 or HDST's 54 to target an aperture of 100+ meters instead of 6.5 to 16.8 (ATLAST [wikipedia.org] proposal). You could make it bigger than many ground telescopes by exploiting the microgravity environment of Earth orbit (let's pass on L2 for now and make this a visible/UV telescope with easy servicing capabilities).
Forgo testing as much as possible. Build five or more of the telescopes and fly them into different Earth orbits so you have the option of targeting certain objects continuously with little or no interruption. And the more telescopes you can build within the budget, the more times you can fail but still have a successful mission. Fly individual telescopes on Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy to save cash, reusable mode (less thrust) where possible.
Obviously, this should be a partnership between NASA and ISRO, where the engineers can be made to work 12+ hours a day [wikipedia.org], no problem.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]