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: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday January 02 2018, @04:01AM

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday January 02 2018, @04:01AM (#616605)

    General Ripper's entire premise was that we could "get in early, catch 'em with their pants down" and the movie included a side plot element that a "high alert status" could intercept and destroy most bombers.

    The early space program launches were a clear demonstration of what our rockets could, and could not, do in the 1960s. Getting around the planet in 90 minutes, delivering 14 MIRVs to targets across a 600 mile diameter? Maybe. Intercept missiles in route ala Missile Command? Maybe^2. Part of that Soviet buildup of massive numbers of warheads was a hedge against failed missile deliveries, even if we believed 95% of their missiles would be intercepted or fail on their own, having enough to ensure near total destruction with the remaining 5%. I think it was START in the 1970s - driving missile launchers around the desert on trains just to keep the analysts in a tizzy, ensuring that some percentage of the warheads would get to target. MAD was nothing about nuclear disarmament, quite the opposite - what MAD did was keep the US and USSR out of a shooting war, through the buildup of huge stockpiles of weapons that each side believed the other had the capability to deliver. Part of the US' rationale for a lower number of warheads was that our missile delivery systems were more reliable. Price the cost of the space program against the then and future costs of a larger nuclear weapons arsenal.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2