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, @05:45AM (6 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 02 2018, @05:45AM (#616633) Journal

    would enough intellectual and monetary investment have been put into doing it on Earth as quickly as it was, if ever?

    Yes.Because there was already a lot of science [cell.com] done on the matter.

    You're lacking in Sagan brainwashing: say it with me "Billions of Billions of ssstarsss." Zero G describes 99.999999+% of the environment of the universe, and even if we don't intend to live there full-time, we will either transit it for long periods of time getting to somewhere else, or flame out on this insignificant speck of dust.

    Yes, poor me. Not sufficiently brainwashed. Once again, why do that research now when it doesn't matter for many decades? Time value of everything.

    If your "care horizon" is only 25 years or so, sure: to hell with zero G,

    Why should it be longer when you can deal with the issue far better in 25 years? There is this conceit that if we don't do things now, then they won't get done later. My point is that by putting off the things that don't matter right now, we can get where we want to go a lot faster.

    If your "care horizon" even extends as little as 250 years, space is every bit as important as conquering the ocean was 250 years ago.

    Why do you think you're conquering anything?

  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday January 02 2018, @07:27PM (5 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday January 02 2018, @07:27PM (#616839)

    space is every bit as important as conquering the ocean was 250 years ago.

    Why do you think you're conquering anything?

    As opposed to conquering a people, conquering a frontier involves going there, being in it, meeting the challenges and surviving. The "conquer" aspect comes in because the frontier does fight back, and some who go there die when they meet the known and unknown challenges.

    And I feel another Elon jab coming on... putting together a business plan for space is building on the backs of those who conquered the frontier. Elon is, in his own right, doing "newish" things, taking on more than the usual share of risk, but he's not crossing any new thresholds yet. Sending a manned mission beyond lunar orbit, or keeping a lunar outpost manned for more than a few days - those are some new challenges. The soft-land reusable rocket stages, that's flashy - but it's also a logical extension of recent control systems advancements, just like quadcopters and MEMS gyros.

    When you venture into "unknown unknowns" - that is exploring a frontier. Turning the unknowns into manageable known quantities is conquering it.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 02 2018, @08:48PM (4 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 02 2018, @08:48PM (#616882) Journal

      but he's not crossing any new thresholds yet

      He's sending payloads into space for comparable rates to the Russians and Chinese with much lower rates on the horizon. That's a huge economic threshold he's crossing right now and more important at present than how far you send people.

      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday January 02 2018, @09:49PM (3 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday January 02 2018, @09:49PM (#616911)

        sending payloads into space for comparable rates to the Russians and Chinese with much lower rates on the horizon.

        Sounds like derivative work to me, and future promises not yet delivered.

        Again, don't get me wrong, it's exciting derivative work - and I'm not sure whether to credit O or W more for nurturing the private space sector, but they're making good progress to be "on par" with countries who have been doing this for a couple of decades longer. Driving the cost of space down by significant amounts will increase its utility and ultimately help to push the frontiers. Just like building better, more capable and cost effective ships did for the 16th century.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 03 2018, @11:21PM (2 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 03 2018, @11:21PM (#617409) Journal

          Sounds like derivative work to me

          Once again, why are you disrespecting SpaceX's work? And when are you going to hold NASA and the rest of the industry to the same standards as you hold SpaceX? After all, by those same standards, everything NASA does is derivative work as well. The math, technology, and ideas were already well-developed by the time NASA got their hands on them. Sure, landing a person on the Moon has never been done before, but so is landing first stages from a in-production rocket on a barge or building a rocket that can fly cheaper than anything else in the world. NASA and its contractors never did that and hence, those accomplishments of SpaceX are just as non-derivative as landing people on the Moon.

          Let us keep in mind the core problem with the accusation that SpaceX is doing derivative work, is that if someone had done the original work, they would dominate the launch industry by now. SpaceX is not just building another rocket, but a huge system that operates at far lower cost than anything else in history. My view is that SpaceX will likely be the most important thing to have happened to space development and exploration since Apollo. It's because economics of space launch is the most important problem in space today, and SpaceX is nailing that.

          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 04 2018, @12:15AM (1 child)

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 04 2018, @12:15AM (#617438)

            Derivative work is important work... more important as exploration. The double standard you don't seem to grasp is that one off exploration with indefensible budgets and unkept timelines is important work of a different kind, without it there would be no derivative work.

            As for the "most important problem in space today" - I'd say that's the lack of derivative work based on the last 50 years of exploration - but, as you so clearly point out, asking a HUGE risk AVERSE publicly scrutinized organization like NASA to attempt to do derivative (are you annoyed yet?) high efficiency work is pointless, the organization is structurally incapable.

            Just as the private business sector is structurally incapable of doing what it takes to launch a JWST, or any other mission of exploration with uncertain returns, such as CERN... and apparently, ironically, the U.S. has lost the political will to support high energy physics exploration. At least JPL is still sputtering along.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 04 2018, @05:59AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 04 2018, @05:59AM (#617544) Journal

              Derivative work is important work...

              The passive-aggressive put downs continue. NASA's work is similarly derivative - it just costs a lot more. Why do you respect doing less for more?

              The double standard you don't seem to grasp is that one off exploration with indefensible budgets and unkept timelines is important work of a different kind, without it there would be no derivative work.

              And here we go again. SpaceX has NASA cooties because NASA spent money a few decades earlier. It's too bad that I can't budge your religious views on NASA. NASA didn't gift SpaceX with a perfectly working business model. It just did a few basics - stuff which SpaceX could have duplicated. Because if it were so easy for SpaceX to derive its sophisticated technology from NASA's research, then why in forty years are they the first to do so?

              And why do one-off exploration with indefensible budgets when we could have done massively productive things instead? For example, at the money spent on JWST, the US could have launched more than a thousand tons of material into Earth orbit at present day prices with the Falcon 9, six Hubble telescopes that would have started operating more than a decade ago, or 2-3 Mir-class space stations (which would have roughly the scientific capabilities of the ISS between them). The reason I am angry here is because NASA betrayed us. Maybe we couldn't have the full blown future that Wernher von Braun invisioned [bbc.com] by now. But we have had many decades of things that haven't furthered our climb into space. There has been this massive failure, a squandering of our future for half a century. Why am I supposed to be comforted that SpaceX's job was made slightly easier by a trillion dollars and 50 years of data and experience? Why am I supposed to ignore the vast opportunity that trickled through our fingers?

              Earlier, you spoke of a 250 year dream to enter space as Europeans colonized the New World. Well, we're 50 years in and we only have six people living in space on a regular basis. 200 more years of that isn't going to get us anywhere.