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
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 03 2018, @11:05PM (22 children)
Perhaps less shaggy dog stories would help your criticism? Because, if we took your story at face value, it just means that you are looking at patterns rather than the logic generating those patterns.
Ok, so abandoning the free market complaints, I see. Probably a good move.
One JWST is going to answer more unanswerable questions than six Hubbles? Not buying it. I think it would help if you understood the technological capabilities of these telescopes. Hubble answers the unanswered in visual and near UV, JWST does it in visual and IR at a modest improvement in resolution and sensitivity (at the frequencies where it overlaps with Hubble). And while we can adapt one or more Hubbles to IR frequencies before launch, we don't have a second JWST that we can adapt to any holes in our astronomical coverage. We can also do interferometry with multiple telescopes, which can result resolution far better than a single scope can achieve. One is not strictly better than the other, performance-wise. But you can do a lot more with seven slightly worse space telescopes than two (assuming Hubble doesn't get decommissioned, which is probably a good bet to make).
Here, you're missing is that there are a limited number of instruments with which to answer anything. That means that even century old Earth-side telescopes are still seeing use. More telescopes means more questions answered now rather than well after the researcher dies of old age. Speaking of time, JWST won't launch before 2019. We could have had those Hubbles in space early last decade. Ten or fifteen years of observation before the JWST even sees light.
Even if space exploration really is the only thing in the world important to you (which is what "at any price" means), how much space exploration are you willing to sacrifice for a token bit of space exploration? Things like JWST sacrifice a lot of other opportunities. Even if the JWST were the only thing that mattered ever, you could buy several JWST for what NASA spent on one.
Nope.
NASA. They are the ones paid to carry out US space exploration. Not the congresscritters. This blame deflection has gone on forever. It's NASA's job to justify their budget and education whoever needs to be educated about the importance of the activity - not Congress. That leads to the next problem which is that the vast majority of the electorate doesn't have a stake in yet another space telescope and thus, elects congresspeople who don't have those priorities either.
Crowing about how the JWST is the bestest telescope ever when it is not, isn't persuading those people.
And we come to the true circular reasoning. You have yet to establish that something which the market doesn't do, was worth doing. The market doesn't fund $8 billion telescopes like JWST, sure. But that doesn't mean that the telescope is worth funding. All you've been able to express is vague mumbling about "unanswered questions" and such. It's not a market failing that it doesn't fund white elephants.
Science is not just another religion. If you wish to do science, then you need to accept its conclusions. Here, one of those conclusions is simply that things have gone very wrong with the approach exemplified by the JWST. It shouldn't cost $8 billion and it doesn't do enough to justify that price tag. I think it's telling that you can't coherently explain why JWST is supposed to be worth $8 billion with concrete logic and reasoning. Instead, it's Starbucks is selling overpriced coffee and vague unanswered questions. We live in a world with limited resources. Everything, including our space telescopes should use those resources well.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 04 2018, @12:44AM (4 children)
IR that, we hope, will show us deeper into the center of the Milky Way - with improved resolution that might enable comparison of our "local" galactic observations with the centers of Andromeda and more distant galaxies.
If you want to argue that six new Hubbles could have 3 equipped with IR capabilites rivaling JWST, you're going to have to eat the reduced resolution from the smaller scope, not to mention that you'll be launching tech that was designed to fit in a now defunct launch vehicle - not so great for efficiency in that respect.
Don't get me wrong, I preferred the days of Voyager, Pioneer and Viking, if you're going to do one, you should at least do two to CYA and get better return on the design effort - but the long history of successful twin missions seems to have doomed the funding to only consider one these days.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 04 2018, @06:04AM (3 children)
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 04 2018, @01:57PM (2 children)
Only if they got funded, and apparently our funding system is more likely to open the purse for novel science than production line repetition.
What is needed is an NRAO / VLA type application for Hubble-like telescopes - where a constellation of 30 of them can work together to do something that none could alone, and... by the way... the 30 can also be individually tasked for increased coverage of, oh, say, NEO tracking and other existential threats to the human race.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 04 2018, @05:03PM (1 child)
Remind me again how "our funding system" was supposed to be better than the "free market business" thing? You're hiding behind Congress. They are much less interested in space development and exploration than you are.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 04 2018, @05:15PM
Just this: we also have a free market for space projects, for decades now, the one that launches projects like Iridium.
Q.E.D.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 04 2018, @12:51AM
Could we? I'll grant you: for the cost of invading a country with no actual WMD, we could have replicated the entire HST program with all its inefficiencies 80 times. But, do we have the political will to do such a thing? Apparently not.
I'm much more pissed off about $30B spent on fuel for air conditioning for the troops for one summer than I am about $9B spent on JWST. Not that our troops didn't deserve AC, not that the AC didn't make them more effective in carrying out their mission, just that the mission itself was 1000x more bone-headed than any judgement call made by NASA or JPL, ever.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 04 2018, @12:57AM
The only argument that will ever get NASA a respectable level of funding is that they are defending "us" against something or someone who is "dangerous." Since Apollo, they have failed to manufacture another adversary to justify why their funding is more important than aircraft carriers to intimidate the rest of the world with.
If you want to look at it this way: NASA made MAD stick, and they made it stick so well that they put ICBMs out of the "practical defense" game. Sure, we still have 'em. Sure, carrot-top's button is bigger than anyone elses. But unless you're an unhinged lunatic, you can't really use them to deliver nukes to real targets, so they've lost their practical value. Too expensive to deliver conventional weapons, and too politically unpalatable to use for anything other than armageddon.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 04 2018, @01:06AM (14 children)
Far from it, but it is the only telescope with certain (planned) capabilities ever.
So, what I am unwilling to accept is the condemnation of exploratory research and development programs because they don't live up to the standards of assembly line engineering efficiency. Is JWST a poor performer? Nobody can answer that yet, and if the program is cancelled then it will be a long time indeed before we know.
Can future programs like JWST be managed better, produce more for less, etc.? Undoubtably, but there's more to the program than science and engineering, program management, political representation, public relations, all are important pieces of the puzzle, and none of them are performing at 100% within NASA, or any other exploratory agency on the planet. Is the JWST so horrible that we need to cancel the program, take NASA out behind the woodshed and give them a whuppin' for being so bone headed? I think that would be counter-productive, and even more inefficient than the present course.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 04 2018, @06:07AM (13 children)
So what massive amount of science has JWST done to this point to match what we would have gotten from the Hubbles? It's already a poor performer. We're just attempting to make good on a massive sunk cost.
JWST should have never existed in the first place. Grownups need to be put in charge.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 04 2018, @01:53PM (12 children)
Hindsight... both for the telescope program and the management staffing decisions. Life is a massive sunk cost, if you spend all of it abandoning endeavors that appear to be sub-optimal, you accomplish exactly nothing.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 04 2018, @05:09PM (11 children)
Because NASA has an amazing record with this JWST being an outlier? Perhaps it would be educational to consider other projects? JWST may be a little worse than normal, but over budget and behind schedule is SOP.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 04 2018, @05:19PM (10 children)
I don't know what industries you work in, but in Medical and Military, the larger the organization, the more over-budget and behind-schedule projects are, on average. Not that they shouldn't strive to be better and be exposed to competition, but NASA is quite large, this is indeed SOP and expected.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 05 2018, @05:27PM (9 children)
Yet another good argument for humongous NASA there. The larger the organization the harder it fails.
Welp, looks like time to summarize my arguments here. The endless fire hose of public funding demonstrates once again its ability to corrupt. You've ignored something like a half dozen different glaring signs that US space activities are a long term failure merely because it occasionally delivers something you want. It's too bad that economics doesn't matter to you. This attitude multiplied over 340 million people is why the US is so remarkably bad at spending money. If it were your personal money, you'd at least be interested in spending that was better or more effective and make priorities over what you want that money spent on. But when it comes to public funding, even a token chance at "unanswered questions" is sufficient to insure your complicity.
My view on these things is different. This is money taken from everyone of us, even those who don't directly pay taxes. We all should strive to spend those resources well rather than settle for poor outcomes.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday January 05 2018, @05:50PM (8 children)
Good point, and I'll take a wild extrapolation to the USSR and its primary downfall: size.
Still, there are economies of scale that make the big, corrupt, inefficient, even embarrassing large organizations competitively superior to their smaller more nimble counterparts.
As opposed to the free market space industry which has funded/delivered exactly ZERO science projects bigger than a box in the Space Shuttle cargo bay.
In the military, in the bureaucratic administration of bizarrely complicated social programs, in healthcare - absolutely. By the time you get down into NASA, it's a tiny pimple on the butt of a tremendous elephant of bad spending.
Like Gulf War II? Social Security and Healthcare? A 1% improvement in either of those areas would be more significant that a dramatic overhaul of all of NASA.
All of public spending does produce public benefits, some more immediately tangible than others, some more efficiently than others (none very efficient when compared to small scrappy businesses.)
So, are you running for office, or how exactly are you going to turn this great economic-justice wit into action?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 05 2018, @08:43PM (7 children)
And why is that a problem? Earth-side is a pretty good location for a telescope. For example, there's the privately funded Keck observatory in Hawaii. That's bigger than a bread box.
It's a part that buy votes for the rest of the elephant.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday January 05 2018, @09:34PM (6 children)
So your answer is: shutdown NASA because it isn't as efficient or effective at spending money as I imagine I would be?
Let's review: JWST - $9B program started in 2011, probably running through at least 2025. If you take the "average American's" share of this $9B project, that's OMG! $26.47, $0.013 or less per day of in-space operation. And you're pissed at NASA because that's not good value for "your" $26.47? Seems to me that you've gotten at least a couple of bucks' entertainment value ranting about it just these past few days, and you seem the type that could continue to harp on a subject for years, so I'm sure you'll eventually manage to derive $26.47 worth of entertainment just espousing your views on what a turkey the JWST and all of NASA is. Private business would manage it better, your government is stealing tax money from you and wasting it on junk science.
Meanwhile, private business (Comcast) just upped my internet access rates by $7 per month, for no reasons other than: they want to, they can, so they will. Service remains the same: deeply sub-standard when compared against the world market.
Who do you think I'm more pissed at? JWST for $105.88 (family of 4) spread across 20 years, or Comcast for jacking my rates $84 for the coming year?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 05 2018, @11:23PM (5 children)
Yes. Though I would accept moving that money to a space agency (or rather several space agencies) that actually does the job of developing space.
Yes. That's $26.47 taken from how many people again?
NASA helped buy your vote for that Comcast monopoly.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday January 05 2018, @11:44PM (4 children)
Sorry, not following - when, and how did I, or any citizen, ever have the opportunity to cast a vote against a Comcast monopoly?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday January 06 2018, @02:17AM (3 children)
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday January 06 2018, @02:52AM (2 children)
Explain, then, what representative was available on the ballot to strike down a Comcast monopoly, and how they bear any connection to NASA?
My thinking is mine, your thinking is yours - I'm just curious what connection you might make.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday January 06 2018, @04:44PM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday January 06 2018, @06:15PM
Not sure what this degenerated into, but if every representative on the ballot is willing to do my bidding, that would be a wonderful world indeed.
But, NASA bought my vote so the representatives won't do what I want?
This does reflect poorly on the opinions you previously put forth regarding the value of a deep space research telescope...
🌻🌻 [google.com]