SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(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]