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 Thursday January 04 2018, @05:19PM (10 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 04 2018, @05:19PM (#617807)

    over budget and behind schedule is SOP

    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]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 05 2018, @05:27PM (9 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 05 2018, @05:27PM (#618399) Journal

    but in Medical and Military, the larger the organization, the more over-budget and behind-schedule projects are, on average.

    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)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday January 05 2018, @05:50PM (#618415)

      The endless fire hose of public funding demonstrates once again its ability to corrupt.

      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.

      it occasionally delivers something you want.

      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.

      This attitude multiplied over 340 million people is why the US is so remarkably bad at spending money.

      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.

      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.

      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)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 05 2018, @08:43PM (#618503) Journal

        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.

        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.

        By the time you get down into NASA, it's a tiny pimple on the butt of a tremendous elephant of bad spending.

        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)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday January 05 2018, @09:34PM (#618526)

          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)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 05 2018, @11:23PM (#618554) Journal

            So your answer is: shutdown NASA because it isn't as efficient or effective at spending money as I imagine I would be?

            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.

            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, $0.0?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?

            Yes. That's $26.47 taken from how many people again?

            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.

            NASA helped buy your vote for that Comcast monopoly.

            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday January 05 2018, @11:44PM (4 children)

              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday January 05 2018, @11:44PM (#618558)

              NASA helped buy your vote for that Comcast monopoly.

              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)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 06 2018, @02:17AM (#618583) Journal
                When you elect your representatives.
                • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday January 06 2018, @02:52AM (2 children)

                  by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday January 06 2018, @02:52AM (#618601)

                  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)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 06 2018, @04:44PM (#618818) Journal
                    Every one of them is. I don't care about Comcast, and you care more about bargains in space.
                    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday January 06 2018, @06:15PM

                      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday January 06 2018, @06:15PM (#618837)

                      Every one of them is.

                      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]