James Webb Telescope Passes Critical Tests 82
eldavojohn writes "The Hubble Telescope's successor reached a milestone today as it passed a critical design review. The James Webb Space Telescope was originally set to launch in 2013 but has run about $1B over budget and has been pushed back to a 2014 launch. Today's good news means that there shouldn't be further delays as the JWST has accomplished all science and engineering requirements for all mission-critical design functionality. Scientists, of course, think these delays and costs 'pale in comparison to the secrets of the universe the James Webb Space Telescope is expected to unlock.' These are exciting times for many realms of science, even if we're somewhat saddened by it being the loyal Hubble's twilight hours."
Re:Hubble II (Score:5, Informative)
It is a pity more isn't put into projects like this - I personally feel that we've have learnt so much from Hubbble that it is, at least for the time being, the best option for space exploration. But what wil happen to Hubble? Surely it will retain some functionality into the future?
They'll keep Hubble going as long as they can since its capabilities aren't going to be duplicated by any mission within the next decade. The weak link of the telescope seems to be the gyroscopes, which are used to point the telescope. They'll probably fail before the instruments have completely failed.
Re:What's left? (Score:3, Informative)
From WP: The JWST's primary scientific mission has four main components: to search for light from the first stars and galaxies which formed in the Universe after the Big Bang, to study the formation and evolution of galaxies, to understand the formation of stars and planetary systems, and to study planetary systems and the origins of life.
It's NOT a Hubble successor (Score:5, Informative)
that they are both telescopes and both in space. JWST will look at infrared light between 600
and 28 000 nanometers, mostly way outside of the visible spectrum where Hubble makes its pictures.
We will learn a lot by those IR observations, that's for sure - but JWST does not replace Hubble, it
supplements it.
I really don't know how this "successor to Hubble" thing got started.
Re:ooooooh! It "passed" a "test" ! (Score:5, Informative)
BEfore we wet our pants in excitement, let's remember:
* The Hubble passed a slew of design reviews too.
* Even so, it went up with many, many flaws, including:
* Electronics not shielded well enough to handle the South Atlantic Anomaly.
* Gyroscopes not qualified for the temperature cycles and SAA.
* Solar panels that oilcan buckle when going from sunlight to shade.
* Solar panel mount that does not go through the center of mass of the scope, so oilcan buckling causes the whole thing to oscillate.
* Unbalanced and uncushioned light cap that likewise shakes the whole thing when it's operated.
Although the new scope will have been checked against that list of problems, without major overhaul of the management structure, it's likely the same thing will happen this time.
Granted Hubble had many problems when it launched mainly because it was one of the first and most advanced general purpose observatories launched.
We have had tons of experience building space telescopes over the past 30 years since Hubble was designed and Hubble is the only one that is serviceable by the shuttle.
Just to list all the successful observatories since Hubble:
Infrared Space Observatory (Europe)
Chandra X-Ray observatory
Spitzer Space Telescope
WMAP
FUSE
Herschel Space Observatory (Mostly Europe)
Planck (Europe)
Suzaku X-Ray observatory (Japan)
and probably a few others I forgot about.
Bottom line, we know a lot about building space telescopes now, the doom and gloom you forecast is probably a bit over the top. Every project has problems, that's why we have brilliant engineers to find solutions.
Re:Hubble II (Score:1, Informative)
We DO have half a dozen space telescopes in orbit. Right now.
1. Chandra
2. Fermi
3. Spitzer
4. Hubble
5. Wilkinson
6. Herschel
If the goal is "to understand alot [sic] more of the universe," why are you limiting your telescopes to optical and NIR?
Re:It's NOT a Hubble successor (Score:3, Informative)
Re:from the team that brought you the Hubble? (Score:3, Informative)
James Webb = NASA bureaucrat. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._Webb [wikipedia.org]