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."
general question (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:general question (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hubble II (Score:2, Interesting)
The Webb telescope is estimated to cost around $4.5 billion and have a life span of 5-10 years. The ISS will cost over $100 billion over 30 years and we will have spent $174 billion in almost 30 years of shuttle service when it retires.
If we built several space telescopes instead of 1 every 20-30 years, we would have less money for shuttle and ISS missions. That would mean that we would not answer such burning questions as:
- Do mice get osteoporosis in space? (link [nasa.gov])
- Do LANs work in space? (link [nasa.gov])
- How do people deal with the vibrations of a space launch? (link [nasa.gov])
- The genetic changes in yeast in space. () [nasa.gov]
When you are up against such ground breaking breakthroughs as these, you can see how it is tough to scrape together the cash to study trivial things like the origin of the universe and whether there are other inhabitable planets in the galaxy.
All sarcasm aside, you are right to point that manned missions do not give you more bang for the buck from a science perspective. We would know alot more about the universe if we had half a dozen space telescopes in orbit and more rovers on various planets and moons.
ooooooh! It "passed" a "test" ! (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:ooooooh! It "passed" a "test" ! (Score:4, Interesting)
Timely article (Score:2, Interesting)
My last day at Goddard Space Flight Center was yesterday. (almost 10 years!) I finally got around to getting a friend to give me a tour of the Spacecraft Systems Design and Integration Facility, where I got to see JWST parts in the clean room. (heh, 20 minutes of gowning procedures for a 10 minute trip into the clean room.) Very, very cool. Gonna miss that place.
I'm pretty sure I'm going to follow JWST a lot more heavily now, too many friends are involved in it to ignore it as I have been.
(Sadly, for what were apparently ITAR reasons I couldn't get pictures.)
Re:Timely article (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd love to see JWST. I used to work in astronomy at one of the universities involved in developing the CCD sensors for NIRCam and was around the prototype camera they built with the first few chips off Rockwell's fab, for testing on the terrestrial telescope I operated, but it's just not the same as seeing something that's going into space.
(Incidentally, that prototype camera was built around 2003ish. They wanted to be sure the chips worked well before launching.)