Slashdot Mirror
NASA Names Next-Generation Space Telescope
Betelgeuse writes: "The Trek-obsessed people over at NASA have let go of the somewhat unwieldy name for the next major space-based optical observatory (formerly the 'Next Generation Space Telescope'). The space-based observatory will be known as the James Webb Space Telescope, named after James E. Webb, NASA's second administrator. While Webb is best known for leading Apollo and a series of lunar exploration programs that landed the first humans on the Moon, he also initiated a vigorous space science program, responsible for more than 75 launches during his tenure, including America's first interplanetary explorers. In addition, they've also announced the builder: TRW, Redondo Beach, CA. The press release is here."
This is a sad case of NASA tooting their own horn and trying to relive a happier past.
...will the 3rd space satelite be named Babbage, Chubb, or Tibbs? What's with the double-b anyway?
Those who complain about affect & effect on
My question is, what happens when things go awry? Frankly, the idea of an unservicable telescope doesn't suit me well. I can only hope that Hubble's mishaps will improve the Webb telescope, but accidents and miscalculations are possible and probabe.
I once shot a man who posted too many, "Imagine a beowulf cluster of these"
That thing looks like a satellite dish on a surfboard. I almost expect to see Silver Surfer kicked back, watching the tube on it.
How ya like dat?
(* ...My question is, what happens when things go awry? Frankly, the idea of an unservicable telescope doesn't suit me well. *)
:-)
It seems space-telescope design is in a sticky delemma. If you put them in low earth orbit, they are shuttle-servicable. However, interference and changing shadows from Earth and Sun limit your observations. Thus, to get beyond what hubble-like scopes can do, they have to put them out far enough to be constantly in Earth's shadow at a distance.
At that point servicing them via a manned mission gets really expensive, perhaps more than the scope.
I am wondering why they can't launch remote-control repair robots. Sure, it takes longer than doing it by hand, but without life-support that is not really a concern AFAIK.
Perhaps they can design it to be robot-service-able, such as special latches and screws designed for robotic utensiles.
If NASA perfected such technology, then future probes could sometimes repair themselves. (Although distant probes would have to use only parts they already have aboard. The first duct-tape to leave the solar system
They could also use such technology to work on the ISS. What is so limiting about remote robots that they must send humans on expensive life-support to do it? A remote-controlled robot can do anything a human can, physical-wise, just at a slower pace. (I suppose some rare tasks may require performing some operation before certain opened-up internals get too much exposure or leakage or whatever.)
Machines are usually cheaper to send than humans. Sure, astronauts may not like it, and it may be less "glory", but it has the potential to be far more economical.
Table-ized A.I.
Not that he didn't do a good job, and administrators fill a real need, but science is what drives NASA. The adminstrators' job is to get the science done. If Webb wasn't there, somebody else would have done it. The same can't be said for, say, Einstein, Hawking, or Sagan.
If there was anybody who deserves a nod for spurring NASA along, it's John Kennedy, and that's from someone who's not a big fan of his presidency. But to give credit where credit is due, NASA's greatest period would not have been if he hadn't been impetuous enough to promise a man on the moon by the end of the decade. And yes, I realize everythin else is already named for him, but that's just because he was killed.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
..Milhouse would have been a better name.
The ability of the Webb to show infrared makes this a whole new view, including a direct image of extrasolar planets. Each wavelength is a universe unto itself--small objects become very prominent in the right band.
...are doomed to repeat it"
Lets hope they have learned something from the book "The Hubble Wars: Astrophysics Meets Astropolitics in the Two-Billion-Dollar Struggle over the Hubble Space Telescope"
by Eric J. Chaisson
The satellite that wouldn't die.
It had a mission of two years. It lasted 19.
And then it only stopped being used because it
was turned off.
1. As various posts on sci.space.* and elsewhere have pointed out, if things go kaput in x years time, we use the now+x year technology to build an even better telescope. In this case, as per the quote below, to be able to service it, would require a manned launch vehicle that can take one up there, snag it (robotic arm) and get back. I don't see one such being around in the near future (well past 2010) I wonder if one was developed, if it would be cost effective (the shuttle is not). What other uses would be present for such a vehicle ?
...
"The James Webb Space Telescope is scheduled for launch in 2010 aboard an expendable launch vehicle. It will take about three months for the spacecraft to reach its destination, an orbit 940,000 miles or 1.5 million kilometers in space, called the second Lagrange Point or L2, where the spacecraft is balanced between the gravity of the Sun and the Earth.
The most important advantage of this L2 orbit is that a single-sided sun shield on only one side of the observatory can protect Webb from the light and heat of both the Sun and Earth. As a result, the observatory can be cooled to very low temperatures without the use of complicated refrigeration
equipment. These low temperatures are required to prevent the Webb's own heat radiation from exceeding the brightness of the distant cool astronomical objects."
2. More important to me, is : is this the beginning of the end for L2 ? How much longer before L2 is filled with garbage that *never* de-orbits ? Has NASA planned an end of life that will kick it out of there ? I'd be skeptical. Is it time for a 'no dumping in my backyard movement' for outer space ?
Great, now the Arabs are gonna shoot it down.
Cheers,
Bowie J. Poag
Former assistant attorney general Web Hubble. Not a pretty picture.
Interferometry and adaptive optics, while not as preferable as space telescopes, still make justifying the cost of future space telescopes very difficult. I can see ground telescopes(with adaptive optics) having Hubble capabilities in 10-15 years.
L2 is quite unstable. Anything there which is not station-keeping will drift into an independent solar orbit quite quickly.
Only L4 and L5 are stable.