Slashdot Mirror
NASA Unveils Hubble's Successor
dalutong writes "BBC News has an article detailing NASA's replacement for the much-loved Hubble telescope. The $4.5 billion telescope will be placed in orbit 1.5 million km from Earth and will be almost three times the size of the Hubble. It is set to launch in 2013. They also plan to service the Hubble in 2008."
... who's going to fix it????
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
Although it will see further than Hubble, JWST will see infrared, so that we still need Hubble for the visible and ultraviolet.
An servicing the Hubble is judged to be so risky that NASA originally did not plan to do it. Now they intend to do it, but with a backup shuttle in orbit in case the first one gets into trouble.
How long is that lame /. poll going to stay????
Move on to the next subject!!!!
I have Karma to burn....mod's do not hold any fear for me!!!!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Is it just me or does the JWST look kind of like Barbie's Imperial Star Destroyer?
You can have my SIG when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
I think Gaia probe is more interesting, and it is planned to be launched in 2011 not in 2013 as JWST
Can they actually do this in six years?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
..."JWST is named after James E Webb, Nasa Administrator during the Apollo lunar exploration era; he served from 1961 to 1968."
To add more evidence. Look, wikipedia!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Edwin_Webb
To 1-up wikipedia. Look, NASA!
http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/whois.html
The man whose name NASA has chosen to bestow upon the successor to the Hubble Space Telescope is most commonly linked to the Apollo moon program, not to science. Yet, many believe that James E. Webb, who ran the fledgling space agency from February 1961 to October 1968, did more for science than perhaps any other government official and that it is only fitting that the Next Generation Space Telescope would be named after him.
Complete bullshit.
Your cost estimates are accurate, but the rest of your argument is total shit. Adaptive optics, WHEN it works (which is rarely, and with difficulty), can approach the angular resolution of HST in a VERY SMALL field of view. You cannot get 0.05 arcsec, diffraction limited images over a wide field of view, that is possible with HST.
"Designing a mirror to withstand a launch vehicle" is a problem that has been solved. And the only two current, viable telescope proposals for telescopes larger than 10m are the Thirty Metre Telescope (TMT) and the Giant Magellan Telescope (GMT). OWL is not a concept that is being taken very seriously...ESO certainly hasn't put its money where its mouth is.
Your final point, about not many lines in that part of the spectrum, belies a complete lack of understanding of what you are talking about. The UV (accessible with STIS, and the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph, which will fly on SM4 in late '08) are so full of lines that they overlap all over the place. See, for example, Morton (2003), ApJS, 149, 205, for a comprehensive list. At low redshift, lines of HI, OI, OVI, CIV, NV, CII, SiII, SII, FeII, NI...all are in the UV, in the STIS band. Furthermore, space is the ONLY place these wavelengths can be observed, because of the atmosphere is opaque to wavelengths shorter than about 3300 angstroms.
Also wrong. Try this one.
It is not exactly obstacles that cause the redshift, but rather the expansion of the universe. Dust can redden light, but this is really just subtracting blue light. Gravitational lensing is acromatic. In the gamma-rays, Compton scattering can shift photons to lower energy, but it does not preserve spectral features the way that the cosmological redshift does.
Hot damn, you bitch slapped the parent post.
If the political will to feed the starving was here, we could do so and still put up the telescope. We spend the cost of the telescope a year on farm subsidies to prevent farmers from growing more crops. But the powers that be don't really give a shit.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
The most important aspect here might also be the fact that space expansion is a local event. On a large enough "distance", the speed of that event, if we just tried to add together the relative expansion per unit length, would exceed c. It can certainly approach it. There is/should be matter much farther away than the 2 * 15 bly "bubble" that would be the theoretical maximum of matter simply going in all directions at the point of Big Bang.
Why does this need a sunshield at all? The article says that the telescope should be parked in the 2nd Lagrangian point L2, which is 1.5 Gm from the Earth and should be permanently shaded from sunlight. Isn't the whole point of sending something to L2 that it is not exposed to the sun? Also, how is the energy supply supposed to work? Anyone out there who can shed some light on these questions?
ignatius
Something I've always wondered... how do the R&D costs compare to construction, testing, and launch of a satellite, or in this case, a space telescope? Wouldn't R&D be the hard part here, making the marginal cost of each additional spacecraft relatively small in comparison to the upfront cost?
It's my understanding that there's a substantial waiting list to use Hubble, and that a lot of very good research can't get done because telescope time is so limited. Time on JWST will probably be similarly limited... if we've spent $3.5B on this thing so far, why not put an extra $250M into it and get twice the benefit?
Any experts care to weigh in?
...the telescope will be brought up by a Ariane-V Rocketa riane_5.jpg
from French Guyana.
http://www.uibk.ac.at/ipoint/news/images/esa_pic_
You actually know what you're talking about.
You must be new here.
1) Clever Sig 2) ????? 3) Profit!
Ground based telescopes are good only for light that is not filtered by the atmosphere. There is a whole lot of spectrum outside it. The JWST targets the infra-red wavelengths, which would be much harder to do with an atmosphere above it
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
In addition to what the poster above me says about the atmosphere and spectrum of light, I'd like to point out...
$5 Billion dollars DOES seem like a lot. But look at the U.S. Budget in the last decade. Look at the money we've essentially THROWN AWAY. By comparison, $5 billion for an advancement of science seems rather reasonable, or at the very least, reasonable by comparison.