Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

James Webb Telescope Passes Critical Tests

Posted by kdawson on from the good-to-go dept.

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."

57 of 82 comments (clear)

  1. Hubble II by symes · · Score: 1

    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?

    1. Re:Hubble II by ogre7299 · · Score: 4, 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.

    2. Re:Hubble II by MRe_nl · · Score: 1

      It was destroyed by Philip J. Fry in the First Omicronian Invasion of Earth because it looked like an Omicronian Ship.

      --
      "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    3. Re:Hubble II by jhoegl · · Score: 1

      We shall all remember Bender's martini

    4. Re:Hubble II by iso-cop · · Score: 1

      Hubble has another 5-10 years depending on built-in engineering margin and good or bad fortune.

    5. Re:Hubble II by cetialphav · · Score: 1, 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)
      - Do LANs work in space? (link)
      - How do people deal with the vibrations of a space launch? (link)
      - The genetic changes in yeast in space. ()

      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.

    6. Re:Hubble II by vadim_t · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If that's the worst you could find, I'm not impressed.

      Do mice get osteoporosis in space? (link)

      If we want to put people into space, questions like the health effects of being there is rather important.

      And they test on mice, because you can kill it and examine all the bones in detail. I'm sure they do checks of the astronaut's bones as well, but you can do much more invasive examinations of a mouse.

      Do LANs work in space? (link)

      It seems to me this is a test of the IIS' specific LAN, not LANs in general. Things in space have to be specially designed, I'm pretty sure it's not a normal off the shelf switch what they have up there. And any lessons learned there will be probably useful for future things. I don't know if space telescopes use networking internally, but it seems like a possibility.

      How do people deal with the vibrations of a space launch? (link)

      Well, again, if you want to launch people into space, not killing them while getting there is important. This one seems to also test whether the UI will be readable in launch conditions. Which also seems kind of important, since they may need to interact with it during launch.

      The genetic changes in yeast in space. ()

      Just like with the mice, it's research of the long term consequences of being in space. Yeast reproduces quickly, too, which is good for genetics research.

      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.

      Ok, and how do you go inhabit a planet, if you don't know whether the astronauts will be able to deal with launch conditions, not die of cancer due to the radiation during the travel, and retain enough bone mass to avoid breaking their legs during the landing?

      I vaguely remember hearing that atronauts' health deteriorates significantly after staying on the IIS for a long time. If we're going to land on another planet we'd have to be sure that the astronauts will be in good enough condition to do whatever needs to be done once they land.

    7. Re:Hubble II by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

    8. Re:Hubble II by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "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."

      They will keep Hubble going for as long as possible. However it's capabilities will be greatly surpassed by both the Webb and the E-ELT within the next decade. We are living in a golden age of astronomy, when I was a kid in the 60's-70's the largest telescope in the world boasted a 0.5 meter mirror, the E-ELT will have a 42 meter mirror.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    9. Re:Hubble II by Power_Pentode · · Score: 1

      ...when I was a kid in the 60's-70's the largest telescope in the world boasted a 0.5 meter mirror...

      I presume that you meant 5 meters (the 200 inch Hale at Mt. Palomar)?

    10. Re:Hubble II by Yfrwlf · · Score: 1

      And they test on mice, because you can kill it and examine all the bones in detail. I'm sure they do checks of the astronaut's bones as well, but you can do much more invasive examinations of a mouse.

      Ah science at it's worst, humans murdering and torturing other species and somehow justifying it on bettering themselves.

      --
      Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
    11. Re:Hubble II by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      So...you're volunteering to go up there so we can cut you open afterwards?

      Uhuh? Wasn't thinking so either.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    12. Re:Hubble II by hansendw · · Score: 1

      Unless you were a kid before 1908.... Mt. Wilson was 60" (1.5 meter)

    13. Re:Hubble II by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      The 1860s?

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    14. Re:Hubble II by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Yes I did mean 5 meters, and I was thinking of the Hale.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  2. It's not smooth sailing from here by jdhutchins · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The article states that the JWST passed the Mission Critical Design Review, which is a specific event, not just a "critical review". This review means that the entire spacecraft has been designed and analyzed. However, there are likely to be further delays as hardware is built and engineers realize it doesn't quite meet the expectations that the analysis set out for it.

  3. Re:Typical government failure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Hello, troll. Some points.

    1. Private contractors (including Northrop Grumman and Ball Aerospace) have participated in this telescope's creation. Thus, much of the telescope has indeed been built by private companies.

    2. A billion dollars is relatively insignificant with respect to the total US budget.

    3. NASA engineers are extremely competent.

    4. You're a stupid troll who wouldn't know practical approaches to running a country from silly fantasies involving the free market.

  4. Re:Typical government failure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Holy crap, $1 *BILLION* dollars over budget? For the love of christ, now all you statist morons know why those of us with more than 2 brain cells to rub together flock to the flag of libertarianism. Private companies could have built and launched this telescope by now and probably would have been a billion UNDER budget. Instead, we give this work to incompetent government workers who wouldn't know a telescope from a hole in the ground. How pathetic. Another worthless government failure.

    Private companies are building it

  5. Space Battleship James Webb by listentoreason · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wise up, people. That's not a telescope, it's a wave motion gun. Just compare to its predecessor, Space Telescope Yamato - although the main weapon has been moved from a spinal mount to a giant deck emplacement, they're using the same hull layout and even an identical color scheme.

    1. Re:Space Battleship James Webb by MRe_nl · · Score: 1

      Ah, Slippery Jim DiGriz, she is attempting to have an illegal space battleship built on a backwoods planet.
      I should have known, it's to large for a transport in this day and age ; ).

      (Harry Harrison, Astounding, The Misplaced Battleship (1960)).

      --
      "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
  6. Further delays will be greatly discouraged by sk999 · · Score: 1
    Schedule will mean everything from now on. Schedule = $$. If the hardware doesn't quite meet expectations, work-arounds will be sought.

    It is also worth pointing out that CDR is an event (as the parent states), not a "test" (as the article title alleges).

  7. Re:What's left? by Kjella · · Score: 2, 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.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  8. general question by cadience · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Do long multi-year projects typically take inflation into account for budget overrun analysis?

    1. Re:general question by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, when doing a budget for a large project you always use cost units such as FY2010 dollars.

    2. Re:general question by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's standard accounting.
       
      That being said, we're going to see a lot more nasty overruns over the next few years because of massive price increases over the last few years. NASA has been badly bitten by this once before, during the early/mid 70's when inflation soared - during the critical early years of Shuttle R&D.

  9. It's NOT a Hubble successor by the_other_chewey · · Score: 5, Informative

    JWST is not a successor to the Hubble Telescope in any sensible way except for the fact
    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.

    1. Re:It's NOT a Hubble successor by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hubble can also see a small portion of the infra-red spectrum. The Webb overlaps Hubble's and part of Spitzer's wavelength in the infra-red and fills a gap in the middle. The 42 Meter ground based E-ELT will be 15X more sensitive than Hubble in the visible spectrum.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    2. Re:It's NOT a Hubble successor by slaingod · · Score: 1

      IIRC I think the likely reason is that the Webb telescope is supposed to allow us to see even further into the 'deep field' region, to much higher red shifts, and consequently closer to the Big Bang. While I agree the Hubble has done many, many things besides that, in the Ultra Deep Field sense, it is the successor.

      --
      http://blog.slaingod.com
    3. Re:It's NOT a Hubble successor by thermopylae300 · · Score: 1
      "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."

      First Sentence: http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/whois.html/

      --
      Before the invention of eruptions, lava had to be carried down the mountain by hand and thrown on sleeping villagers.
  10. ooooooh! It "passed" a "test" ! by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 2, 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.

     

  11. Re:ooooooh! It "passed" a "test" ! by ogre7299 · · Score: 4, 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.

  12. Re:ooooooh! It "passed" a "test" ! by Jahmbo · · Score: 1

    Not to mention the "spherical aberration" that required the installation of corrective lenses. http://hubblesite.org/the_telescope/nuts_.and._bolts/optics/costar/

  13. Re:What's left? by Moralpanic · · Score: 1

    That's right, there's no more unknowns of the universe left. Hubble solved everything.

  14. Re:ooooooh! It "passed" a "test" ! by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    People look at these scopes as single instruments but a lot of those scopes (including Hubble) are part of NASA's Great Observatories project which aims to cover as much of the EM spectrum as posible. IMHO it has to be the most underrated scientific project on the planet.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  15. Re:ooooooh! It "passed" a "test" ! by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    it's likely the same thing will happen this time.

    Actually it's unlikely since your pessimisim is ignoring the fact that the vast majority of space observatories have operated flawlessly.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  16. Hubble vs James Webb by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    Just asking:

    Anyone knows what are the capabilities of James Webb telescope, as compared to the (upgraded) Hubble telescope that we have been using?

    If the James Webb telescope is better, in what way it is better?

    Just asking, and thanks !

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Hubble vs James Webb by boot_img · · Score: 1

      - Larger mirror than HST so more sensitivity (can see fainter stars and galaxies), and better angular resolution (diffraction limit).
      - Infrared optimized. Because of thermal backgrounds, infrared is best done from space. (HST has some IR capability though)

    2. Re:Hubble vs James Webb by physburn · · Score: 1
      The James Web telescope isn't competing with or replacing Hubble, the JWST is an infrared telescope, and will see completly different things to Hubble, including the very first stars and galaxies whos light was been red shifted down to infra-red.

      ---

      Astronomy Feed @ Feed Distiller

  17. delivery? by theSender · · Score: 1

    How does NASA intend to haul it into orbit? I know there are only a couple of shuttle missions left, and I didn't think the Constellation program is due to launch before 2015?

    1. Re:delivery? by theSender · · Score: 1

      The Ares I and V are part of the Constellation program that the Pres is trying to cut. Ares V's first launch isn't scheduled until 2018, though I agree it is an awesome piece of hardware.

    2. Re:delivery? by DougF · · Score: 1

      I think you meant an Ariane 5.

      --
      Impetuous! Homeric!
  18. Timely article by Leebert · · 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.)

    1. Re:Timely article by Shag · · Score: 2, 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.)

      --
      Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
    2. Re:Timely article by Leebert · · Score: 1

      No need to gown up. You can see pretty much everything from the viewing area on the second floor of Building 7.

      Yes, I know, but something about the human spirit makes seeing it from the other side of the glass not quite as enjoyable as in person.

      As long as you are a US citizen, your friends can badge you in at the front gate.

      I'm not leaving the agency, just GSFC. I was, in fact, invited back next year when more interesting parts have been accumulated.

  19. Re:Me? Oh wow. Thanks. *takes cup* by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

    I’m excited about the James Webb. Since it is one step further to something that almost sounds surreal: In our lifetimes, telescopes will become advanced enough, to be able to see lifeforms on other planets with a better resolution than Google earth/maps right now. Think about that for a minute... Just wow.

    Oh Great... You just know where this will lead... Intragalactic goatse...

    --
    You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  20. Re:What's left? by Tim+the+Gecko · · Score: 1

    IAFAIUI, Hubble was instrumental (heh) in discovering the background radiation...

    YDNUIVW. The answer is 350 miles lower than Hubble and a quarter century before its launch - New Jersey in 1964

  21. Re:from the team that brought you the Hubble? by vtcodger · · Score: 2, Informative

    James Webb = NASA bureaucrat. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._Webb

    --
    You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
  22. Re:Typical government failure. by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    2. A billion dollars is relatively insignificant with respect to the total US budget.

    As the saying goes ...

    "A billion here and a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money. " --- Senator Everett Dirksen

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  23. Re:from the team that brought you the Hubble? by jmak · · Score: 1

    Being 4 times farther from Earth than the Moon, JWST won't be serviceable once deployed. Certainly not using the Shuttle.

  24. Re:What's left? by Shag · · Score: 1

    Simply, things that are so far away / moving away from us so fast that their light is doppler-shifted into the infrared.

    Larger mirror than Hubble (or other previous infrared space telescopes, like Spitzer) means it can gather the light faster than them, or if it exposes for the same length as them, can see fainter objects.

    And being in orbit means it doesn't have to worry about which infrared frequencies can make it through the atmosphere.

    --
    Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
  25. Re:from the team that brought you the Hubble? by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

    I have been trying to understand the orbit. I think I understand Lagrange points in broad terms, and why in theory L2 is a good place for it. But, have we ever had objects at L2? How sure are we that L2 will actually work, and will be a safe place for it? And how many objects can we have at L2? If it is really a 'point', there can only be one.

    --
    The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
  26. Demos are fun by skoda · · Score: 1

    From the article, "This month, ITT Corp. in Rochester, N.Y., demonstrated robotic mirror installation equipment designed to position segments on the backplane."

    I'm pleased to say that I was one of the individuals giving that demo to the JWST review team :) And kudos to the team for assembling quite the system for integrating the segments.

    --
    ShoutingMan.com
    1. Re:Demos are fun by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Now we just need to launch it.
      I put the odds at less than 50% that it will launch but I am in a pessimistic mood.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  27. Re:from the team that brought you the Hubble? by bitingduck · · Score: 1

    Herschel and Planck are at L2 now. Spacecraft at L2 don't park exactly on the L2 point, which is unstable, but fly a "quasi-halo" orbit around it, and have propulsion systems that fire occasionally to keep them on the right orbit. The orbits about the L2 point are quite huge, and missions take other missions into account when planning to go there. The stable Lagrange points aren't good places to put spacecraft because other junk accumulates there and can cause collisions with space debris (i.e. rocks).

  28. Re:Me? Oh wow. Thanks. *takes cup* by tuxgeek · · Score: 1

    Your post was not troll
    Just that slashdot only gives modpoints to stupid assholes anymore
    Don't take it personally
    With great responsibility comes great incompetence

    --
    "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
  29. Re:Me? Oh wow. Thanks. *takes cup* by tuxgeek · · Score: 1
    So that's what happened
    I was wondering why I never get mod points anymore
    Seems since I critiqued my government for being corrupt and in the pockets of multinational corporations .. hmmm

    Time to fork /. and start another nerd site

    --
    "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
  30. Re:Me? Oh wow. Thanks. *takes cup* by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    Oh I get it. The joke just was waaayyyy over your head! Nice EPIC FAIL dude! ^^

    Seems that also any sufficiently advanced joke is indistinguishable from a troll. ^^

    But hey, about how much I care: My Karma: Still Excellent. ^^ So Fuck you motherfucker! :D

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.