Mirrors Finished For James Webb Space Telescope

yeah by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 02:10 · Score: 1

We will REALLY be able to see boobies with that thing!

Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 02:28 · Score: 0

I'm not convinced, as an optical designer, that this telescope was really necessary. Hubble still has a lot of good work it can do and I worry about the public perception of this being a over-budget pork project. I really feel that it is more the politicians and the project leaders (who will get all the credit for the discoveries, not the grad students and postdocs!) who wanted this thing.
Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 02:46 · Score: 0

We will REALLY be able to see female chest hair after 1-day growth with that thing!
FTFY
Re:yeah by Jeremy+Erwin · 2012-08-21 03:01 · Score: 4, Informative

Here's The scientific case for the James Webb Space Telescope. The earliest galaxies are redshifted into wavelengths that the HST can't resolve.
Re:yeah by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-08-21 03:08 · Score: 1

We will REALLY be able to see boobies with that thing!
And then the scientists will find out that the green alien babes they were looking for aren't actually mammals at all and the jig will be up.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 03:11 · Score: 1, Interesting

That article has 16 occurrences of the word 'Hubble' and none of them refer to what you mentioned. Even if there was that one particular advantage, I don't see it as compelling enough a project to risk damaging the reputation of the astronomy community. And as I mentioned, these big projects are often driven by the leaders who have in a sense a conflict of interest - no matter what science the telescope does, their careers benefit.
Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 03:49 · Score: 1

In the fourth paragraph, page 490 (fifth page of the PDF) where (as in the preceding tables of abbreviations) it is referred to as "HST":
In the mid-1990s, the “HST and Beyond” committee recommended that NASA build an IR-optimized telescope to extend HST discoveries to higher red- shift and longer wavelength (Dressler, 1996).
Re:yeah by flyingsquid · 2012-08-21 03:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's important science, but even if the telescope works without a hitch and everything goes according to plan, the Webb Space Telescope represents a real failure on the part of NASA administration. According to Wikipedia, the telescope was originally supposed to launch in 2007 for a cost of $500 million; then 2007-2008 for a cost of $1 billion, then 2009 for $1.8 billion, now it's 2018 and 8.7 billion. The Curiosity rover has also had major problems, being two years behind schedule and $1.5 billion over budget.
I support the work NASA does, and I think that we should support projects like the Webb telescope and Curiosity. But it's pretty clear that the current management at NASA is incompetent when we have this situation of projects continually coming in late and massively over budget. The guys in the blue shirts we saw working mission control are doing a great job, but their leadership is failing them. It seems to me that if we could figure out how to reform NASA, reward success and have accountability for failures, we might be able to save money and get more science done at the same time- although I'm not terribly optimistic about that.
Re:yeah by Jeremy+Erwin · 2012-08-21 03:57 · Score: 5, Informative

Hubble = HST.Look again.
For instance:

The deepest images of the universe include the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field (UDF) in the optical (Beckwith et al., 2003), which reaches AB = 29.0 mag in the I band, HST near-IR images of the UDF, which reach AB = 28.5 in the J and H bands (Bouwens et al., 2005a), and the Spitzer Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey (Dickinson, 2004), which reaches AB = 26.6 mag at 3.6 m. Galaxies are detected in these observations at 6
Or how about this:

Hierarchical Assembly: The dark matter mass function of bound objects at very high redshifts can be uniquely measured in two ways with JWST. First, the dynamics of groups of galaxies or sub-galactic fragments can be used to determine the typical masses of halos (Zaritsky and White, 1994).
These measurements require observations of emission lines in the rest-frame optical, such as [OII] 3727, [OIII] 5007, and H. These are very difficult to measure from the ground when redshifted into the near-IR.
Second, JWST will measure halo masses through the gravitational bending of light. Using this weak-lensing method, ground-based programs have measured the mass within 200–500 kpc of galaxies at redshifts of z 0.1 (McKay et al., 2002) and z 1 (Wilson et al., 2001). Using the superior resolution of HST, these measure- ments are likely to be extended into 30–50 kpc for galaxies at z 1 (e.g., Rhodes et al., 2004; Rhodes, 2004). While there are some hints of variable halo struc- tures for galaxies of different luminosity and total halo mass, the radial penetration of these surveys, and the ability to compare galaxies of different morphologies are
518 J. P. GARDNER ET AL.
limited by statistics. We expect that HST will establish the statistical mass functions for spiral and elliptical galaxies at z 1, but not much beyond that, because of its limited sensitivity and sampling at > 1.6 m.
JWST will extend the equivalent measurements of galaxies to z 2.5 and thus determine the development of the dark matter halos during the peak growth of galaxies and star formation. JWST will require near-IR imaging with high spatial resolution and sensitivity to achieve this greater depth. Background galaxies with a size comparable to the resolution of JWST will be measured at 20 .
The same near-IR sensitivity and resolution will also make JWST superior to those of ground-based facilities and HST for the study of dark matter structures on larger scales, e.g., 1–10 arcmin or 2–20 Mpc (co-moving) at z 3. These volumes measure the clustering of dark matter on cluster or even supercluster scales, and would extend the study of the mass function into the linear regime. The goal of these observations would be to verify the growth of structure between z 1000 (the CMB large-scale structure) and z 2.5, i.e., during the period that dark matter dominated the cosmological expansion of the universe prior to the beginning of dark energy dominance at z 1.
It's not all about the redshift, the paper also describes potentially useful observations in the IR-- planet formation, star formation, etc. And,of course, optical telescopes have a hard time resolving what's behind dust clouds-- ir telescopes can see beyond them
Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 04:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

You mean it's hard to predict how long and how expensive it will be to do something literally *nobody has ever done*?
Well holy shit, you just blew my mind.
Also, how is leadership failing them? Leadership seems to be doing pretty well, they managed to secure additional funding and time for the engineers and projects that needed it. Leadership would be failing if those projects were canceled after years of work and billions of dollars. I suppose the only failure is that they didn't take the initial estimates, multiply them by 4, and then use those.
Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 05:54 · Score: 0

The same could be said about the Hubble project too: people there have an invested interest in it continuing. And over the last 20 some years, the capabilities of ground based observations have been improving, leaving fewer and fewer cases that Hubble has an advantage in.
Re:yeah by Titan1080 · 2012-08-21 06:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

We could build one of these EVERY MONTH, for what we've been spending on the useless waste in afghanistan. and that's been going for over a decade... The money that NASA 'wastes' is a PITTANCE to what gets truly wasted by the 'defense' department and the pentagon.
Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 07:33 · Score: 0

They shouldnt be underestimating their budgets. If they thought they were going to build that telescope for 500million they should be fired.
Re:yeah by Paracelcus · 2012-08-21 08:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

The Pentagon, DOD, CIA and all the "other" defense related BS that the aging, paranoid "military-industrial complex" spending is classified, the dollar figures released are for public consumption only and are a TINY fraction of the true amount! The REAL amount spent, would dwarf (IMHO) the entire remainder of the federal budget!
If the USofA spent the same percentage of it's budget on all the above as China or Europe, not only would their be NO DEBT, the federal coffers would be busting at the seams with money for roads, bridges, waterworks, infrastructure, environmental clean up, etc, etc, etc.
BUT as the defense industry is so very generous to our whores in Washington, we can reliably expect to be at war for the foreseeable future!

--
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 08:38 · Score: 0

If there was a management problem at NASA, I assure you we would not successfully be getting things into space. Projects like the Curiosity are MAJOR engineering problems that most of us can't even imagine.
Re:yeah by downhole · 2012-08-21 08:40 · Score: 2

What I think you're missing is that the standard bean-counter approach to budgeting and project management just doesn't apply here. Take a car company as the opposite - they make hundreds of thousands of everything. Because they're dealing with well-known technology and high production numbers, they can say with a great deal of confidence exactly how much it will cost to make the next one, or the next ten, or the next ten thousand. Neither of those apply to a lot of these technological projects that are so famous for cost overruns - they're only making one JWST, and all of the gear in it is cutting-edge technology that nobody has much real experience with, and some of which has to be invented for the purpose. You're never going to be able to make an accurate schedule or cost estimate for that.
The same applies to a lot of other stuff, like fighter jets. Each new generation is pushing the cutting edge of several different branches of technology, including aviation, low-observables, engine design, materials, etc. Problems nobody could have forseen are going to come up, and solutions will have to be found, and nobody will be able to predict how much it will cost or how long it will take ahead of time. Especially when you're only planning on making a few hundred of them, at most.

--
I don't reply to ACs
Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 08:52 · Score: 1

They shouldnt be underestimating their budgets. If they thought they were going to build that telescope for 500million they should be fired.
You are making the very large assumption that budgets get approved at their actual cost. In reality, they get approved at their assumed or original budgeted cost, with the longstanding joke in business that projects like this will always end up costing 4x in the end. Stupid and absolutely ludicrous, but only mirrors the absurdity of the politics involved.
And knowing the beaurcracy of projects this large, I doubt anyone got fired. The fact that the project went from an original budget of 1 billion to over 8 billion without getting shitcanned at some point along the way should tell you that.
Re:yeah by PhxBlue · 2012-08-21 08:59 · Score: 2

Why is it when the Defense Department has a cost overrun of billions of dollars, everyone says, "But we need this! It's important!" but no one ever tries to make the same case for the advancement of science?
We could have discovered the Higgs boson a decade sooner -- in the United States -- if we'd opted to take a chance on science and finish building the Superconducting Supercollider, but killing Earthlings was apparently more important, so Congress in its infinite wisdom shut that project down. Flash forward to today, where we're bemoaning the lack of young adults entering science, technology, engineering and mathematics careers.
The James Webb telescope will likewise help inspire our next generation of scientists and engineers, but only if we see the thing through to completion. Or we can just continue to hand the reins of technological prowess to our compatriots in Europe and Asia and continue to slowly descend into irrelevance.

--
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Re:yeah by lennier · 2012-08-21 10:06 · Score: 1

Problems nobody could have forseen are going to come up,

"Bit of a bother, sir. The Soviets have called off this whole Cold War thing. Dashed unsporting, what?"
"Nassssty hippie peaceniks! My preciousssssss!"

and solutions will have to be found,
"So some of our chums across the ditch have been thinking, let's try reviving the Crusades. Cos those worked out brilliantly the last time we tried that!"
"Excssseeellent! You haff saved our budgetssssss!"

and nobody will be able to predict how much it will cost or how long it will take ahead of time.
"Righty-ho, here's your unlimited war budget. Course it will trash the world economy, but what's a few eggs to an omelette, eh?"
"O my I am teengling just thinking about zis! It vill be like a Vorld Var Tree without ze nasssty cramped mineshafts! A Vorld Var Vour effen! Seig heil... Mr President!"

--
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Re:yeah by lennier · 2012-08-21 10:12 · Score: 1

We could have discovered the Higgs boson a decade sooner -- in the United States
And planted a really really tiny US flag on it, I'm guessing.
"We came in peace for all mankinx - darnit! Stupid cramped lettering! Hand me the quantum eraser!"

--
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Re:yeah by peawormsworth · 2012-08-22 09:30 · Score: 1

The money is not wasted. The pipeline is almost finished (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline). By 2014 we should begin to see significant ROI for this at the expense of Russia and Iran. Also, u r not considering the oil imports already attained from both Afghanistan and Iraq. These investments under the guise of a war will pay dividends over time, but u will never be directly informed of it.

Tennis court by Russ1642 · 2012-08-21 02:15 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Can I get that in the standard unit of area - the football field?

Re:Tennis court by ByOhTek · 2012-08-21 02:17 · Score: 1

American (American Football), Canadian (Canada's variant thereof...), or European (soccer)?

--
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Re:Tennis court by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 02:18 · Score: 0

Can I get that in the standard unit of area - the football field?
What a standard football field or a hand-egg field? need to be more specific.
Re:Tennis court by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 02:19 · Score: 1

American (American Football), Canadian (Canada's variant thereof...), or European (soccer)?
Obviously an Unladen African Arena Football field.
Re:Tennis court by TWX · 2012-08-21 02:20 · Score: 0

Is that an American Football field, an international Football (ie, Soccer) field, an Arena Football field, Rugby, Canadian Football, or some other variety?

Before you answer, remember, international units conversion problems have caused previous space missions to fail...

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Re:Tennis court by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 02:21 · Score: 0

This might help http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6006/5962984002_b26e5b4a44_o.jpg
Re:Tennis court by Old+Wolf · 2012-08-21 02:28 · Score: 4, Funny

Would also be nice to know how many libraries of congress per second the telescope will be able to send back to Earth
Re:Tennis court by RaceProUK · 2012-08-21 02:33 · Score: 1

European (soccer)?
Not the best choice of measurement, as they can vary dramatically. Now a rugby pitch, that's a fixed size.

--
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
Re:Tennis court by Antipater · 2012-08-21 03:35 · Score: 1

Now a rugby pitch, that's a fixed size.
Lies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_pitch#Playing_field (note the "Not Exceeding" measurements in the picture.)

--
Everything is better with chainsaws.
Re:Tennis court by RaceProUK · 2012-08-21 03:42 · Score: 1

I curse you with a mild itch that disappears after a few minutes :P

--
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
Re:Tennis court by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 08:53 · Score: 0

LoC it from orbit, it is the only way to be sure!
Re:Tennis court by geekmux · 2012-08-21 12:35 · Score: 1

Would also be nice to know how many libraries of congress per second the telescope will be able to send back to Earth
Throughput might also be better using IPv6.
Don't worry though. We won't have deployed it by then either.
NATS.....IN.....SPAAAAACE!!!!!

Hopefully... by TWX · 2012-08-21 02:16 · Score: 4, Funny

...Perkin-Elmer didn't provide any consulting services, especially in the verification process...

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.

Re:Hopefully... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 05:06 · Score: 1

They're now part of the ISR Systems department at Goodrich, which was recently purchased by United Technologies.
And yes, they still bid and win NASA contracts.
Re:Hopefully... by Overzeetop · 2012-08-21 07:06 · Score: 2

I once had a discussion with a director of engineering about being fired for screwing up a design (in jest; a hypothetical "I hope this does't fail" comment). He quickly came back with, "Oh, I wouldn't fire you. Far worse - I'd make you stay on and fix it."
Smart engineers who have made some rookie mistakes are probably some of the first people you want on a review team. When everything goes perfectly, you don't know how much of your design was genius and how much was luck.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Re:Hopefully... by TWX · 2012-08-21 11:30 · Score: 1

Oh I know, my wife is an engineer and has several long term projects. I don't really know anything about them, and her not talking about them probably adds to her angst, but that's what the engineer's salary is supposed to help offset.

I cited Perkin-Elmer because they repeatedly ignored fail test results from two tools when one tool gave a pass, and that one tool was later identified as being assembled incorrectly so its optics were wrong. They seemingly never questioned that tool's results or had it checked for calibration or other accuracy despite having two other tools that told them that there was a problem. That's a rank-amateur mistake, and please pardon me if I would think that would disqualify them from future NASA endeavors, especially when either millions upon millions of dollars in difficult or impossible to service equipment is involved, and in some circumstances could threaten lives if it doesn't work...

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.

Have they been properly collimated? by bruce_the_loon · 2012-08-21 02:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

Please tell me they have been collimated properly and we aren't going to get another Hubble problem, this time at L2 with no hopes of a monocle to fix it.

--
Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.

Re:Have they been properly collimated? by Russ1642 · 2012-08-21 02:18 · Score: 4, Funny

I hear they've installed a docking connector just in case.
Re:Have they been properly collimated? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 03:27 · Score: 0

Yes, but since the start of telescope manufacturing, time has moved forward in the universe. This means the lens needs recalibration or re-designed to see that far away start that just got farther now! :)
Re:Have they been properly collimated? by martinux · 2012-08-21 04:04 · Score: 5, Informative

Collimation wasn't the issue, the mirror was incorrectly shaped due to a fault in the QA process where a tool used to measure the sphericity of the mirror called a null corrector was assumed to be set up to spec.
More details here for those who are interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope#Origin_of_the_problem
Collimation refers to the arrangement, or alignment, of the optical surfaces and lenses in relation to each other.
Re:Have they been properly collimated? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 04:27 · Score: 0

Please tell me they have been collimated properly and we aren't going to get another Hubble problem, this time at L2 with no hopes of a monocle to fix it.
JWST is IR and has more room for error in this regard than HST.
Re:Have they been properly collimated? by Russ1642 · 2012-08-21 06:26 · Score: 4, Informative

Thanks for the funny moderation but I was serious. They added a docking ring in 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JWST#Orbit
Re:Have they been properly collimated? by Shag · 2012-08-21 08:16 · Score: 1

A cousin of mine with a degree in quality engineering works for Northrop Grumman and had to go visit Ball a bunch in the last year to ensure that the mirror segments were to spec. So if the mirror doesn't work, I'm blaming her.

--
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.

memories of Hubble by metageek · 2012-08-21 02:18 · Score: 1

hopefully they polished this one well enough...

--
metageek

Re:memories of Hubble by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 02:26 · Score: 0

hubble was polished fine. It warped when it got to zero g...
The new mirrors can be warped on the fly remotely.
The sad thing is this thing is nearly 10 years late. They just finished the mirrors? Those things should have been done in 2002 for their 2005 launch date (which was already late). This thing has turned into a huge overrun of budget. Sadly making it harder to do things like it in the future.
Re:memories of Hubble by ciderbrew · 2012-08-21 02:32 · Score: 1

that said they are doing something that is very hard to do.
Re:memories of Hubble by bruce_the_loon · 2012-08-21 02:37 · Score: 4, Informative

The Allen Commission found that the null corrector used to test the mirror had a lens installed 1.3mm out of position. Citation The Hubble Space Telescope Optical Systems Failure Report chapter 7.
The mirror was wrong when it left the factory.

--
Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
Re:memories of Hubble by AC-x · 2012-08-21 02:37 · Score: 3, Informative

hubble was polished fine. It warped when it got to zero g...
No it wasn't, it's well known that the mirror was ground incorrectly due to the measurement instrument being 1.3mm out
Re:memories of Hubble by necro81 · 2012-08-21 03:34 · Score: 5, Funny

The Hubble mirror was the most precisely and uniformly shaped mirror ever made up to that time. They just happened to make it precisely to an incorrect shape.
Re:memories of Hubble by SlippyToad · 2012-08-21 08:00 · Score: 1

It warped when it got to zero g...
LOL. No, it was figured wrong, period.

Those things should have been done in 2002 for their 2005 launch date (which was already late). This thing has turned into a huge overrun of budget.

Compared to any military project, I am sure NASA's budget overruns are miniscule. It's too bad military projects aren't subject to this kind of scrutiny. I'm sure the taxpayer would save billions.

--
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
Re:memories of Hubble by JoeRobe · 2012-08-21 10:34 · Score: 1

I'm guessing there's a good reason, but do you by any chance know why NASA didn't test the final optical alignment of Hubble on the ground before it launched? Why not lay the thing on its side and point it at something really far away to make sure everything was in focus (or just point it up at the night sky)? Too much structural warping due to gravity?

--
The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
Re:memories of Hubble by Electricity+Likes+Me · 2012-08-21 18:25 · Score: 1

I imagine being a satellite, it wasn't designed to support it's own mass against gravity when fully deployed - after all for launch it would need to be as light as possible.

Boulder Daily Camera by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 02:20 · Score: 0

The Boulder Daily Camera has a longer story and more pictures.

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_21323457/after-decade-boulders-ball-aerospace-readies-ship-telescope

Re:Boulder Daily Camera by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 03:17 · Score: 0

The Boulder Daily Camera has a longer story and more pictures.
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_21323457/after-decade-boulders-ball-aerospace-readies-ship-telescope
Daily camera? Well a space telescope is one hell of a camera!

The beginning of time by Errol+backfiring · 2012-08-21 02:20 · Score: 2

... see back to the beginning of time

so they finally see the hand of the Maker:

Sorry for the inconvenience.

--
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!

Re:The beginning of time by Metabolife · 2012-08-21 02:41 · Score: 2

One hand will be in the pocket, the other one will be holding a cigarette.
Re:The beginning of time by alphred · 2012-08-21 08:35 · Score: 1

Hello Sweetie!
Re:The beginning of time by gmhowell · 2012-08-21 13:31 · Score: 1

That's really quite ironic, don't you think?

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon

Need more of these stories by Flipstylee · 2012-08-21 02:28 · Score: 2

Stuff like this is the reason i frequent Slashdot.

Beryllium? by davidwr · 2012-08-21 02:34 · Score: 1

When they add in the new power supply, will it use berryllium spheres?

--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.

One shot at getting it right. by Picass0 · 2012-08-21 02:35 · Score: 4, Informative

During Hubble's deployment a solar panel failed to fully unfold. An astronaut needed to manually extend the panel or Hubble would not have the power to operate. Hubble famously needed a "set of glasses" to correct for a deformation in it's mirror. This was accomplished with a space shuttle mission. In the years that followed Hubble needed gyroscopes replaced and has received upgrade packages to extend it's capabilities.

Webb will be four times further away from Earth than the distance between the Earth and Moon. That will make any effort to repair it more risky than an Apollo moon mission. Webb was almost cancelled for budget reasons. It's unlikely a rescue mission would be conducted if something were to go wrong.

I can't wait to see what a telescope more powerful than Hubble can do. I hope everything goes according to plan.

Re:One shot at getting it right. by martinux · 2012-08-21 02:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

NASA has learned a lot from all of their work up until now. Consider the spectacular success in getting Curiosity onto Mars - a remarkably complex and audacious plan.
Testing methods, materials and technology has come a long way; it's not a guarantee that everything will go without a hitch but I'm optimisitic.
Re:One shot at getting it right. by hackertourist · 2012-08-21 05:06 · Score: 1

Thousands of satellites have been launched on unmanned rockets and have done fine without human intervention.
Re:One shot at getting it right. by Picass0 · 2012-08-21 05:42 · Score: 1

I'm aware, but most of them extend a dish or make a minimal configuration change once in orbit. Few of them are folded like complex origami into a rocket nose.
I want this to work, I'm just expressing a concern.
Re:One shot at getting it right. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 05:55 · Score: 0

In addition to the mirror problems and solar panel non-deployment, they also had:
* Failed to properly shield the electronics against the radiation in orbit
* Installed solar panels that would 'wobble' (ie, vibrate at low freq) when it changed temperature going from sunlight-no sunlight and back again
* the tracking system was unreliable
* terrible ringing problems when it had a system emergency shutdown and the front door slammed shut
Re:One shot at getting it right. by PhxBlue · 2012-08-21 09:12 · Score: 1

Webb will be four times further away from Earth than the distance between the Earth and Moon. That will make any effort to repair it more risky than an Apollo moon mission. Webb was almost cancelled for budget reasons. It's unlikely a rescue mission would be conducted if something were to go wrong.
I think robotics has advanced to the point where we could engineer and send up an unmanned repair vehicle if we had to. Hopefully, we won't have to. :)

--
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Re:One shot at getting it right. by Rich0 · 2012-08-21 15:16 · Score: 1

How much of the cost of the Webb was actually construction? I never understood all the hubble repair missions and such - just build a few more of them and launch them.
I suspect that 90% of the cost is in the design/etc. Sure, the mirror has to cost a pretty penny, but after you have the rigs all designed to grind it out, why not just start them on a second mirror the day after the first is removed? If something goes wrong with the first telescope you have a spare, and if not, well, then you get to do twice as many experiments.
Re:One shot at getting it right. by Electricity+Likes+Me · 2012-08-21 18:27 · Score: 1

I'm aware, but most of them extend a dish or make a minimal configuration change once in orbit. Few of them are folded like complex origami into a rocket nose.
I want this to work, I'm just expressing a concern.
It does occur to me that it would not be so far away that we couldn't launch a robotic vehicle with manipulators to do maintenance on it.

Fahrenheit, really? by RenHoek · 2012-08-21 02:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

Guys, really? Fahrenheit? In a science article? On an international website?

I don't even advocate the usage of Celcius in this case, so why not use 33 degrees Kelvin? This at least give us _some_ idea of how close to absolute zero we are. Otherwise, why not use 'near absolute zero' and leave out the numbers completely?

</getoffmylawn>

Re:Fahrenheit, really? by blueturffan · 2012-08-21 02:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

Guys, really? Fahrenheit? In a science article? On an international website?
I don't even advocate the usage of Celcius in this case, so why not use 33 degrees Kelvin? This at least give us _some_ idea of how close to absolute zero we are. Otherwise, why not use 'near absolute zero' and leave out the numbers completely?
</getoffmylawn>
degrees Kelvin you say? In a comment to a science article?
Re:Fahrenheit, really? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 03:34 · Score: 1

Guys, really? Fahrenheit? ... On an international website?
It's not an international website. It's an American website. The fact that you can access it from outside the US is great and all, and I welcome everyone to this community warmly. However, I welcome everyone to the community warmly in the very same way that the grocery store down my street welcomes foreign visitors. They'll sell you anything you want, treat you the same as they treat all their American customers, but don't go and get all indignant that they have no employees who speak Finnish. This website caters to Americans, it says so on the FAQ. They just don't turn away people who aren't Americans.

In a science article? ... I don't even advocate the usage of Celcius in this case, so why not use 33 degrees Kelvin?
I agree with that.
Re:Fahrenheit, really? by Dishevel · 2012-08-21 04:27 · Score: 1

On an international website?
From an old slashdot FAQ.

Slashdot is U.S.-centric. We readily admit this, and really don't see it as a problem. Slashdot is run by Americans, after all, and the vast majority of our readership is in the U.S. We're certainly not opposed to doing more international stories, but we don't have any formal plans for making that happen. All we can really tell you is that if you're outside the U.S. and you have news, submit it, and if it looks interesting, we'll post it.

--
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Re:Fahrenheit, really? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 04:42 · Score: 0

What's "international" about it? It's a US-based site with US-based staff.
Also the main nav-bar includes Entertainment and Shop; this is a /mainstream/ science site. Kelvin is too exotic to use without explanation for the audience. Like "tennis court" they wanted something that would make sense to the curious who don't have a sci degree. (Yet.)
While you're there, note Shop has all prices in dollars, without even bothering to mention it's USD. This is definitely not an "international" website. You've made a strawman in your eagerness to appear smart, buffed by flat-out ignoring that they did include Celsius alongside the Fahrenheit.
I guess your lawn remark was more of that. I know I enjoyed the Apollo program in real-time, and can assure the young ones here we /didn't/ use Kelvin when I was a kid. Nor would it have made a damn bit of sense to me had they used it in the Apollo coverage.
Re:Fahrenheit, really? by cellocgw · 2012-08-21 05:04 · Score: 1

Guys, really? Fahrenheit? In a science article? On an international website?
I don't even advocate the usage of Celcius in this case, so why not use 33 degrees Kelvin?
For one thing, there's no such thing as a "degree Kelvin." Look it up.

--
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
Re:Fahrenheit, really? by Yoda222 · 2012-08-21 08:47 · Score: 1

I don't think Kelvin is too exotic to be used on slashdot. Don't you think that Kelvin is far more common than "berrilium" or "L2" ?
Re:Fahrenheit, really? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 22:01 · Score: 0

They are still called degrees in many places. In Spain, if you went to university before 1991 that's what you will read in the text books.

the name still annoys me by Trepidity · 2012-08-21 02:39 · Score: 3, Funny

Wish it had been named after an astronomer, like the Hubble was, not a NASA administrator.

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10

Re:the name still annoys me by Rogerborg · 2012-08-21 03:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

You say administrator like it's a dirty word. Webb made Apollo happen, up to and including throwing himself to the wolves after Apollo 1. He wasn't the bean counting ass covering naysaying Milquetoast that you'd expect in that position today.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Re:the name still annoys me by BobNET · 2012-08-21 03:44 · Score: 2

I just assumed it was named after the guy who wrote MacArthur Park.

Cool! All we need now is by mj1856 · 2012-08-21 02:47 · Score: 2

a solid xenon-halogen laser and a ginormous popcorn ball!

Re:Cool! All we need now is by Overzeetop · 2012-08-21 07:02 · Score: 1

Don't forget to clean your optics, first.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?

Fahrenheit and Tennis Courts, Yes by eldavojohn · 2012-08-21 02:49 · Score: 2

So Fahrenheit is right out but tennis courts are a valid area unit?

Jeez, somebody whizzed on the electric fence last night.

--
My work here is dung.

What about maintanance of Hubble? by sageres · 2012-08-21 02:59 · Score: 2

It is very unfortunate that JWST means the end if Hubble. JWST provides only infrared spectrum (and we already have seperate telescopes that do infraded and x-ray), while Hubble does ultraviolet and optical. Servicing Mission 4 was under the thread of being canceled, however even though it is completed, all the finances are now invested into JWST, so SM4 was the last mission to the Hubble.

Re:What about maintanance of Hubble? by ogre7299 · 2012-08-21 04:15 · Score: 4, Informative

While there have been other telescopes that observed in the infrared, JWST will have a mirror 6x larger than the prevous space-based telescopes that operate or have operated at the same wavelengths (0.8 to 24 microns). This means that JWST will have a factor of 6 better resolution than previous telescopes and be incredibly more sensitive due to the larger collecting area. Ground-based telescopes cannot compete with JWST because of the sky brightness in the infrared making sensitive observations very time consuming. The science drivers of JWST are primarily the high-redshift universe, that is galaxies that were formed shortly after the big bang. This is something Hubble cannot do since it is not infrared optimized (the telescope is quite warm compare to JWST's operating temperature) and has too small of an aperture for the resolution needed.
The lack of future Hubble servicing has a lot to do with the retirement of the Space Shuttles, the only platform that can be used to service HST. Hubble will be kept going as long as possible since it is still doing outstanding science. In the 2020s it is hoped to launch an 8m class optical-uv telescope to truly replace Hubble.
Re:What about maintanance of Hubble? by Jeremy+Erwin · 2012-08-21 14:54 · Score: 1

and 36 times the light gathering power.

Tools Calibrated? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 03:00 · Score: 0

OK, we verified that all of our measurement tools are calibrated before doing this - right?

Re:Minus, really? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 03:04 · Score: 1

If you're going to complain, complain about the use of "minus" as a unary operator.

It's *negative*. Minus is subtraction.
Pet Peeve!

At least with F and C they're accurate if unconventional.
(Aside: What? no Rankine love?)

only space shuttle can maintain Hubble by peter303 · 2012-08-21 03:14 · Score: 2

And there are no more. Fortunately they squeezed in one last servicing mission among the Columbia disaster protocols and ISS completion. That may keep Hubble going until 2020. Probably will still be a gap until Webb is operational. Gyro failures are the most likely cause of Hubble end.

Re:only space shuttle can maintain Hubble by M1FCJ · 2012-08-21 07:00 · Score: 1

Why bother when it is not necessary. Ground-based scopes can do visual band perfectly fine. IR and UV have to be outside the atmosphere apart from some very narrow windows. Saying that, JWST costs too much and not worth it. We would have got a lot more science out of a couple of smaller IR scopes and loads of ground based stuff where it's multiple magnitudes of order cheaper and they're shutting left and right because there's no money left.

NASA got two spare Keyhole mirrors by peter303 · 2012-08-21 03:15 · Score: 1

This could be the seed of future Hubble telescope. It would still cost a lot to build a telescope around them and launch them.

Will it need glasses? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 03:40 · Score: 0

Unlike the Hubble, I bet they are going to test it this time!

Say by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2012-08-21 03:52 · Score: 2

He looked out the porthole at the new telescope whose gathering disc dwarfed his ship.

"That's one big-ass mirror!", Tom Swift reflected.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.

Meteorites? by wonkey_monkey · 2012-08-21 04:17 · Score: 2

What are the chances of a mirror getting hit by a micro (or not so micro) meteorite out there? Pretty slim, obviously, or they wouldn't bother, but seeing that animation makes it look pretty unprotected.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.

Where is that money being spent? by FranTaylor · 2012-08-21 04:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

That money is being spent in the USA, it is going to our own citizens to advance our own science.

With your reasoning, just about EVERY SINGLE project this government has EVER undertaken:

- electrification
- interstate highway system
- moon shot
- internet
- big dig
- just about everyting NASA has done

would be considered a "failure" because ALL of them overran their original budgets.

If "budgetary concerns" are your ONLY criterion for success or failure, you're CLEARLY one of those "Harvard MBA Spreadsheet" wonks who thinks that all of life and reality can be boiled down into an excel spreadsheet.

Re:Where is that money being spent? by Rob+Riggs · 2012-08-21 04:54 · Score: 2

That money is being spent in the USA, it is going to our own citizens to advance our own science.
With your reasoning, just about EVERY SINGLE project this government has EVER undertaken:
I'm sorry, but this is a very real failure. I'm a total space geek at heart, but the cost overruns completely change the cost/benefit analysis of the project. Sure, if there is no other research or project to spend the money on, your argument might make sense. But there are tons of these project that all compete for funding. The value we, as citizens and taxpayers, receive for that money is incredibly important. There are a ton of other very worthy projects that could have done more with that amount of money.
Hell, for that amount of money, how many New Horizons type missions could we have paid for?

--
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
Re:Where is that money being spent? by SlippyToad · 2012-08-21 07:49 · Score: 2

I'm sorry, but this is a very real failure
I'm sorry you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

--
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
Re:Where is that money being spent? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 09:00 · Score: 1

That money is being spent in the USA, it is going to our own citizens to advance our own science.
With your reasoning, just about EVERY SINGLE project this government has EVER undertaken:
I'm sorry, but this is a very real failure. I'm a total space geek at heart, but the cost overruns completely change the cost/benefit analysis of the project. Sure, if there is no other research or project to spend the money on, your argument might make sense. But there are tons of these project that all compete for funding. The value we, as citizens and taxpayers, receive for that money is incredibly important. There are a ton of other very worthy projects that could have done more with that amount of money.
Hell, for that amount of money, how many New Horizons type missions could we have paid for?
Your Utopian business model, complete with real project justification, proper spending constraints, and sound ROI analysis sounds awesome!
Too bad I'm still laughing my ass off, because hardly any of that shit actually happens in the real world.
And careful when you use the words "for that amount of money", for there are plenty who would claim you "space geeks" are a complete waste of taxpayer money, and that the entire NASA budget could easily fund "other very worthy projects" not related to space exploration.
Re:Where is that money being spent? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 15:10 · Score: 0

My browser must be acting up. It cuts of the part of your post where you enlighten everyone *why* he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I have a great idea! by FranTaylor · 2012-08-21 04:31 · Score: 1

Let's pretend that the people who write budgets are the only people on this planet with any common sense.

Then we can judge everything based on whether it overran its budget, without consideration of any other criteria.

Sounds strange? Read the comments above!

Re: budgets by neBelcnU · 2012-08-21 04:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

Ok, Accepting that flyingsquid's remark and mine will be moderated into Negativeland, I will feed his/her troll-ness just this once.

Budgets running "over": I agree that you have, using perfect 20/20 hindsight, identified a worrisome trend: rising NASA project costs over time. I will argue against this as a legitimate complaint on 2 fronts:

A) All government projects rise, at rates at least equal to NASAs. By the time the projects "end" they all appear wildly delayed, and hugely inflated. B1, B2, F22, F35, LCS, Stryker, M2 Bradley, M1 Abrams, F18 (which was the loser in the competition for the F16), NexRad, IRS software upgrades, the list is endless. You've chosen to reframe NASA's behavior as out-of-place, when creeping budgets and timelines are the norm. These "creeps" are in fact reviews, where congress revisits the project's justification and reconsiders continuance or abandonment.

B) Hindsight is unavoidable, but somewhat useless. All government projects are engaged in for the best reasons at the time. (Including pork: politics and perception are both, unhappily, reasons.) All of them are initially put up with gigantic dark-areas of knowledge. The proponents of the project have to name the best number they can with the available knowledge, then run with it. Each successive increase is a far harder battle than the initial start, and the fact that a project eventually flies means that the best congressional minds decided it was worth it at each of those increases.

My conclusion: You are offended by a pattern of behavior that is visible looking back, but invisible looking forward. I welcome your proposal to eliminate this problem, but to tote out the tried-and-true phrases like "accountability for failures" and "leadership is failing them" is to cloth Luddism in conservative gowns. I've attempted to make the case that while the system isn't elegant, it is your perception of it that is your problem. This inelegant system produces investments that it believes are worthy, using the best information available at the time, at each step along the way. That it follows a Drunkard's Walk is meaningless if it gets to the desired goal.

Calibration by sycodon · 2012-08-21 05:05 · Score: 1

I hope they calibrated the testing equipment.

I seem to remember that the Hubble mirror passed all the tests, but that the test equipment wasn't calibrated correctly.

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.

Re: budgets by thrich81 · 2012-08-21 06:10 · Score: 1, Interesting

So the guys that are liars (or incompetent) and lo-ball their initial budget estimates to get the project started are rewarded with funding and the guys that are honest from the start and put big contingencies in their estimates for unknowns never get funded because they are always underbid. If the desired goal is to reward BS, dishonesty, and political pull over scientific merit it's working great.

Re: budgets by Titan1080 · 2012-08-21 06:41 · Score: 1

welcome to the american political system. or better yet, welcome to general modern human society/behavior.

First to see the epoch becomes God by witherstaff · 2012-08-21 07:24 · Score: 1

Quantum mechanics shows that conscious participation can help define the universe (Are things a wave or a particle? Matters if you're looking). John Wheeler took this further and called it the Participatory Anthropic Principle. (Not as catchy as his other terms he came up with like black hole or wormhole). So whomever sees epoch first may become the Maker. A fun little read on the idea is 2002 discover mag article

Grammar Nazi by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 07:29 · Score: 0

The whole comprises its parts. The parts compose the whole.
Not. That. Hard.

Congress added billions by jerking NASA around... by KonoWatakushi · 2012-08-21 07:59 · Score: 2

NASA's (mis-)management aside, congress added an extra $2.2B to the cost by disregarding the review panel's findings and not funding the project in a timely manner. Read more about it here, courtesy of an earlier slashdot article: How the Webb Space Telescope Got So Expensive.

No, it really IS kelvin. No degrees. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 08:26 · Score: 0

It's a bit like using "Centigrade".

Re: budgets by PhxBlue · 2012-08-21 09:06 · Score: 2

Ok, Accepting that flyingsquid's remark and mine will be moderated into Negativeland, I will feed his/her troll-ness just this once.

I'd like to think that he's not trolling and is instead expressing a valid concern. It's anathema in terms of how I think the U.S. should shift its priorities post-Global War on Terrorism, but it's still valid. We want the U.S. government to spend money wisely, so scrutinizing and eliminating waste is good ... but not at the cost of killing a program that's going to be crucial for America's journey into the 22nd century.

--
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.

Re:Congress added billions by jerking NASA around. by RalphTheWonderLlama · 2012-08-21 09:17 · Score: 2

It always comes back to Congress. I think they are NASA's real problem. We should put Congress-people that aren't from NASA center/JPL/etc. states but nonetheless are enthusiastic about science, tech, space, and aero into the committees that decide their budget. Do those even exist?

--
simple, fast homepage with your links: http://www.ngumbi.com/

Re: budgets by lennier · 2012-08-21 09:52 · Score: 1

F18 (which was the loser in the competition for the F16

It does amuse me that the US defense bidding process produces all these failed/shelved designs for the Second-Bestest Nucular Bombar Ever. What happens to them? Are there defense contractors with big grudges, deep pockets and a back garage full of prototype stealth city obliterators? What happens if one of these guys decide they're tired of always being America's Second Runner-Up / Miss Congeniality 1988 in the Mass Civilian Murder, Mayhem and Catwalk/Gantry Jumpsuit Model categories... but never #1?

There's got to be a good movie in there somewhere.

--
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC

Re: budgets by lennier · 2012-08-21 09:57 · Score: 1

how I think the U.S. should shift its priorities post-Global War on Terrorism

"post"? Why do you think the GWOT will ever end?

--
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC

That Gnarled Ugly Head Rises by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-21 15:21 · Score: 0

When you look at the images of the foolery dancing around the JWST mirror send-off think, This is what killed the Space Shuttle Transportation System Next Generation and soon to rob funds from the Planetary Sciences Directorate of NASA.

Should the JWST Managers get their wish, JWST will become ... NASA. A new NASA, a NASA devoted to astronomy and nothing else. This means that the California Institute of Technology will have to step up to full funding of JPL without any government support. A Death Sentence in the current and projected FYI out years to 2025 at best. In such a period a Coup-de-Ta could occur within the USA and replace the current democratic-republic with an Oligarch (Slave Master).

Well. Such is the history of Homo Sapiens. Who is to deny Homo Sapiens of enjoying the tidings of Tyrants, if only for a decade or three.

However the USA has a most noticeable problem at hand.

1) No money
2) No purpose
3) No Justice
4) No Future except abject slavery like Africa today. Ah Ha. The role model for the new USA should current progresses go to their fruition, the Obama Model an Plan for the next decade.

The USA is a basket case of Malcontents. The current president, not to type his name, is a noteworthy case of sociopathic homophobic troubles all bundled into one human. That makes him a prime target of the USA government! Ha! If the USA government liquidates him, then the USA government (the non elected government and several millions strong at this time I might add) wins.

That Gnarled Ugly Head [Now] Rises.

A very 'Red' October Surprise to all.

Enjoy

I would be happy if I wasn't so bitter. by ArcSecond · 2012-08-21 18:45 · Score: 1

You know what would have REALLY been able to "see back to the beginning of time"? A proper gravitational observatory like the LISA/Pathfinder project, which would have used three satellites to measure fluxuations in space-time less than the width of an atomic nucleus. It was planned to be operational by 2015 and would have been able to "see" better and farther than light-based telescopes.

But I probably will never see anything as cool as that, because it lost funding when the Webb sucked up all the oxygen in the room.

--

I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.

Slashdot Mirror

Mirrors Finished For James Webb Space Telescope

115 comments