Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space The Almighty Buck Technology

Hubble Replacement on Slow Track 153

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the money-makes-the-world-go-round dept.
iamlucky13 writes "The targeted launch date for the James Webb Space Telescope, an infrared space observatory currently nearing the completion of the design stage, has been pushed back 2 years to help deal with a price tag that has grown to $4.5 billion. This advanced telescope is designed to build upon the achievements of the Hubble after its retirement, peering into deep space with it's large 6.5 meter primary mirror from the L2 point 1.5 million kilometers from earth. As the highest priority science mission on NASA's agenda, a decision was made to spread the extra cost over additional budget cycles rather than compromise it's instrument package. Regardless, some of the lower priority missions may feel the impact of the JWST cost growth."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hubble Replacement on Slow Track More

Hubble Replacement on Slow Track

Comments Filter:

  • $4.5 billion (Score:5, Funny)

    by pubjames ( 468013 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @06:46AM (#14089009)

    $4.5 billion? That's far too expensive. I mean, we could keep our troups in Iraq for almost another month for that kind of money! What are they thinking, wasting it on a stupid big telescope.

    • Re:$4.5 billion (Score:5, Funny)

      by meringuoid ( 568297 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @06:50AM (#14089023)
      I mean, we could keep our troups in Iraq for almost another month for that kind of money! What are they thinking, wasting it on a stupid big telescope.

      Remember, kids: if you buy telescopes, then the terrorists win!

    • Re:$4.5 billion (Score:2, Interesting)

      by freedom_india ( 780002 )
      What pains me is that your comment was modded as Funny instead of Insightful.

      The day when we spend more money on killing rather than on science is the day when Dubya has established his stamp for eternity.

      May dubya live in infamy !

      • Re:$4.5 billion (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Elrac ( 314784 )
        May dubya live in infamy !
        I druther he died in obscurity. The quicker, the better.
      • The day when we spend more money on killing rather than on science is the day when Dubya has established his stamp for eternity.

        Did you miss the memo? America turned to the Dark Side long ago, when they cancelled Apollo to pay for Vietnam.

      • The day when we spend more money on killing rather than on science is the day when Dubya has established his stamp for eternity.

        "We" have always spent more money on killing than on science. How's this Bush's fault?

      • Yeah, who cares about Iraqis being tortured and repressed by a fanatical muslim regime, as long as we can get some pretty pictures from space...
        • Except the torture hasn't stopped, it's just that now it's the US and they are doing it with napalm like substances
        • fanatical muslim regime

          muslim? Saddam's iraq? The one with girls in miniskirts before the wars with Iran and the US started? It was the most secular state in the area. While the most fanatical of them all (Saudi Arabia) is a great US ally. Kinda strange, ain't it?

    • what about switching development to texas, and then making sony pay for it as some sort of community-service thing? if it didn't work, they could even $sys$ it in the desert somewhere.

      • Re:$4.5 billion (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        With that sense of humor, I hope you refund time.

    • Re:$4.5 billion (Score:3, Funny)

      by igb ( 28052 )
      Why spend $4.5billion of something which will either confirm what the bible says, and therefore be superfluous, or contradict what the bible says, and therefore be heretical?

      ian

    • Bad comparsion. Of course the cost of a single research program is smaller than that of a whole military campaign. Better compare total science spending with total military spending.

  • Project(ed) Costs (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JonathanR ( 852748 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @07:05AM (#14089066)
    IMHO, delaying the execution of projects only makes them cost more

    • Re:Project(ed) Costs (Score:5, Insightful)

      by w.timmeh ( 906406 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @07:25AM (#14089115)
      While the launch slip will help NASA avoid big cash infusions on the program in the near term, Geithner conceded it will not save money in the long term. In fact, he said, about half of the $1 billion in cost growth is now attributable to the two-year delay.

      They admit the total cost will be greater, but as funding is dished out on an annual (? periodic) basis, NASA can spread out the slice of funds that the JWST will take over a couple of funding rounds, so that the impact on other projects is lessened.
    • Another important factor is that Lagrange 2 is a saddle point. You can't keep an object there without constant monitoring and course correction (aka thrusters). Given that there's no way to send a resupply shuttle, our dear rocket scientists will absolutely have to get it right the first time. That means perfectly arranged mirrors (unlike Hubble), long-lasting gyros (unlike Hubble), and of course big honking fuel tank.

      So whatever the final cost is, the project managers absolutely must resist the urge to cut
  • With some great techniques for correcting the disturbances our atmosphere creates and a lot of huge (e.g.http://www.gmto.org/ [gmto.org]) ground based telescope slated for construction, it seems that super expensive space telescope will fall out of favor. I think we def need to continue with the JGW scope though - or at least send something to Lagrange point 2 before china does.
    • ...there are no atmospheric effects such as seeing. The atmosphere is especially problematic for an infrared telescope such as the JWST, as a significant portion of the infrared spectrum is absorbed by the earth's atmosphere.
    • While I completely agree that we need a good observatory at a Lagrange point (I favor L3, for inferometry); you have to remember that JWST is going to be an infrared telescope, which is heavily attenuated by the atmosphere.

    • Re:ST's falling out of favor? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Trapezium Artist ( 919330 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @07:52AM (#14089175)
      IAAA (I am an astronomer) and I work on the JWST project from the European Space Agency side (JWST is a joint NASA, ESA, and Canadian Space Agency project).

      While it's true that ground-based telescopes with adaptive optics can compete (or beat) the spatial resolution that JWST will deliver, JWST's image quality should be extremely stable across a fairly large field of view, which will deliver more precise measurements. Just as importantly though, at L2, JWST will be very cold (roughly 50 Kelvin or -223C) and thus will detect almost no background emission from the telescope. On the ground, the warm telescope and atmosphere lead to a very bright infrared background against which it's really difficult to see very faint sources.

      As a result, JWST will be able to detect and analyse the first galaxies as they formed in the Universe at high redshift and very low-mass stars and planets being born in the Milky Way. At key wavelengths between 2.5 and 20 micrometres, the JWST will be more sensitive than even 30-50 metre diameter ground-based telescopes for imaging.

      In the end, JWST and the next generation of extremely large telescopes (ELTs) on the ground will be highly complementary, much as Hubble and the Keck were: JWST will find the very faintest sources in surveys and determine their statistical properties, while the ELTs will take follow-up high-resolution spectroscopy for detailed characterisation of individual sources.

      As for L2, there's at least one astronomical satellite (WMAP) there already, with more (e.g. ESA's Herschel) to come before JWST. But don't worry: it's a big place. As for us spending the money on other pet astro projects, err, nope, we're not. JWST involves some very challenging technology and that stuff is just very expensive. Finally, on the issue of flight hardware, we do actually have some of it done: the 18 hexagonal segments of the primary mirror (made out of beryllium) have been fabricated and are now being machined and polished.
      • Thanks for dropping that knowledge. Thought you or others might like to read about the Thirty-Meter Telescope(TMT). "What makes the TMT so unique is its diameter -- or aperture -- and the light-grabbing dimensions of its primary mirror, which will produce images 10 to 100 times the clarity of the Hubble telescope." http://www.wired.com/news/space/0,2697,69578,00.ht ml?tw=rss.TEK [wired.com]
        • Thanks for that. I'm also working on ground-based Extremely Large Telescopes, of which the TMT is one of a number currently under development and planning. Indeed, I spent last week in Cape Town at a symposium of the International Astronomical Union on the science drivers for such monsters: there's a lot of very encouraging work going on, but a mountain of technical, financial, and political challenges to be tackled before we can really hope to see one built. JWST's launch date of 2013 should be compared wi
          • What's your opinion on the where telescope are going long-term - very long term. Would the moon be an ideal place for telescopes? Radio telescopes would be shielded from most of Earth's chatter and lens based scope's could be constructed even larger because of weaker gravity. It's nice to wonder what we might see with a telescope that had a 1 kilometer aperture. By the way, I envy your line of work.

            • Re:gargantuian moon based telescopes (Score:5, Informative)

              by Trapezium Artist ( 919330 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @01:04PM (#14091850)
              The problem with the whole Moon idea is that you will have to build the telescope here on Earth first, then launch it into space in order to get to the Moon. Since space itself is actually preferable to the Moon (i.e. no gravity, no dust, no retro-rockets needed to land, etc.), why not just leave it in space?

              It's true that the Moon would act as a shield for radio wavelengths,m but it wouldn't achieve much for optical-IR telescopes really: the ultimate limit to sensitivity is the zodiacal light in the solar system, which you'd see just as much of from the Moon as from near-Earth space. Get the telescope out beyond Jupiter and things get way better.

              As for the 1km aperture, well, interferometry is one way to go, since you can hope to get the resolving power of the very long baseline, if not the collecting area. Ground- and space-based optical/IR interferometers are improving / under development and may eventually reach 1km baselines, while 30-50m filled aperture ground-based telescopes will likely be with us within a decade or so.

              Finally, all large professional telescopes use mirrors, not lenses: mirrors can be supported against gravity from behind, whereas lenses sag.
              • Get the telescope out beyond Jupiter and things get way better.

                  Which makes me ask a curious (and probably dumb) question: Why didn't they just send the JWST into a hyperbolic orbit anyway? I can't see what they gain by having it at L2 except perhaps better bandwidth rates.

                SB
      • I wonder...what's your take on total ignore of Herschell Space Observatory, especially on Slashdot? (I've submitted few times more interesting stories than "we'll be late"...but...you know the rest)

  • Do it right (Score:2, Insightful)

    by przemeklach ( 905526 )
    I can see how support staff make up the bulk of the cost but you have to realize that once they send this thing up into space it has to work; there is no warranty. If things aren't quadruple checked and all the scenarious played out you may end up loosing the whole project. I'm not a big fan of spending so much money on things such as these (there are worse like the war in Iraq), especially with 10's of thousands of people dying of starvation everyday, but if we're gonna do it we have to do it right.

  • Money Well Spent!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by mgjames ( 930890 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @07:20AM (#14089105)
    Judging by the latest sneak peek photo [sipbroker.com] from NASA, it looks like money well spent.
  • Who cares about what it costs, just spend the money.

    This may sound a bit jaded...but I read an opinion piece (can't find the link..sorry) talking about the fact that the deficit and overall debt is considered by many economists to be so far gone that we'll crash no matter what we do. So, why not just run up the credit card while it lasts? Pay for the space telescope (new one), get that fence up along the border. Spend...Spend...Spend...Seriously! I think the most accurate analogy was that when falling 50 ya

    • Re:NASA, Money and the U.S. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Moby Cock ( 771358 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @08:06AM (#14089204) Homepage
      It may not take the rest of the world with it. That's why the EU created the Euro.
    • The difference is that the more you keep spending, the more violent the crash will be. So while I definitely wouldn't like to see the JWST cut because of this I think you really need to change your spending habits.
    • The U.S. is gunna crash and it's going to take the rest of the world economy with it.

      Paraphrasing Peter Schiff - "America likes to think it's the world's economic engine, but really it's the caboose being dragged by rest of the world"

      As the US dollar falls and Americans stop consuming most of the world's resources, other economies will be in a position to use those resources and better their own standards of living.
    • HEAVENS! THE SKY IS FALLING! Oh wait, maybe you should read some *more* articles then (and I'm actually supplying the links) http://www.factcheck.org/article148.html [factcheck.org], essentially:
      "...in fact, the current projected deficit was equaled or exceeded in four years during the Reagan administration and two years in the term of Bush's father."
      And those were what again? Just before periods of UNPRECEDENTED ECONOMIC GROWTH.

      Hm. Wonder if there's a correlation there?

      Oh yeah, and the above comparison, to be apples/a
      • Ummm.......

        It was'nt meant to be an anti-bush rant. I vote republican most of the time. I said the article was "interesting"...not nessessarily accurate. Look up "sarcasm"..

        Really though, I have a one word recommendation "Decaf"! Chill dude, you are gunna have a heart attack..and that's baaaad mkay?

  • Herschel to the rescue (Score:3, Informative)

    by ttsalo ( 126195 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @07:42AM (#14089159)
    Luckily ESA's Herschel [esa.int] is still on track to be launched in 2007. It's a similar but somewhat smaller unit, with "only" a 3.5 meter mirror.

  • Hubble Origins Probe (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bhima ( 46039 ) <Bhima.Pandava@DE ... com minus distro> on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @07:48AM (#14089170) Journal
    Whatever happened to the Hubble Origins Probe? That sounded like a great idea... Use the basic Hubble design, don't make the same mistake with the optics, use the spares that were supposed to go up on the canceled shuttle mission, use updated electronic science packages... The only thing that left is to do some about the gyroscopic stabilizer system.

    What's not to like about that?

  • XPrize for telescopes? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by digitaldc ( 879047 ) * on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @08:40AM (#14089304)
    Since the US is currently dumping $6 billion a month in Iraq ($9 billion+ of which can not even be accounted for since the war started,) why not launch an initiative to launch a satellite by an organization other than NASA?

    Provide an incentive (say cash) to find a cheaper way to design and launch a satellite into space. NASA, as an arm of a bogged-down and partisan government, is clearly not using innovative and cost-cutting solutions to further its own goals. Take the US government funding out of the equation and maybe something will get done. If NASA has too much on its agenda, its time to find other qualified people who can do the job.

    In my humble opinion, space exploration is just as important scientific study as any other out there. The images that the Hubble has delivered to the world are indeed beautiful, amazing and priceless.

    See: http://heritage.stsci.edu/gallery/galindex.html [stsci.edu]
    • Well, is this being developed by NASA, or is being developed by some company, such as Northrop-Gruman, or the like?

      Also, how does NASA do things these days? Do they award entire contracts to one company? Would it not be better to have different companies work on sperate pieces?
  • and we look out far enough, will we see ourselves?
    • If space is curved and the light that reflects from us somehow got back, then why not? :)
    • Yes, but, if you want to look far enough, you also need to consider that it'll take a while to look that far. Since light only travels at a measly one light-year per year, then even if space were as small as the Milky Way galaxy you'd need to be looking out the telescope for what, 30,000 years? before you see yourself there. And that's if nothing gets in the way to block the light.

      Of course, the real universe is millions and billions of light-years across...

  • JWST is not a HST replacement. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Shag ( 3737 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @09:03AM (#14089392) Journal
    HST's instruments deal with several different portions of the spectrum. JWST is dedicated infrared. Those of us who actually work in astronomy keep pointing this out, but oh well. ;)

    • Re:JWST is not a HST replacement. (Score:5, Informative)

      by quarkscat ( 697644 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @10:23AM (#14089885)
      It seems that every time I hear about the Webb Telescope, newbie /.ers keep referring to it as the "replacement" for the Hubble Telescope, and I cringe. It is not. The HST is multispectral (including visible light), whereas the Webb telescope is infrared only.

      While the HST does incorporate older technology than the Webb Space Telescope, it was designed to be "field upgradable". OTOH, the Webb Telescope is a $4.5 Billion USD "disposable" satellite that will be placed in an orbit it cannot be readily recovered from. Assuming that it does go into the right orbit and functions as designed, it will be "space junk" in less than a decade. If some portion of the Webb's sensor array should not deploy properly (alignment), it will immediately fill that role.
      • I whole-heartedly agree that many just don't seem to understand that JWST is not an HST replacement (and yes, I too cringe when that is mentioned). On you second point, Adminstrator Mike has pointed out that the CEV would be capable of traveling to L2 and could potentially service JWST if needed. If I recall correctly, he was not quite advocating designing the observatory to be servicable, simple not designing it such that servicing it would be impossible. I thought that was an interesting point, but I d
      • It seems that every time I hear about the Webb Telescope, newbie /.ers keep referring to it as the "replacement" for the Hubble Telescope, and I cringe. It is not.

        Ha! Those NASA n00bs bought it too:

        "The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is an orbiting infrared observatory that will take the place of the Hubble Space Telescope at the end of this decade."

        http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/FastFacts/ [nasa.gov]
    • I didn't intend for the the original article to suggest that the JWST was the Hubble's direct replacement, but I didn't want to completely ignore the connection between the two. The outstanding scientific return of the Hubble led to the decision to continue building ambitious, high profile space observatories. In that sense, I suspose one might call it the Hubble's replacement, but you're absolutely right that the JWST is a distinct mission with its own capabilities. If it were as simple of a change as step
    • Hmm, if we could put some serious thrusters on the 'scope and move it away from the target, maybe we could red-shift all the light coming in and make it infrared, then process it back up to visible wavelengths in the lab.

      Of course, at those speeds, we wouldn't be able to use radio control. Or get any data back. And it wouldn't be hanging around in Earth orbit very long.

      Oh, well, the idea was nice while it lasted...

  • Minor cost (Score:2, Interesting)

    by bxbaser ( 252102 )
    Really think about what is 4.5 billion these days ?
    The us national debt increases more that 100 times that amount every year and they cant fund the hubble.

    The problem probably is the people in power want the budget to be 45 billion but it will need to goto a no bid contract.

  • From what I've heard... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anita Coney ( 648748 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @10:17AM (#14089825) Homepage
    The Right will only support funding for the new Hubble if it's used to find proof of the firmament. And of course the Left will only support it if it's used to find voters. Essentially, it's a huge quagmire.

    But hopefully the issues can be solved so scientist can use it to search for what remains of freedom in the US.

  • What's in a name? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Billosaur ( 927319 ) * <wgrotherNO@SPAMoptonline.net> on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @10:20AM (#14089855) Journal

    It is interesting to note, that the telescope in question is named for perhaps the greatest administrator NASA ever had, who ran the agency during the critical years of the Apollo program and quit in 1968 shortly before the Apollo 8 mission which first sent men around the Moon. James Webb was, by the admission of many in NASA at the time, the best administrator they could have had, even though he was not an engineer but a politician. I suspect if he were still around, he'd be able to get his telescope built on time.

  • Ok, so now that James Webb is delayed by two years (and I'd bet more before it launces) and the shuttle has been cut back so much that there are not enough flights left to finish the space station, shouldn't they restart the mission for robotic repair of the Hubble telescope so it stays functional until the replacement gets launched?

    NASA is trying to save money, but they are ignoring all of the money that has been already spent on partially completed projects, both in hardware that will never launch and fo

    • Re:Hubble reapir? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ktappe ( 747125 )

      shouldn't they restart the mission for robotic repair of the Hubble telescope

      It doesn't really exist. The "robot repair" was conceived and proposed by politicians with little grounding in the current state of the technology. It's not at all feasible to get such a mission designed let alown flown before the gyros on Hubble fail. Humans are really the only way to save it. We have astronauts chomping at the bit to go up and do it, yet our politicians are crying that "it's too dangerous". Why don't we let t

      • It doesn't really exist. The "robot repair" was conceived and proposed by politicians with little grounding in the current state of the technology. It's not at all feasible to get such a mission designed let alown flown before the gyros on Hubble fail.

        Doesn't exist? Where did you get that idea?

        It not only exists, but is already built. The plan was to modify the Canadian SPDM manipulator that has been waiting to fly up to the space station for several years now. The only parts that need to be built are t

  • ...but, JWST IS NOT A HST REPLACEMENT!!

    People have had that misconception for years now.
  • Apparently you can buy the Hubble space telescope on eBay. At least, thats what eBay claims.

    On this [spacedaily.com] page, check out the smart tag on "hubble telescope" on the caption for the picture of Ceres

    "Find Hubble space telescopes at low prices. Shop for all kinds of unique products on eBay."

    Wonder what the reserve is like. And what about the shipping?

Slashdot Top Deals

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Close