Spitzer Space Telescope Turns Out the Lights (caltech.edu) 23
Long-time Slashdot reader Kreuzfeld writes: Thursday marks the final mission of NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope.
Conceived of as an infrared-optimized "Great Observatory," Spitzer has spent the last 6002 days providing Earthlings with an unprecedented view into other galaxies, our own solar system, and (unexpected to its designers!) planets around other stars. But in its Earth-trailing solar orbit, Spitzer is now over 1.5 astronomical units from the Earth: radio transmissions are increasingly difficult, and (more importantly) Spitzer's operating costs were ultimately deemed to be too high relative to its science output.
Spitzer's infrared capabilities won't be replaced until 2021 (at the earliest) when NASA's James Webb Space Telescope — an even larger successor to Spitzer and the Hubble — is anticipated to launch.
Bon voyage, Spitzer — we'll see you again in about 30 years when our orbits meet up again.
Conceived of as an infrared-optimized "Great Observatory," Spitzer has spent the last 6002 days providing Earthlings with an unprecedented view into other galaxies, our own solar system, and (unexpected to its designers!) planets around other stars. But in its Earth-trailing solar orbit, Spitzer is now over 1.5 astronomical units from the Earth: radio transmissions are increasingly difficult, and (more importantly) Spitzer's operating costs were ultimately deemed to be too high relative to its science output.
Spitzer's infrared capabilities won't be replaced until 2021 (at the earliest) when NASA's James Webb Space Telescope — an even larger successor to Spitzer and the Hubble — is anticipated to launch.
Bon voyage, Spitzer — we'll see you again in about 30 years when our orbits meet up again.
reason for shutdown (Score:1)
Re:reason for shutdown (Score:5, Informative)
Re: reason for shutdown (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Spitzer is on an Earth-trailing heliocentric orbit and it actually ran out of liquid helium in 2009, ending its far-IR observations but it was kept active until now as its near-IR sensors could still function without cryogenic cooling.
Some more info from Spitzer site... (Score:5, Informative)
Some more detail [caltech.edu] on the challenges facing the mission as it extends far beyond its primary mission. Of course, some of its instruments became useless with the exhaustion of its Helium supply back in 2009 (apparently there are no party stores to buy tanks of (crappy) Helium at in its neighborhood - sort of like a "food desert" but instead a "Helium desert").
Re: (Score:3)
However, it should also be noted that the craft is being put in hibernation, not being abandoned entirely. There is every reason to think they'll fire it up again briefly when JWST flies, so they can get simultaneous observations with both. This helps with calibration of the new telescope.
Which will NASA do first: James Webb or Moon Shot? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Why would NASA want to land someone on the moon? Those Boomers did that like 50 years ago, bro.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would NASA want to land someone on the moon? Those Boomers did that like 50 years ago, bro.
Not a boomer thing.
The oldest baby boomers would be 23 years old in 1969. It was our parents that did the moon landing stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If we cancel SLS and throw the money at Musk, Musk could probably have us on Mars in 2025 with his BFR, perhaps. If we keep SLS, SLS will have us on Mars in 2040 and it will take Musk longer to scrape together the money he needs for his BFR. Anyway, all of this is a minuscule amount of US budget most of which is bankrupt entitlement programs despite costing trillions are still bankrupt that are a sacred cow you cant touch despite being proven dismal failures. As they say, penny wise and pound foolish. SLS a
Re: (Score:2)
If we cancel SLS and throw the money at Musk, ...
Ya, but SLS provides a lot of corporate and state welfare [planetary.org] that Senators would be loath to abandon.
According to a Marshall Space Flight Center 2015 economic impact statement, the SLS program supports 13,000 Alabama jobs, generates $2.4 billion yearly in economic output, and accounts for more than $55 million in state and local taxes. Stennis Space Center in Mississippi and the Michoud Assembly Facility in Louisiana also lean heavily on SLS and pump millions into their local economies. Johnson Space Center in Texas gets $1.2 billion of its $4.4 billion budget from Orion, and Florida's Kennedy Space Center depends on SLS and Orion for ground systems funding. Even facilities outside of the South contribute, such as the Glenn Research Center and Langley Research Center.
In fact, SLS and Orion have suppliers in every state!
Any proposal shifting funding from these NASA centers to, say, California's 43rd congressional district, where SpaceX is headquartered, would be a political non-starter. At least some funding would have to stay with former SLS and Orion centers in the short-term.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all in favor of giving Musk tons of money but he is nowhere close to sending someone to mars. the BFR hasn't even flown once yet. Then look at how long its taken to get Dragon man-rated. There will need to be a long duration crew vehicle. In-orbit refueling demonstration (I think required for a mars-return mission) possibly a high energy upper stage (or even more in-flight refueling). an mars landing vehicle and assent stage. escape velocity reentry demonstration etc. etc .
He'd still get there fa
Re: Which will NASA do first: James Webb or Moon S (Score:2)
Perhaps, Musk has been known to promise things that are impossible to complete either because they are physically impossible (that vacuum tube train) or practically/economically infeasible (mass production of low cost Lithium powered cars).
If we'd believe Elon Musk, we'd all have replaced cash with PayPal and everyone would have a $15k Tesla in their drive way while vacuum-tube trains would current have been tunneled in every major city.
Re: (Score:2)
If we cancel SLS and throw the money at Musk, Musk could probably have us on Mars in 2025
I'm sure he could do it cheaper but you still need to factor in Elon Time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The designs exist, they just need to be dug out of archives, dusted off, and updated. If NASA had been allowed to keep the paltry 4.5% of the Federal budget that it had in 1969 (the last year that the country ran an actual surplus, by the way) a permanent Lunar **colony** was scheduled for opening in 1984.
Re: (Score:2)
The designs exist, they just need to be dug out of archives, dusted off, and updated.
There are so major changes to any lunar excursion that NASA pretty much will not use the 60s Apollo modules. For example, the new module must accommodate 4 astronauts instead of 3. Computers and electronic equipment are much more advanced now than 60 years ago, etc. Besides that the facilities that built that equipment have long been mothballed. Building from scratch will be way cheaper. And those things haven’t even started yet.
If NASA had been allowed to keep the paltry 4.5% of the Federal budget that it had in 1969 (the last year that the country ran an actual surplus, by the way) a permanent Lunar **colony** was scheduled for opening in 1984.
The problem is other than bragging rights, there wasn’t a real pur
Not science, but sciencey (Score:1)
"Well, we can do Science Thing X right now, or we can wait 5 years when by definition the advance of technology will make it half the cost... and use the difference for crucial Earth infrastructure and environmental needs..."
"Hmm... well, I've consulted my 'really hard science stuff' paycheck, and my politician has checked his pork barrel needs... it is crucial we know everything about the universe RIGHT NOW.
Re: Not science, but sciencey (Score:2)
There will always be stuff to fix on earth. Advancing physics is useful because it helps us fix stuff on earth. If we never went to space, because we had to rebuild stuff after WW2, we'd never have GPS which has been a major driver of the global economy.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how the federal budget works. If you take a million dollars from NASA that doesn't mean that now HUD (for example) has a million dollars more. It just means NASA has a million dollars less to work with. This is because NASA and HUD's budgets are set by a herd of corrupt lawyers with no concept of priorities beyond their personal greed and power lust.
Turn it over to a University (Score:2)
If it doesn't matter anyway, you might as well get some students to cut their teeth on it and do something interesting with the remnants. There are plenty of DIY'ers, YouTubers and amateurs that would love to play with a toy like that, even if it's really difficult and unreliable.
JWT fly on time? (Score:1)