According to Space.com, the James Webb telescope launch will be delayed by nearly another year due to the need for more testing.

Congress awarded $8 Billion to the project back in 2001. The telescope is being built by Northrop Grumman and will be launched onboard an Airbus Defence and Space Ariane 5 heavy-lift launch vehicle.

https://www.space.com/40102-james-webb- ... -2020.html

I'm seriously pissed.


David

$8 billion spent, and the engineers are still struggling with decidedly low tech systems of cables and pulleys?

Well, it's not great news, but to be honest, this is a very ambitious and very complex mission with no room for error... at all.

I'd rather they delayed it by several years to make extra triple sure that everything is going to work than to end up with a $8bn piece of space junk floating around the Sun.
Not to mention that if it failed, the funds for a replacement mission would probably not be approved in my lifetime.

As francoflier states there is no room for error -at all.And the 'in space 'automatically assembling technology is an accident waiting to happen.
It's such an important project,perhaps (imho) the most important of all it would be terrible if it went wrong.I guess everybody following this project is frustrated.
On a separate thread I pondered whether a deep space man rated product such as Orion or indeed BFR could go out to the 'point' where it is stationary to try and fix it if it did go wrong.The SLS doesn't have many (any?) missions.Perhaps that could be one if necessary.

Whilst it would cost a shed load to build I noted that the BFR cargo vessel can house a 9Mtr satellite.Which could therefore be the size of a mirror.A much safer way to launch such a beast.
Trying to peer back to the earliest 'first light' of the universe is probably going to be key to finding out whether the present Big Bang/Inflation theories are right or wrong.(probably the latter!).

The James Webb telescope is like an intricate piece of origami that needs to be folded correctly while i'ts in space. And the last space vehicle built by Northrop Grumman didn't fare so well, at least that's the rumor. They better get it right.

The antenna on the Galileo mission.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_(spacecraft)#Main_antenna_problem

Somebody mentioned it on a.nut, and it shows how difficult it is to design anything space-related. And the circumstances leading to the Galileo antenna problems (decaying lubrication) were entirely unforeseen.

David

What a dissapointment. I was really looking forward 2018 then 2019 launch, now it has been postponed again! :
I understand that JWST is a marvel of engineering, and at L2 there is no repair mission possible, still...

If JWST survives launch and deployment, we will see the first stars and galaxies form.

Eagerly waiting the day of launch.

At least, there are great things going on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... tem_probes


David

The telescope's predecessor, the Hubble, was originally the poster child for a botched project. It took some Space Shuttle visits to get it working right, and now that Hubble is working, it has proven to be an enormously valuable asset.

Better to get it right and not come out of the gate like another Hubble. And this time around, no one is guaranteeing any maintenance visits either.

And FYI - my computer's desktop background is a Hubble shot. It is amazing what Hubble has achieved in light of its experiences.

NASA will host a media teleconference at 1 p.m. EDT, Wednesday, June 27, to provide an update on the agency’s James Webb Space Telescope and the findings of an external independent review board.

Info is from @NASASpaceflight on Twitter.

Delayed until 2021 now. Failed a vibration test, where they lost 70 bolts. Not all have been found yet. Also some cables were done wrong and they damaged the thrusters during testing. Probably need more money than planned (> $10 billion total).

OMG.Well I suppose better on the ground than up there.No one heard of lock nuts and bolts?As above I am all for a 9 Mir single mirror on the BFR -at this rate it might be quicker!Also they will probably need the BFR or SLS to go out and repair it!!

mxaxai wrote:

Delayed until 2021 now. Failed a vibration test, where they lost 70 bolts. Not all have been found yet. Also some cables were done wrong and they damaged the thrusters during testing. Probably need more money than planned (> $10 billion total).

Good thing they found out these issues now, and not after launch. But one would expect Northrop Grumman to build something a bit more solid than that. They screwed up the payload adapter on the Falcon 9 launch, and now this.

Btw, how have they not found all 70 bolts yet? These things are tested in sterile chambers, arent they? This almost sounds like an excuse.

JetBuddy wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Delayed until 2021 now. Failed a vibration test, where they lost 70 bolts. Not all have been found yet. Also some cables were done wrong and they damaged the thrusters during testing. Probably need more money than planned (> $10 billion total).

Good thing they found out these issues now, and not after launch. But one would expect Northrop Grumman to build something a bit more solid than that. They screwed up the payload adapter on the Falcon 9 launch, and now this.

Btw, how have they not found all 70 bolts yet? These things are tested in sterile chambers, arent they? This almost sounds like an excuse.

Apparently they fear that some may have fallen into the spacecraft, where they haven't been located yet.

Off topic and technical question. Why hasn't the Moon become a major space and astronomy base? Telescopes there could be serviced forever. Various parts and pieces of landing rockets, telescopes etc stored in the junkyard and reused. Musk wants to go to Mars, so getting to the Moon would have to be easier. And non-manned robots could do most of the servicing.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Off topic and technical question. Why hasn't the Moon become a major space and astronomy base? Telescopes there could be serviced forever. Various parts and pieces of landing rockets, telescopes etc stored in the junkyard and reused. Musk wants to go to Mars, so getting to the Moon would have to be easier. And non-manned robots could do most of the servicing.

As far as I know, a moon base is one of the top priorities for NASA. Trump admin. wants to put boots on the moon's surface again and also build a base.

In my opinion, the space shuttles that were retired should have launched one last time full of fuel, oxygen and parts - and either docked as a permanent module to ISS or maybe be put into lunar orbit as a future laboratory or "spare parts" vehicle.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Off topic and technical question. Why hasn't the Moon become a major space and astronomy base? Telescopes there could be serviced forever. Various parts and pieces of landing rockets, telescopes etc stored in the junkyard and reused. Musk wants to go to Mars, so getting to the Moon would have to be easier. And non-manned robots could do most of the servicing.

I wonder if lunar dust would be a problem. So much work is put into keeping those optical surfaces clean and some moon dust would ruin that. There is also some atmosphere (not much tho). You are also more limited where you can look, particularly during the lunar day.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Off topic and technical question. Why hasn't the Moon become a major space and astronomy base? Telescopes there could be serviced forever.

Delta-V requirements to get to ESL1 or ESL2 are almost 2km/s lower than to go to the moon's surface. The moon also has gravity, so the structure would be heavier. It is cheaper to lunch a replacement than putting one on the moon that you can maintain.
If you wanted something big and serviceable, you can build at EML2, 4 or 5, much cheaper to get to and at L4/5 travel times wouldn't be too bad either. However, with the 3km/s advantage EML2 has, you can lunch a whole space station for the price of one on the moon telescope.
But if course, if you happen to have and supply a moon base anyways, it may make some sense.

JetBuddy wrote:

In my opinion, the space shuttles that were retired should have launched one last time full of fuel, oxygen and parts - and either docked as a permanent module to ISS or maybe be put into lunar orbit as a future laboratory or "spare parts" vehicle.

It wasn't certified to stay in space for long, no clue if it was certified for the 28 days NASA had intended or the 19 days two shuttles actually where equipped for. However, since flying back would not be part of the plan, some of the limits, like LOX/LH cook of my not have mattered anymore, but at some points seals and stuff reach limits, the Shuttle wasn't designed to be maintained in space, it would not have offered much extra space for storage or work.
Most importantly, they where expensive to get in orbit. You get 8 to 10 Falcon 9 launches for one shuttle.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

In my opinion, the space shuttles that were retired should have launched one last time full of fuel, oxygen and parts - and either docked as a permanent module to ISS or maybe be put into lunar orbit as a future laboratory or "spare parts" vehicle.

It wasn't certified to stay in space for long, no clue if it was certified for the 28 days NASA had intended or the 19 days two shuttles actually where equipped for. However, since flying back would not be part of the plan, some of the limits, like LOX/LH cook of my not have mattered anymore, but at some points seals and stuff reach limits, the Shuttle wasn't designed to be maintained in space, it would not have offered much extra space for storage or work.
Most importantly, they where expensive to get in orbit. You get 8 to 10 Falcon 9 launches for one shuttle.

Best regards
Thomas

Towards the end, the figure for each launch of a Space Shuttle, AFAIR, was in 0.5 to 1 billion USD range.

And indeed, Shuttle had a limited in-orbit lifetime, and took advantage of ISS as a power source to extend its stays. There's no way ISS program would allow a "dead" Shuttle (or, as per JetBuddy's suggestion, multiple Shuttles) stay permanently docked to the ISS, without a disposal procedure "just in case".
I'm not even sure there's a procedure to boost ISS orbit with engines of a visiting vehicle, or Zvezda engines -- if there was a Shuttle attached. Shuttle is heavy...

tommy1808 wrote:

It wasn't certified to stay in space for long, no clue if it was certified for the 28 days NASA had intended or the 19 days two shuttles actually where equipped for. However, since flying back would not be part of the plan, some of the limits, like LOX/LH cook of my not have mattered anymore, but at some points seals and stuff reach limits, the Shuttle wasn't designed to be maintained in space, it would not have offered much extra space for storage or work.
Most importantly, they where expensive to get in orbit. You get 8 to 10 Falcon 9 launches for one shuttle.

Best regards
Thomas

Phosphorus wrote:

Towards the end, the figure for each launch of a Space Shuttle, AFAIR, was in 0.5 to 1 billion USD range.

And indeed, Shuttle had a limited in-orbit lifetime, and took advantage of ISS as a power source to extend its stays. There's no way ISS program would allow a "dead" Shuttle (or, as per JetBuddy's suggestion, multiple Shuttles) stay permanently docked to the ISS, without a disposal procedure "just in case".
I'm not even sure there's a procedure to boost ISS orbit with engines of a visiting vehicle, or Zvezda engines -- if there was a Shuttle attached. Shuttle is heavy...

Thanks guys, learning something new every day.

Regarding attaching it to the ISS, I was thinking about it being like dead cargo. Cold, dark, no power. Just as storage space with spare parts or whatever needed. It does have a massive storage hold.

JetBuddy wrote:

Thanks guys, learning something new every day.

Regarding attaching it to the ISS, I was thinking about it being like dead cargo. Cold, dark, no power. Just as storage space with spare parts or whatever needed. It does have a massive storage hold.

That's the rub. Cold, dark, no power -- and you keep it permanently open to the rest of ISS? now what happens if it starts to vent air into space? You seal it off, and? You abandon all that was stored there? Or you do a spacewalk into the Shuttle, to recover valuable items? Then what? You keep this 100 ton hulk permanently attached? or you undock and just abandon it there, "cold, dark, no power", hoping it would safely part ways with ISS (that's in principle, doable, ISS has engines), and then safely deorbit, uncontrolled?

Another issue with Shuttle permanently attached -- there are not so many docking ports on ISS, and US segment ports are of different standard from Russian segment docking ports.
US segment ports are in demand for HTV, Dragon and Cygnus visiting vehicles, and by occupying one or more ports, permanently, with Shuttles, you make the life of controllers and ISS crew more difficult -- all of these vehicles do not dock, they berth -- they maneuver under their own power near the port, steady themselves, are grappled and attached to the station. A ballet of sorts, with plenty of coordination between mission control on the ground and the space station crew -- and these need a good line of sight. With a Shuttle in the picture, things get more complicated.

Phosphorus wrote:

That's the rub. Cold, dark, no power -- and you keep it permanently open to the rest of ISS? now what happens if it starts to vent air into space? You seal it off, and? You abandon all that was stored there? Or you do a spacewalk into the Shuttle, to recover valuable items? Then what? You keep this 100 ton hulk permanently attached? or you undock and just abandon it there, "cold, dark, no power", hoping it would safely part ways with ISS (that's in principle, doable, ISS has engines), and then safely deorbit, uncontrolled?

What air? The shuttle would not be pressurized. It would be like the trunk of the Dragon capsule. The Canadarm in the Shuttle or ISS could be used to bring items in and out of the hold. They could be powered up when needed. And yes they can survive the cold and vacuum of space.

Phosphorus wrote:

Another issue with Shuttle permanently attached -- there are not so many docking ports on ISS, and US segment ports are of different standard from Russian segment docking ports.
US segment ports are in demand for HTV, Dragon and Cygnus visiting vehicles, and by occupying one or more ports, permanently, with Shuttles, you make the life of controllers and ISS crew more difficult -- all of these vehicles do not dock, they berth -- they maneuver under their own power near the port, steady themselves, are grappled and attached to the station. A ballet of sorts, with plenty of coordination between mission control on the ground and the space station crew -- and these need a good line of sight. With a Shuttle in the picture, things get more complicated.

The last mission could have brought with them an adapter module and used Canadarm to install it. I'm not saying we should do this now, the shuttles are retired long ago. I'm saying it could have been done as a last mission.

You have so much positivity! How do you ever get anything done by just seing downsides to things?

This thread is going completely off the rail. We should open another thread if we want to continue discussing this topic.

Yes, it's way off the rails. Shuttle likely way too big and too heavy with negatives far outweighing benefits. Plus the crew would have had no way back.

You can be sure the entertained all such ideas when they actually did decide to rehab the Leonardo MPLM into the PMM.

JetBuddy wrote:

You have so much positivity! How do you ever get anything done by just seing downsides to things?

Experience, my friend

Seriously, I am quite keen to throw around brilliant ideas, but then somebody more experienced shows up, and shoots it all to pieces.

With your suggestion, I was in the opposite trench, and had to criticize your brilliant idea -- knowing that it was already discussed, and remembering multiple reasons for "no" and "no way".
As mentioned above, converting MPLM into a PMM and leaving it permanently attached, probably, was as far (and as large) as it could get, to have Shuttle hardware staying at ISS in post-Shuttle era.

Here's what XKCD has to say about this... tongue-in-cheek... https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/jwst_delays.png

So what happens to Hubble when its replacement is in service.

william wrote:

So what happens to Hubble when its replacement is in service.

Despite the claims of every pretend expert in the media world, the JWST is not the Hubble replacement. They have some spectrum overlap, but they serve different purposes.
And the really funny thing is, with it's relatively short life and Hubble's orbit degrading less than expected, there's a very good chance Hubble will outlast JWST.

At this point if, and taht's a big IF, the BFR hits its schedule it will be flying by the time JWST is launched. We're almost at a point where all the super complicated space saving stuff may be obsolete by the time it's needed for use.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Off topic and technical question. Why hasn't the Moon become a major space and astronomy base? Telescopes there could be serviced forever. Various parts and pieces of landing rockets, telescopes etc stored in the junkyard and reused. Musk wants to go to Mars, so getting to the Moon would have to be easier. And non-manned robots could do most of the servicing.

Easy answer...amazed you even asked.

1. We have NO moon program. No space systems to get us there (currently), no lander's, nothing of use already there.
2. We have NO telescopes to put there and no way of getting them there. Again, no programs, no deployment vehicles of any kind for something that large.
3. We have nothing in orbit around the moon to communicate to the dark side.
4. We have NO non-manned (are there manned robots??) robots now, or in development, for servicing anything space related.

Cheers