Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

What if JWST fails?!

  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#51 Todd N

Todd N

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 420
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2007

Posted 18 November 2019 - 04:53 AM

Bottom line, if JWST fails the suicide hotline will be getting a lot of calls.

 

I was just thinking along those lines. It will be too painful if it fails. One of us will need to prepare the Kool-Aid.



#52 Pess

Pess

    (Title)

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,942
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Toledo, Ohio

Posted 19 November 2019 - 08:06 AM

I was just thinking along those lines. It will be too painful if it fails. One of us will need to prepare the Kool-Aid.

It seems the simplest things can go wrong. Mismatched Metric/Imperial math, sticky grease, a single washer on a polishing machine etc.

 

Just look at the recent Dragon abort test. Someone didn't get one of the parachute attachment bolts actually through the shroud lines!.

 

I hate to say it, but we need to plan for ways to address failures. 

 

Webb has been designed to do something we've never tried before in a way that you almost need 100% execution to succeed.

 

Without a doubt something will not work as expected and, likely, many things will not work as expected.  

 

Geniuses at NASA will design work-arounds to try and salvage the science.  It is just that Webb is unique in the limitations of possible work-arounds. 

 

Pesse (Anyone following the Caddyshack gopher who keeps pushing the Heat probe back out of the Martian hole?) Mist  


  • Joe1950 likes this

#53 Joe1950

Joe1950

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,455
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2015

Posted 19 November 2019 - 09:32 AM

From launch to Lagrange 2 and well after will be a tense time for NASA and everyone following the mission. I don’t know what to think, but at this point it’s full steam ahead...at some point anyway.

 

shrug.gif



#54 Pess

Pess

    (Title)

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,942
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Toledo, Ohio

Posted 19 November 2019 - 09:53 AM

From launch to Lagrange 2 and well after will be a tense time for NASA and everyone following the mission. I don’t know what to think, but at this point it’s full steam ahead...at some point anyway.

 

shrug.gif

 

I would say get'r done! The longer we wait the more likely time becomes the enemy of success.

 

I am wondering how many of these prolonged delays are due to genuine engineering difficulties/concerns versus how  many are due to Nervous Nellies who are terrified to put their baby out there in the cold-dark alone for the first time?

 

They have spent so much time on this project that whole new technologies now exist. Are we going to keep upgrading like a sports car hobbyist that never takes his gal out of the garage?  

 

Pesse (Separation anxiety?) Mist


  • Joe1950 likes this

#55 Todd N

Todd N

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 420
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2007

Posted 19 November 2019 - 10:34 AM

It seems the simplest things can go wrong. Mismatched Metric/Imperial math, sticky grease, a single washer on a polishing machine etc.

 

Just look at the recent Dragon abort test. Someone didn't get one of the parachute attachment bolts actually through the shroud lines!.

 

I hate to say it, but we need to plan for ways to address failures. 

 

Webb has been designed to do something we've never tried before in a way that you almost need 100% execution to succeed.

 

Without a doubt something will not work as expected and, likely, many things will not work as expected.  

 

Geniuses at NASA will design work-arounds to try and salvage the science.  It is just that Webb is unique in the limitations of possible work-arounds. 

 

Pesse (Anyone following the Caddyshack gopher who keeps pushing the Heat probe back out of the Martian hole?) Mist  

 

If it fails I imagine the final analysis will be that such a mission was ill-conceived from the beginning and doomed to fail. Any future space telescope mission will necessarily be far less ambitious.


  • Joe1950 likes this

#56 Pess

Pess

    (Title)

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,942
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Toledo, Ohio

Posted 19 November 2019 - 11:08 AM

If it fails I imagine the final analysis will be that such a mission was ill-conceived from the beginning and doomed to fail. Any future space telescope mission will necessarily be far less ambitious.

A 'Webb Servicing Mission' might be a great stepping stone to a Mars mission. 

 

It likely would be a lot easier than landing and taking off on another planet.

 

Mission length would be less than a month total versus 6 months just to get to Mars.

 

Figure ten days to get to L2 point, a couple days for repairs, and another 14 days or so to get home.  

 

If anything, that would be excellent experience in our budding space program without the extravagant risk of a Mars manned trip.

 

In my mind, a manned trip to Mars is just fodder for the scientifically challenged right now. I think we are many years away from even contemplating a manned mission to Mars.

 

Sure, getting bodies to Mars and back is doable. Getting them back as anything but bodies is the hard part.

 

So, how do we organize a trip to Mars?

 

Pesse (Planet) Mist


  • Joe1950 likes this

#57 llanitedave

llanitedave

    Humble Megalomaniac

  • *****
  • Posts: 30,955
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA

Posted 19 November 2019 - 11:47 AM

It seems the simplest things can go wrong. Mismatched Metric/Imperial math, sticky grease, a single washer on a polishing machine etc.

 

Just look at the recent Dragon abort test. Someone didn't get one of the parachute attachment bolts actually through the shroud lines!.

 

I hate to say it, but we need to plan for ways to address failures. 

 

Webb has been designed to do something we've never tried before in a way that you almost need 100% execution to succeed.

 

Without a doubt something will not work as expected and, likely, many things will not work as expected.  

 

Geniuses at NASA will design work-arounds to try and salvage the science.  It is just that Webb is unique in the limitations of possible work-arounds. 

 

Pesse (Anyone following the Caddyshack gopher who keeps pushing the Heat probe back out of the Martian hole?) Mist  

Not to be pedantic, but that wasn't a Dragon abort test, that was Boeing's Starliner.  The one that's charging NASA $90 million a seat as opposed to Dragon's $55 million a seat.


  • Pess likes this

#58 Todd N

Todd N

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 420
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2007

Posted 19 November 2019 - 11:54 AM

A 'Webb Servicing Mission' might be a great stepping stone to a Mars mission. 

 

It likely would be a lot easier than landing and taking off on another planet.

 

Mission length would be less than a month total versus 6 months just to get to Mars.

 

Figure ten days to get to L2 point, a couple days for repairs, and another 14 days or so to get home.  

 

If anything, that would be excellent experience in our budding space program without the extravagant risk of a Mars manned trip.

 

In my mind, a manned trip to Mars is just fodder for the scientifically challenged right now. I think we are many years away from even contemplating a manned mission to Mars.

 

Sure, getting bodies to Mars and back is doable. Getting them back as anything but bodies is the hard part.

 

So, how do we organize a trip to Mars?

 

Pesse (Planet) Mist

 

I remember reading somewhere that such a servicing mission isn't realistic.Even if it was, at what cost? WEBB is so far over budget and delayed that I think we would decide it's time to stop flushing gold nuggets down the toilet. Yeah, I'm not a big fan of putting humans on Mars.


  • Joe1950 likes this

#59 Pess

Pess

    (Title)

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,942
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Toledo, Ohio

Posted 19 November 2019 - 12:02 PM

Not to be pedantic, but that wasn't a Dragon abort test, that was Boeing's Starliner.  The one that's charging NASA $90 million a seat as opposed to Dragon's $55 million a seat.

See how easy it is to make a simple mistake?   

 

Pesse (LOL) Mist


  • llanitedave and Joe1950 like this

#60 llanitedave

llanitedave

    Humble Megalomaniac

  • *****
  • Posts: 30,955
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA

Posted 19 November 2019 - 04:02 PM

See how easy it is to make a simple mistake?   

 

Pesse (LOL) Mist

Which is why you need to make sure your parachute is well packed!



#61 Frank Otsuka

Frank Otsuka

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 43
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2018

Posted 27 November 2019 - 12:03 PM

Fraser Cain says it best. Uploaded Nov 26, 2019.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=OU5ftX5yT2o

 

 

Note: 


  • Joe1950 likes this

#62 HouseBuilder328

HouseBuilder328

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 176
  • Joined: 24 Apr 2019
  • Loc: Raleigh, NC

Posted 29 January 2020 - 12:28 PM

Looks like the James Webb telescope may miss the March 2021 target date - figures.  Below is a link to the report.  I read a summary from another site that there was a tear in the sun shield and some loose washers and screws.

 

https://www.space.co...gao-report.html

 

 

Here is the technical report:

https://www.gao.gov/.../710/704078.pdf



#63 bcgilbert

bcgilbert

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 171
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2020
  • Loc: Tamworth, NSW, Australia

Posted 29 January 2020 - 08:23 PM

DaveC2042 wrote--- "but was fixed remotely.".  WRONG!!  Please do not spread misinformation!  The Hubble was fixed twice, BOTH times by sending astronauts to it in the space shuttle!  Both fixes were long, grueling affairs.  If the same type of flaw befalls the JWST, it would require a similar trip, which unfortunately, would not be possible.  The JWST will be in a far higher and different type of orbit.

 

You know, people who complain about the spending on the space program often seem to think that the money spent by NASA is being put into a rocket and launched to to space to be forever lost-- that's not how it works.  The money spent on this (or any other space project) goes to pay wages and buy raw materials from suppliers.  Those people in turn spend that money on housing, clothing, food and lots of other things-- all of which is exactly what the detractors say that the money should be spent on-- I don't get it at all.

Build a pipeline from the great lakes to lake mead,  fast train network, repair all the broken infrastructure, build a methane economy, provide drinking water to african human souls, cure some cancers, that lot should provide some jobs.

 

Cheers 

Barry



#64 later

later

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 708
  • Joined: 16 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Posen, Michigan

Posted 06 February 2020 - 12:14 PM

JWST has a 5 year lifetime, determined by the amount of coolant carried with it is depleted.

 

Then, is it dead dead, or will we be able to still use it for other wavelengths?

 

Any chance of an extended mission?



#65 John Boudreau

John Boudreau

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,856
  • Joined: 06 Apr 2008
  • Loc: Boston Area, MA

Posted 06 February 2020 - 01:39 PM

JWST has a 5 year lifetime, determined by the amount of coolant carried with it is depleted.

 

Then, is it dead dead, or will we be able to still use it for other wavelengths?

 

Any chance of an extended mission?

Assuming the JWST works as designed, it would be it's finite supply of hydrazine the JWST uses to remained stationed at L2 that limits it's lifespan to 5-10 years. JWST uses both passive (it's sun shield, and Earth's shadow) and active cooling. The active cooling is a closed loop system, and unless a leak occurs should only be limited by wear & tear on it's parts.

 

https://jwst.nasa.go...cryocooler.html

 

https://www.american...limiting-factor


Edited by John Boudreau, 06 February 2020 - 01:40 PM.


#66 later

later

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 708
  • Joined: 16 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Posen, Michigan

Posted 06 February 2020 - 02:51 PM

Ahh.....station keeping.

 

I guess that would be the end of it.

 

Thanks for the link John!

 

When my barbecue runs out of fuel I just unscrew the hose and hook up another tank.  

 

I know it sounds simplistic but,  for 9B they could have at least made SOME kind of provision to refuel.

 

I heard that it's too far away @ L2.  

 

Hard to understand how it can be too far away when there is (will) be a telescope there.......



#67 Sleep Deprived

Sleep Deprived

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 433
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2019
  • Loc: Seattle Area

Posted 06 February 2020 - 03:37 PM

One would think that if it were worthwhile to build and launch the thing, that it would be worthwhile to install a re-fueling port and launch a re-fill rocket in 5-10 years.  Worst case scenario is that one takes out the other by accident, but who cares if it is near the end of its fuel supply anyway?


  • HouseBuilder328 likes this

#68 ColoHank

ColoHank

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,398
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2007
  • Loc: western Colorado

Posted 06 February 2020 - 04:24 PM

Build a pipeline from the great lakes to lake mead,  fast train network, repair all the broken infrastructure, build a methane economy, provide drinking water to african human souls, cure some cancers, that lot should provide some jobs.

 

Cheers 

Barry

Building a pipeline between the Great lakes and Lake Mead is the easy part.  Getting everyone to agree which way the water should flow is a different matter altogether.


  • Joe1950 likes this

#69 Lucullus

Lucullus

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 910
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2012

Posted 06 February 2020 - 04:56 PM

Assuming the JWST works as designed, it would be it's finite supply of hydrazine the JWST uses to remained stationed at L2 that limits it's lifespan to 5-10 years. JWST uses both passive (it's sun shield, and Earth's shadow) and active cooling. The active cooling is a closed loop system, and unless a leak occurs should only be limited by wear & tear on it's parts.

 

https://jwst.nasa.go...cryocooler.html

 

https://www.american...limiting-factor

I assume it could be used for applications similar to the NEOWISE mission after WISE's hydrogen cryostat active cooling fuel ran out.(?)


Edited by Lucullus, 06 February 2020 - 05:18 PM.


#70 later

later

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 708
  • Joined: 16 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Posen, Michigan

Posted 06 February 2020 - 05:17 PM

"it would be it's finite supply of hydrazine the JWST uses to remained stationed at L2 that limits it's lifespan to 5-10 years. "

Run out of hydrazine ......can't keep the scope in one spot

I wonder if it were being designed today they would use solar powered ION drive??


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics