TRW to build Hubble successor

[HeXp£Øi±]

NASA awards TRW a $825 million contract to build the successor to the Hubble space telescope.

TRW, US, has won the USD 824.8 million NASA contract to build and test the successor to the Hubble Space Telescope. Called the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), it will have six times the light-gathering capability of Hubble and be able to see objects 400 times fainter than those observed by the best ground-based telescopes.The company will now set about designing and fabricating the primary mirror. This will contain 36 semi-rigid hexagonal segments or "petals". Once complete, the mirror will be at least six meters in diameter. And the TRW design has to be perfect. Unlike Hubble, astronauts will not be able to service the JWST because it will be too far away from Earth.

Before and during launch, the mirror will be folded up. Once the JWST is placed in orbit, ground controllers will send a command telling the telescope to unfold its mirror petals.

To see into space, JWST will also carry a near-infrared camera, a multi-object spectrometer and a mid-infrared camera/spectrometer.It is hoped that the infrared-detecting instruments will help astronomers to understand how galaxies first formed after the Big Bang. Light from the youngest galaxies is seen in the infrared due to the universe's expansion.

The JWST will also probe the formation of planets in disks around young stars and study supermassive black holes in other galaxies.

The entire system will be launched in 2010 aboard an expendable vehicle. It will then take three months for the spacecraft to reach its target orbit some 940 000 miles into space. Here, the spacecraft will be balanced between the gravity of the Sun and the Earth - the so-called Lagrange Point.

In this orbit, the observatory can be cooled to very low temperatures without using complex refrigeration equipment. This is thanks to the fact that a single-sided sun shield is needed on one side of the observatory only to protect it from heat from the Earth and the Sun.

http://optics.org/articles/news/8/9/11/1

 

[unclehobart]

I've seen some fresh articles discussing this new telescope to replace the 15 y/o Hubble. NASA has slashed the upkeep from Hubble and is only going to go up later in the decade to slap a rocket on it to make sure that it comes down into the ocean instead.

[url="http://www.stsci.edu/jwst/"]http://www.stsci.edu/jwst/[/url]

[url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6853009/"]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6853009/[/url]

 

[HeXp£Øi±]

What a shame. They ought to give universities the option to keep it up. I'm sure some of the top ten schools would love to have access to hubble as it's superior to any earth-based refractor twice its size.

 

[Winky]

Lagrange Points rock.

 

[catocom]

I wish I knew how to, and could afford to get into stocks.
I'd like to have some TRW right about now.

 

[tommyj27]

yeah, but no university astronomy collaborative would be able to front the retarded amount of cash needed to keep the thing running. i wonder, is TRW a bush campaign contributor?

 

[unclehobart]

What does that have to do with anything? It was an internal NASA call to either prop up the 70s tech Hubble for 1.5 billion or launch something cutting edge at half the cost. Its a no-brainer.

 

[tommyj27]

i know, and you're right, i'm just trying to instigate something.

 

[MrBishop]

What does that have to do with anything? It was an internal NASA call to either prop up the 70s tech Hubble for 1.5 billion or launch something cutting edge at half the cost. Its a no-brainer.

Yeah...but it's more than just send something up there... imagine trying to do repairs on the new telescope? That'd be a slight bit more difficult than a space walk, eh?

Hubble's got her uses... maybe, instead of splooshing her, they should add in a stronger antanae/signal processor and push her out to the edges of the Solar system...with little side-trips close to some moons and planets. Better use of rocket fuel IMHO

 

[MrBishop]

Unc - hardly half the cost. $824.8 million is their first estimate for just building it. Putting it in space will be more expensive.


I noticed, in an article, that they don't plan on maintaining it at all! Hell, sonsidering that it takes 3 months just to get to L2...I didn't think that they would, but...

Anyone for a high-stakes game of dice?

 

[catocom]

Anyone for a high-stakes game of dice?

well you can't win if you don't play.

Of coarse I haven't been winning at lotto lately either.

 

[MrBishop]

well you can't win if you don't play.

Of coarse I haven't been winning at lotto lately either.

I'll give 'em this much...after having mashed millions of dollars of high-tech eq into the red planet at high velocities (over and over again) and drowning a few into the oceans on our own fair blue rock... they've won back my love with those Titan pics.

 

[Professur]

I'll give 'em this much...after having mashed millions of dollars of high-tech eq into the red planet at high velocities (over and over again) and drowning a few into the oceans on our own fair blue rock... they've won back my love with those Titan pics.

The Titan photos were ESA, not NASA. As Unc said, it's a matter of upkeeping an antique, or funding a new piece. I shouldn't have to remind anyone that the mirror on Hubble has been defective from the start, and those fabulous photos we're all loving aren't half what it should have been capable of. Any new 'scope should already have planned for robotic repairs. IMHO, that's the simple smartest way to go. With a little standardization and preplanning, you could easily wind up with a fleet of repair 'bots at the ISS, and a warehouse of standard spare parts ready to go. Not only would ISS start to pay for itself, dumping dangerous elements from orbit into the ocean could be a thing of the past.

they should add in a stronger antanae/signal processor and push her out to the edges of the Solar system...with little side-trips close to some moons and planets. Better use of rocket fuel IMHO

If that was ever a possibility, keeping it in it's present orbit wouldn't even be a matter for discussion.

 

[Professur]

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) -- Trying to save the Hubble Space Telescope with a robot would cost $2 billion US with just a 50-50 chance of success, an aerospace research group is advising NASA.

And that thumbs-down is likely to be preceded by another potentially negative finding from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, due to report Wednesday. Both reports could spell doom for the aging Hubble, whose fans have lobbied heavily to have it repaired to prolong its life and continue its stream of pictures from space.

NASA requested the reviews of the National Academy and the Aerospace Corp., a California-based research group, in hopes a robotic repair could be made. An Aerospace Corp. summary provided to the academy estimates a robotic Hubble mission would cost $2 billion and take at least five years to be ready for launch. By then, there would be a less than 40-per-cent chance Hubble still would be functioning.

Less than three years would be needed to launch a shuttle mission to Hubble, for no more money and with the usual medium risk of mission success, the company said.

The full 100-page report is expected to come out this week or next, a company spokesman said.

In an interim report over the summer, a National Academy panel of scientists, aerospace experts and astronauts who have worked in orbit with Hubble urged NASA to keep its options open for one last service call by space shuttle astronauts. The panel did not rule out a robotic mission but noted its complexity and the technical challenges.


But NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe has stuck by his guns that regardless of what the academy or the Aerospace Corp. says, no people will risk their lives to fix Hubble.

On Wednesday, the National Academy of Sciences will issue its final report on the subject.

"These reviews have tended to reinforce NASA's sense that although (a robotic mission) is feasible, it will be extremely challenging and will require very disciplined management," the space agency said in a statement Tuesday.

NASA will spend the coming year evaluating the robotic rescue plan and decide next summer whether to proceed. If nothing else, the space agency promises to launch a tug to guide Hubble down over the ocean -- and not over populated areas -- well before it would tumble out of orbit on its own during the next decade.

Even in old age, Hubble has become the hottest of potatoes.

The space agency should be used to that by now, after years of suffering through the space telescope's blurry vision and then celebrating the greatest space repair job of all time and rejoicing in the most astounding pictures of the cosmos ever seen.

"NASA thinks of these things as their own and they forget not only who paid for it but that NASA did such an incredibly good job of publicizing it and getting the information out, it's just been adopted as a telescope that an awful lot of people care about," said retired NASA scientist Stephen Maran, author of the book Astronomy for Dummies.

"Many people feel that the most important thing that the manned program did since the moon exploration is the repair and the servicing of the Hubble Space Telescope."

Hubble-huggers, as they're called, came out in droves after O'Keefe announced back in January that astronauts would no longer fly to Hubble -- which will be 15 years old this spring. O'Keefe said he based his decision on safety standards since the Columbia space shuttle disaster that killed seven astronauts.

Source : Canoe Dec 8, 2004


Yup, it's all about the oil and the bombs, ain't it

 

[Professur]

Some Webb Telescope Funds May Be Shifted To Hubble Mission

By JASON BATES
Space News Staff Writer
posted: 02:05 pm ET, 18 November 2003




WASHINGTON — Managers of NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope, who earlier this year revamped the project to reduce a looming cost overrun, now face the prospect of relinquishing program funds to help pay for the next Hubble Space Telescope servicing mission, an agency official said.

The fourth Hubble servicing mission, previously scheduled for 2005 or 2006, has been delayed due to the grounding of the space shuttle fleet following the Feb. 1 Columbia accident. The shuttles are expected to resume flying in late 2004, but no new date has been set for the servicing mission.

The delay is likely to drive up the cost of the servicing mission, according to Phil Sabelhaus, who manages the Webb telescope program for NASA.

"With [Hubble] servicing mission 4 slipping out because of Columbia, we have discussed that we may have budget cuts over the 2004 and 2005 timeframe to help pay for that," Sabelhaus said. "No specific numbers have been agreed to, and headquarters is figuring out how best to solve that mission."

NASA’s 2004 budget request, which has yet to be approved by Congress, seeks $239 million for the Hubble Space Telescope, a sum that includes preparations for the upcoming servicing mission. During that mission, spacewalking astronauts will upgrade or replace Hubble’s instruments to keep the observatory healthy until the James Webb Space Telescope, considered its successor, is launched in 2011.

But that launch schedule could be at risk if the Webb telescope loses funds to Hubble in 2004 or 2005, Sabelhaus said in a Nov. 5 interview. NASA is working with Northrop Grumman Space Technology of Redondo Beach, Calif., the Webb telescope prime contractor, to determine its options for keeping the program on track, he said.

The Webb telescope "has met all milestones since we finished the replan," Sabelhaus said. "We’ve got a lot of momentum going. With servicing mission 4 being talked about as possibly taking money away from the 2004-2005 budget, we have talked to the [Northrop Grumman] folks on how to minimize the impact of those cuts on our launch date. We’re looking at what else we may be able to push out to try to minimize the impact to the critical path, but it’s just brainstorming at this time."

David Shuckstes, James Webb Space Telescope program manager for Northrop Grumman Space Technology, said the company is looking at its work plans for 2005 to see what tasks might be pushed into later years without affecting the schedule, but that those efforts are not a specific response to any potential funding shifts.

"We’re not saying X or Y is going to happen," Shuckstes said. "But we do recognize that [Hubble] and [the James Webb Space Telescope] are intertwined, because they operate out of same office and the same budget line item."

Northrop Grumman is developing its schedule for the James Webb Space Telescope from 2005 through launch with the assumption that NASA funding will meet the budget that Northrop Grumman included in its bid, Shuckstes said.


The James Webb Space Telescope, NASA’s flagship astronomy program, is designed to pick up where Hubble leaves off, studying the formation of the first stars, the evolution of galaxies, the production of elements by stars and the process of star and planet formation. The infrared telescope is bound for a gravitationally stable orbit some 1.2 million kilometers from Earth.

Northrop Grumman won an $825 million contract to build the telescope in September 2002 and could see the contract value grow by as much as $98 million under changes approved by NASA Sept. 3. The contract modification follows an extensive mission replanning completed this past May to mitigate a potential $300 million overrun on the program, whose total price tag is $1.6 billion.

NASA achieved some savings by slightly reducing the diameter of the telescope’s main mirror and scrapping plans to integrate its three science cameras into a centrally controlled package.

Those changes still left a combined $60 million to $70 million shortfall for 2006 and 2007. Anne Kinney, director of NASA’s astronomy and physics division, which oversees the Hubble and Webb telescope programs, said she has identified some possible solutions to cover the shortfall, but declined to discuss specifics.

In September, Northrop Grumman selected Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp. of Boulder, Colo., to supply the primary optic for the James Webb Space Telescope. Ball’s beryllium mirror design beat out a rival concept offered by Eastman Kodak Co. of Rochester, N.Y., for the $90 million effort to build the mirror.

Work on an engineering development unit of the mirror, which will be "as flightlike as possible" and help program officials validate the design and manufacturing processes, is under way, Shuckstes and Sabelhaus said.

Northrop Grumman hopes to begin building the development unit by March, Shuckstes said. Both that mirror, and the 18 mirror segments that make up the flight unit will take about three years to build, Sabelhaus said.

Production of the flight mirrors, being manufactured in five different batches, is slated to begin in December 2004, Shuckstes said. The last of the mirrors is slated to be completed in August 2008, he said.

"We’re still on schedule for [launch in ] 2011," Shuckstes said. "The schedule has significant [time] reserves. We gave up some with the replan, but there is still enough where we have adequate slack."

There's some updated figures, since the original article was somewhat dated


But then, I do have to point out that I do have a 15 year old car. And I'll give it free to anyone who's prepared to pay the new price of $15,000 to fix it up. Which is what repairing the Hubble would be.

 

[MrBishop]

The Titan photos were ESA, not NASA. As Unc said, it's a matter of upkeeping an antique, or funding a new piece. I shouldn't have to remind anyone that the mirror on Hubble has been defective from the start, and those fabulous photos we're all loving aren't half what it should have been capable of. Any new 'scope should already have planned for robotic repairs. IMHO, that's the simple smartest way to go. With a little standardization and preplanning, you could easily wind up with a fleet of repair 'bots at the ISS, and a warehouse of standard spare parts ready to go. Not only would ISS start to pay for itself, dumping dangerous elements from orbit into the ocean could be a thing of the past.


If that was ever a possibility, keeping it in it's present orbit wouldn't even be a matter for discussion.

Or rather..of upkeeping an old car until you can even build it's replacement. They can't launch Hubble's replacement for another 6+ years. Even if we're talking robitic repairs... it's a 3month+ timeline to get the pieces to the new telescope (which I'm not knocking BTW) providing that you can get a rocket up to ISS to ferry the pieces to L2.

Now... if you can tug-boat the Hubble into a controlled downward spiral... why not push it into a higher orbit or outwards? I can understand that retrofitting the hubble with control jets to give it corrective trajectories might be painfully expensive, but giving it a push "thataway" and letting 'er go would be a more honourable end than dumping'er into the oceans, non?

To use your analogy...I'll take that free car if you promise to use the bus/metro for the next 6 years.

 

[Professur]

Good Lord, do you ever stop to actually read?



Once again, from the above article

NASA’s 2004 budget request, which has yet to be approved by Congress, seeks $239 million for the Hubble Space Telescope, a sum that includes preparations for the upcoming servicing mission. During that mission, spacewalking astronauts will upgrade or replace Hubble’s instruments to keep the observatory healthy until the James Webb Space Telescope, considered its successor, is launched in 2011.

But that launch schedule could be at risk if the Webb telescope loses funds to Hubble in 2004 or 2005, Sabelhaus said in a Nov. 5 interview. NASA is working with Northrop Grumman Space Technology of Redondo Beach, Calif., the Webb telescope prime contractor, to determine its options for keeping the program on track, he said.

That was a partry few hundred million. Where do you think Webb's gonna be with two or three billion redirected? It's a goner, Jim. It's already outlasted it's design. Get over it.

And as for my analogy, reread it. Maybe you'll get it yet.

Or rather..of upkeeping an old car until you can even build it's replacement.

No. If you repair the old one, you don't have any money to keep building the new one.

They can't launch Hubble's replacement for another 6+ years. Even if we're talking robitic repairs... it's a 3month+ timeline to get the pieces to the new telescope (which I'm not knocking BTW) providing that you can get a rocket up to ISS to ferry the pieces to L2.

While it's another topic altogether, spare parts for the desperate things would probably already be there on standby.

Now... if you can tug-boat the Hubble into a controlled downward spiral... why not push it into a higher orbit or outwards? I can understand that retrofitting the hubble with control jets to give it corrective trajectories might be painfully expensive, but giving it a push "thataway" and letting 'er go would be a more honourable end than dumping'er into the oceans, non?

Because earth is one big ass gravity well. The moon is in it, remember? You'd have to strap a huge engine to get it that far. If you didn't, it would just fall back again, this time seriously out of control, and probably at a time when we've one helluva lot more in orbit. Getting it down is simply a matter of a few grams of nudge at the right time. And don't forget that propellant doesn't just disappear once it's used. It hangs around in particulate form until gravity gets it too. So a big push up from the Hubble will leave prop debris in that orbit for decades to come. Not to mention that honourable for the Hubble already comes in the form of it's achievments. If you try to keep something too long, it just becomes decrepid and pathetic. Trust me, I've junked enough old cars to know.

To use your analogy...I'll take that free car if you promise to use the bus/metro for the next 6 years.

I've no idea how that fits the analogy.

 

[unclehobart]

Its also a matter of being able to maintain a perfectly stable pointing stance at the object being viewed. The gyros in it are failing one by one. Right now I think its at the minimum number to maintain any sort of fine tuning. Its programming is set to work with an Earth orbit. A simple shot out into space would require a fantastic overhaul as well as the insertion of a powerful transmitter.


I say they should send up a shuttle with some chainsaws and bring that sucker back home like a freshly dressed deer. Busted up into little pieces, it should fetch more than the 328 million rocket descent payout on EBay.

 

[Winky]

The data provided by Hubble was fantastic.
The new bird will be awesome!

Hey will it be able to see further back in time than Hubble?

 

[unclehobart]

The short and sweet improvements are:

6 times the mirror surface as Hubble arrayed into stereoscopic form.
3 layers of infrared on top of just simple basic visual
higher orbit so that 95% of the sky is visible at any moment (takes it out of manned repair range though)
cutting edge stabilization
Less time per exposure
increased data rate for returns


What this new toy should be able to do is a sizeable leap forward.