NASA needs to take some lessons from Spacex. This whole 'look at our CGI model of what's actually happening' is rubbish. I can see that shit in KSP. Show me space bitches!
Good question. The design is finalized and no changes can be made once the project is approved. Also, keep in mind space tech does not = Earth tech. Everything has to be hardened, designed to survive temperature extremes, and withstand intense radiation.When something is in development for this long, do they change the technology to keep up with the times, or only to a point if it saves cost?
so if things go wrong, how can they fix it?That was great, crazy to think it's finally in space now! Still a lot of steps to literally unfold but I feel the riskiest bit is probably over. There is still a chance for things to go wrong though so not quite out of the woods yet.
so if things go wrong, how can they fix it?
There's no more space shuttle to park next to it for astronauts to work on it
That was great, crazy to think it's finally in space now! Still a lot of steps to literally unfold but I feel the riskiest bit is probably over. There is still a chance for things to go wrong though so not quite out of the woods yet.
They don't, as it isn't serviceable. It would just remain forever floating at L2 as a monument to American idiocy.
I just shake my head.
While I grant that Spitzer took some amazingly breathtaking images and showed just how much potential infrared space photography had, my high hopes for Webb are sort of dimmed by the huge cost versus its relatively short service life.
They spent ~$10 billion building the thing, which even if it works may not last more than 5 years (it only has enough coolant onboard to last for 5 years, but the engineers who built it "hope" they can stretch the coolant supplies out for around a 10 year service life. Not holding my breath there). Then, they design it to be non-serviceable and on top of that stick it somewhere where nobody can get to it if something goes wrong. The next follow-on, the Roman Space Telescope for 2027 also has a similar 5 year operational life and similar pricetag.
Sometimes, I think all space scientists need leashes and keepers capable of demonstrating actual common sense. The politicians writing the checks obviously have none.
Like @Spacehead pointed out the problem is fuel. IIRC, the L2 Lagrange orbit isn't completely stable. So, rocket (h-peroxide, not sure) thrusts are needed to make minor corrections to the orbit.Wait, only 5-10 year projected life span? Considering all the time and effort that went into it I would have figured it would have a much longer projected life.
I just wish they had made it serviceable by remote vehicle.imagine thinking that building an instrument to peer at the literal edges of the observable universe for five to ten years is idiocy. I’d hate to see what such a person considers intelligence. $10 billion is nothing considering the potential of this telescope, total drop in the bucket over the timescale of this project. Less than $100 per taxpayer very well spent.
Different spectrums. Hubble will still be relevant for some time, until we have a true visible light replacement.are they going to use hubble along with webb?
or it is abandoned?
We'd need a remote vehicle to service it with before we could design it to be utilized by that remote vehicle.I just wish they had made it serviceable by remote vehicle.
Not necessarily. Just have to design an interface a remote vehicle could attach to, and then design a remote vehicle that could attach to that interface at a later date.We'd need a remote vehicle to service it witbefore we could design it to be utilized by that remote vehicle.
JWST wasn't designed with replaceable instruments. It does have a docking ring for future spacecraft to attach to it(not sure why) but trying to retro-fit non-replacable parts in space would be... difficult.Not necessarily. Just have to design an interface a remote vehicle could attach to, and then design a remote vehicle that could attach to that interface at a later date.