ApolloHoax.net

Off Topic => General Discussion => Topic started by: bknight on August 29, 2015, 09:20:53 AM

Title: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on August 29, 2015, 09:20:53 AM
In the recent thread with Neil Baker concerning the PLSS, one link to the massive NASA vacuum Chamber A leads me to a question.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/engineering/integrated_environments/altitude_environmental/chamber_A/
In the link NASA is in the process of a reconstruction project to allow the James Webb Space Telescope to be tested in the chamber.  I wonder whether NASA learned from a huge past mistake in the Hubble Space Telescope to checking every detail so this won't be another black eye for them?
We won't have a way of going to the telescope with people at least to fix a mistake.  Perhaps robots could be programmed to do repairs.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 29, 2015, 08:15:09 PM
I wonder whether NASA learned from a huge past mistake in the Hubble Space Telescope to checking every detail so this won't be another black eye for them?

What black eye, are you referring to the problem with the correction to Hubble's mirror?
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on August 29, 2015, 08:30:44 PM
Yes, sir.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 29, 2015, 08:56:52 PM
Yes, sir.

Well, unless others here want to correct me, a vacuum test would not have picked up that error. The error in the mirror was due to a contractor rushing a step in the calibration of an interferometer.

http://carpetbomberz.com/2012/04/05/charlie-pellerin-on-leadership/
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on August 29, 2015, 09:18:47 PM

Well, unless others here want to correct me, a vacuum test would not have picked up that error. The error in the mirror was due to a contractor rushing a step in the calibration of an interferometer.

http://carpetbomberz.com/2012/04/05/charlie-pellerin-on-leadership/
Actually I wasn't thinking about a vacuum chamber test, the article said they were remodeling it to accommodate the telescope.  I was rather hoping the guys in charge would check out all the mirrors and alignments so we don't have a repeat of Hubble.
I guess I didn't have enough coffee when I penned that this morning.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 30, 2015, 10:00:30 AM
Actually I wasn't thinking about a vacuum chamber test, the article said they were remodeling it to accommodate the telescope.  I was rather hoping the guys in charge would check out all the mirrors and alignments so we don't have a repeat of Hubble.

I would would like to hope too that they learn lessons from the Hubble mirror problem. The JWST mirror is impressive and there are many different problems with its deployment compared to Hubble. I should imagine that the mirror polishing was overseen to avoid the quality control issues that almost ended Hubble before it started.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on August 30, 2015, 10:13:05 AM

I would would like to hope too that they learn lessons from the Hubble mirror problem. The JWST mirror is impressive and there are many different problems with its deployment compared to Hubble. I should imagine that the mirror polishing was overseen to avoid the quality control issues that almost ended Hubble before it started.

I hold the same hope.  NASA has done remarkable missions, but every so often the smallest overlooked problem derails their performance. Not to throw stones but:
1. Miscalculation of distance parameters allows Mars probe to crach into the surface.
2. O-ring problems with the external SRB's didn't pose a significant threat to any mission until Challenger
3. Foam strikes observed on many/all(?) of shuttle launches didn't pose a threat until Columbia.
4. Mirror imperfections in Hubble even during 1-2 years in cold storage waiting for the Shuttle to regain flight status.
That's all I can remember at this time.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: Allan F on August 30, 2015, 03:39:57 PM
5: Testing shoddy wiring and flammable materials in a high-pressure pure O2 atmosphere.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on August 30, 2015, 04:09:57 PM
5: Testing shoddy wiring and flammable materials in a high-pressure pure O2 atmosphere.

Yes that was a biggie.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: smartcooky on August 30, 2015, 05:31:41 PM
Yes, sir.

Well, unless others here want to correct me, a vacuum test would not have picked up that error. The error in the mirror was due to a contractor rushing a step in the calibration of an interferometer.

http://carpetbomberz.com/2012/04/05/charlie-pellerin-on-leadership/



I think he means just do some bloody testing before committing to launch.

Hubble was undone by budget cuts and pressure to finish the task. This resulted in short cuts being taken, and one of those short cuts was to not test the mirror. A simple focault test (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_knife-edge_test) at ANY stage before the mirror was installed would have picked up the problems with the mirror's "figure". Even an amateur telescope maker wouldn't dream of installing his newly ground and aluminised mirror into the tube without doing a focault test.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: ka9q on August 30, 2015, 10:46:52 PM
2. O-ring problems with the external SRB's didn't pose a significant threat to any mission until Challenger
3. Foam strikes observed on many/all(?) of shuttle launches didn't pose a threat until Columbia.
For these two at least, there were plenty of warnings before the disaster that simply went unheeded.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on August 30, 2015, 10:52:58 PM
2. O-ring problems with the external SRB's didn't pose a significant threat to any mission until Challenger
3. Foam strikes observed on many/all(?) of shuttle launches didn't pose a threat until Columbia.
For these two at least, there were plenty of warnings before the disaster that simply went unheeded.
Yes these two had many occurrences, not a one off.  I was just trying to note where NASA, generally performing well in a rather hostile environment, seems to not check everything to ensure mission success from time to time.  Then  putting a whose checking the checker on the system.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on November 30, 2015, 07:18:25 AM
The mirrors are being installed, here's hoping they did it correctly this time.
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-s-webb-space-telescope-receives-first-mirror-installation
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on February 05, 2016, 07:06:10 AM
The mirrors are installed.
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasas-james-webb-space-telescope-primary-mirror-fully-assembled
My question what testing for the next two years will be done?
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: Dalhousie on February 05, 2016, 09:43:29 PM
2. O-ring problems with the external SRB's didn't pose a significant threat to any mission until Challenger
3. Foam strikes observed on many/all(?) of shuttle launches didn't pose a threat until Columbia.
For these two at least, there were plenty of warnings before the disaster that simply went unheeded.
Yes these two had many occurrences, not a one off.  I was just trying to note where NASA, generally performing well in a rather hostile environment, seems to not check everything to ensure mission success from time to time.  Then  putting a whose checking the checker on the system.

The Galileo antenna would be another one, several issues with Curiosity come to mind (the drills, the wheels) come to mind as areas where more checking would have been good.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on March 22, 2016, 01:30:49 PM
The JWST was tested in a cold vacuum chamber.  http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-marks-major-milestones-for-the-james-webb-space-telescope

Don't tell our friend, Mr. Baker! :)
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: molesworth on April 19, 2016, 07:45:30 AM
The JWST was tested in a cold vacuum chamber.  http://www.NASA.gov/feature/goddard/2016/NASA-marks-major-milestones-for-the-james-webb-space-telescope
Just a note - the url needs to be in lower case to work.

On another note, my company is peripherally involved in JWST and a couple of our engineers were able to visit the people making the mirror control subsystem last week.  They were very impressed by the incredible accuracy of the system, so hopefully there won't be any out-of-focus images coming back this time  ;)

Quote
Don't tell our friend, Mr. Baker! :)
Ach, why not?  He might be willing to put his money where his mouth is to pay for the "proof" of his claims...  ;D

Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on April 19, 2016, 08:16:38 AM

On another note, my company is peripherally involved in JWST and a couple of our engineers were able to visit the people making the mirror control subsystem last week.  They were very impressed by the incredible accuracy of the system, so hopefully there won't be any out-of-focus images coming back this time  ;)

Don't tell our friend, Mr. Baker! :)
Ach, why not?  He might be willing to put his money where his mouth is to pay for the "proof" of his claims...  ;D
[/quote]
That is great to know.  I did do a copy of the address bar for the link, but if it needs lowercase so be it.
Baker putting his money up?  He would find some other objection to the testing process.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: smartcooky on April 19, 2016, 09:01:03 AM
Just a note - the url needs to be in lower case to work.

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-marks-major-milestones-for-the-james-webb-space-telescope

Well, there must be a problem with the software, because even when you post the link in lower case, the forum software is changing the n.a.s.a part of the url into upper case.

Perhaps its something that LunarOrbit can fix
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on April 19, 2016, 09:03:57 AM
Just a note - the url needs to be in lower case to work.

http://www.NASA.gov/feature/goddard/2016/NASA-marks-major-milestones-for-the-james-webb-space-telescope

Well, there must be a problem with the software, because even when you post the link in lower case, the forum software is changing the n.a.s.a part of the url into upper case.

Perhaps its something that LunarOrbit can fix
I believe this has been noted before, not sure how to edit it.  The friendly default is capitals as it should be, except for url's.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: smartcooky on April 19, 2016, 09:20:05 AM
Just a note - the url needs to be in lower case to work.

http://www.NASA.gov/feature/goddard/2016/NASA-marks-major-milestones-for-the-james-webb-space-telescope

Well, there must be a problem with the software, because even when you post the link in lower case, the forum software is changing the n.a.s.a part of the url into upper case.

Perhaps its something that LunarOrbit can fix
I believe this has been noted before, not sure how to edit it.  The friendly default is capitals as it should be, except for url's.

I think it could be fixed by making it only capitalise if there are spaces either side of it because the software does not capitalize "nasa" when it is part of another word...

"planasa strawberry"

URLs are defined in RFC 3986 which does not allow the use of spaces without encoding either a "+" or "%20", so it won't be an issue.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on April 19, 2016, 09:21:55 AM
That probably would work.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 19, 2016, 10:39:23 PM
Just a note - the url needs to be in lower case to work.

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-marks-major-milestones-for-the-james-webb-space-telescope

Well, there must be a problem with the software, because even when you post the link in lower case, the forum software is changing the n.a.s.a part of the url into upper case.

Perhaps its something that LunarOrbit can fix

Sorry about that. I've removed "nasa" from the forum's auto-correct. It would be nice if it would just ignore URLs, but unfortunately it doesn't.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 19, 2016, 10:45:56 PM
I think it could be fixed by making it only capitalise if there are spaces either side of it because the software does not capitalize "nasa" when it is part of another word...

I tried that, but the forum removes the spaces from either side of " nasa " when I tried adding that to the filter. No big deal, I can live with people using nasa instead of NASA.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on April 19, 2016, 11:33:44 PM
I think it could be fixed by making it only capitalise if there are spaces either side of it because the software does not capitalize "nasa" when it is part of another word...

I tried that, but the forum removes the spaces from either side of " nasa " when I tried adding that to the filter. No big deal, I can live with people using nasa instead of NASA.
Nice try anyway, LO
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on April 28, 2016, 07:41:23 AM
Covers removed and ready to start the testing prior to launch in 018.  The one aspect that disappoints me is the launch by ESA.
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/james-webb-space-telescopes-golden-mirror-unveiled
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: smartcooky on April 28, 2016, 08:55:31 PM
Covers removed and ready to start the testing prior to launch in 018.  The one aspect that disappoints me is the launch by ESA.
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/james-webb-space-telescopes-golden-mirror-unveiled

You mean instead of NASA? If so, I think that is the price they have paid for backing the wrong horse back in the 1970's in pursuing the Space Shuttle, especially after they came to realise that turnaround servicings were going to be hundreds, perhaps even thousands of times more complicated than what they had planned for...

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/naive-shuttle-concept.jpg)
This is what they wanted

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/the-cold-hard-reality.jpg)
This is what they got!!

They also played fast and loose with safety; administrators and bean counters ignoring the warnings of spacecraft engineers that what they were doing was dangerous and would lead to in-flight catastrophes. Had they listened, they might not have killed 14 astronauts. 

I wonder what lifting capability NASA would now have if they had carried on with Saturn and developed it to is full potential as it was upgraded with new avionics, electronics and computers. Saturn wasn't just a rocket to launch men to the moon, it was a system (a family of rockets) that was used to LEO as well.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on April 28, 2016, 09:35:00 PM
Yes I did mean instead of NASA.  I have often wondered if the F-1's and J-2's to closed cycle? Imagine what the output might have been.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: Obviousman on April 29, 2016, 04:22:47 AM
Hmm - it's easy to criticise the design after it was built. Yes, the design was bastardised: the payload bay was changed, the launch configuration, the re-usability. The feasibility study used a completely unrealistic launch rate. However if they didn't build to the available funds, it wouldn't have ever been built (presumably).

That being said, the STS wasn't a lemon. In both cases of disaster, there were warnings regarding hazards that were ignored and could have possibly been mitigated against.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 30, 2016, 01:11:43 PM
Hmm - it's easy to criticise the design after it was built.

Have to agree. As a concept the shuttle was an incredible idea, it served its purpose well. It went into space and it returned. Would Hubble have been repaired without the shuttle? What impact did the shuttle program have on Russian-US relations?  When I was a kid, AirFix began making shuttle models with the shuttle piggy backed onto the back of a Boeing. The models were launched prior to the first launch. My father bought me the model and it utterly inspired my love of science. There are so many aspects of space programs that are not easily measurable, and in honesty, given the success of the shuttle. We should salute its achievements.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: Dalhousie on May 08, 2016, 07:17:01 PM
Covers removed and ready to start the testing prior to launch in 018.  The one aspect that disappoints me is the launch by ESA.

Why? I think it is great.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on May 08, 2016, 07:27:33 PM
Covers removed and ready to start the testing prior to launch in 018.  The one aspect that disappoints me is the launch by ESA.

Why? I think it is great.
IMO it would be better if it were launched by NASA, that's all.  I believe the telescope will be of great benefit as Hubble though.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: Dalhousie on May 09, 2016, 07:08:13 PM
Covers removed and ready to start the testing prior to launch in 018.  The one aspect that disappoints me is the launch by ESA.

Why? I think it is great.
IMO it would be better if it were launched by NASA, that's all.  I believe the telescope will be of great benefit as Hubble though.

Why would it be better?
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on May 09, 2016, 07:29:30 PM
Covers removed and ready to start the testing prior to launch in 018.  The one aspect that disappoints me is the launch by ESA.

Why? I think it is great.
IMO it would be better if it were launched by NASA, that's all.  I believe the telescope will be of great benefit as Hubble though.

Why would it be better?
Not being dependent on another nation for our space business, much like being dependent on Russia for RD-180's.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: molesworth on May 10, 2016, 04:46:45 PM
Covers removed and ready to start the testing prior to launch in 018.  The one aspect that disappoints me is the launch by ESA.

Why? I think it is great.
IMO it would be better if it were launched by NASA, that's all.  I believe the telescope will be of great benefit as Hubble though.

Why would it be better?
Not being dependent on another nation for our space business, much like being dependent on Russia for RD-180's.

Well, I can understand there's an element of national pride involved, but wouldn't it be a better approach for all countries and agencies to cooperate and share technologies and facilities.  There may be cost and efficiency advantages to be gained overall, in the long term.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on May 10, 2016, 04:59:24 PM

Well, I can understand there's an element of national pride involved, but wouldn't it be a better approach for all countries and agencies to cooperate and share technologies and facilities.  There may be cost and efficiency advantages to be gained overall, in the long term.
In this case it is not pride, but rather not being dependent on another country for launches.  Of course it can be beneficial for all countries to work in harmony, but that isn't the issue in my thoughts.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: Dalhousie on May 10, 2016, 09:42:47 PM

Well, I can understand there's an element of national pride involved, but wouldn't it be a better approach for all countries and agencies to cooperate and share technologies and facilities.  There may be cost and efficiency advantages to be gained overall, in the long term.
In this case it is not pride, but rather not being dependent on another country for launches.  Of course it can be beneficial for all countries to work in harmony, but that isn't the issue in my thoughts.

What bit of "collaboration" is hard to understand?
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on May 10, 2016, 09:46:17 PM

Well, I can understand there's an element of national pride involved, but wouldn't it be a better approach for all countries and agencies to cooperate and share technologies and facilities.  There may be cost and efficiency advantages to be gained overall, in the long term.
In this case it is not pride, but rather not being dependent on another country for launches.  Of course it can be beneficial for all countries to work in harmony, but that isn't the issue in my thoughts.

What bit of "collaboration" is hard to understand?
In a word, none.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: Dalhousie on May 10, 2016, 10:00:57 PM
So why object?  You do realise that the JWS is not an exclusively NASA project?  That ESA (and others) are involved as well?  That part of ESA's contribution is supply a launcher?
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on May 10, 2016, 10:26:00 PM
Lets put the other shoe in the loop, how many non US satellites are launched by US rockets?  If there are no US rockets large enough to lift the JWST into orbit, I wonder why?  If there are why not use them?  Is putting a 5+Billion dollar investment into hands that we don't control the best use of funds?
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: Dalhousie on May 10, 2016, 10:33:07 PM
Lets put the other shoe in the loop, how many non US satellites are launched by US rockets?  If there are no US rockets large enough to lift the JWST into orbit, I wonder why?  If there are why not use them?  Is putting a 5+Billion dollar investment into hands that we don't control the best use of funds?

Why shouldn't an international mission be launched by a non-US rocket as part of the international contribution? 

Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on May 10, 2016, 10:47:18 PM

Why shouldn't an international mission be launched by a non-US rocket as part of the international contribution?
An international project? when the only part of the project come from ESA Euros, Canadian Space Agency 39 M and the US 4.5-6 B?
This discussion is pointless as you don't understand my misgivings nor can I impart those feelings.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: Dalhousie on May 10, 2016, 10:59:43 PM

Why shouldn't an international mission be launched by a non-US rocket as part of the international contribution?
An international project? when the only part of the project come from ESA Euros, Canadian Space Agency 39 M and the US 4.5-6 B?
This discussion is pointless as you don't understand my misgivings nor can I impart those feelings.

ESA's contribution is described by NASA as "significant".  ESA is providing a launcher and all supporting services, one instrument, and equal contributor to a second.  Canada is supplying another instrument.  This makes it an international mission led by NASA.

Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: Zakalwe on May 12, 2016, 04:48:27 AM
Not being dependent on another nation for our space business, much like being dependent on Russia for RD-180's.
I think that you are confusing a number of issues. The US was dependant on other countries for certain launches following the Shuttle retirement. However, JWST is an international collaboration involving 17 countries. It is NOT a pure NASA project that is having to rely on another country lifting it into space. The concept was designed from the start as an international collaboration.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on May 12, 2016, 08:22:40 AM
Not being dependent on another nation for our space business, much like being dependent on Russia for RD-180's.
I think that you are confusing a number of issues. The US was dependant on other countries for certain launches following the Shuttle retirement. However, JWST is an international collaboration involving 17 countries. It is NOT a pure NASA project that is having to rely on another country lifting it into space. The concept was designed from the start as an international collaboration.
No confusion here, and I do agree with your comment on the space agency being dependent when the shuttle program was ended.  This whole concept of not developing newer boosters is part and parcel of my concerns.

EDIT:
Here is some better news concerning developing newer boosters from NASA
http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-managers-sls-orion-on-track-for-2018-launch
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: 12oh2alarm on May 12, 2016, 12:55:53 PM

... Not to throw stones but:
1. Miscalculation of distance parameters allows Mars probe to crach into the surface.
2. O-ring problems with the external SRB's didn't pose a significant threat to any mission until Challenger
3. Foam strikes observed on many/all(?) of shuttle launches didn't pose a threat until Columbia.
4. Mirror imperfections in Hubble even during 1-2 years in cold storage waiting for the Shuttle to regain flight status.
That's all I can remember at this time.

Shit happens. So much so, it fills an entire book:
Springer, "Space System Failures (http://www.amazon.com/Space-Systems-Failures-Disasters-Satellites/dp/0387215190)", by David M. Harland and Ralph Lorenz with chapters on

1. The Missiles
2. The Shuttle
3. Back to Expendables
4. Heavyweights
5. Lightweights
6. Boom and Bust
7. The Chinese Experience
8. The Current Crop
9. Failures and Redundancy
10. Propulsion System Failures
11. Attitude Control System Failures
12. Electrical Failures
13. Environmental Failures
14. Structural Failures
15. Failures on the Ground
16. Operator and Software Errors
17. Conclusions

One more example: if you don't follow the "Count the bolts before you tilt the platform, mate!" protocol, a mishap might happen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOAA-19).
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: Trebor on May 13, 2016, 07:35:42 AM
...
One more example: if you don't follow the "Count the bolts before you tilt the platform, mate!" protocol, a mishap might happen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOAA-19).
That's a bit embarrassing, you would think that checking your extremely costly bit of kit was actually attached to something before spinning it around would have been obvious.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on June 01, 2016, 01:41:30 PM
One step closer! :)
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/science-instruments-of-nasa-s-james-webb-space-telescope-successfully-installed

Science Instruments of NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope Successfully Installed
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: Dalhousie on June 04, 2016, 02:09:03 AM
Still like Hank Green's video
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: Glom on June 04, 2016, 05:10:48 AM
I suppose after seeing that, I should get out of bed and get back to work on my science thing.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: godscountry on June 04, 2016, 02:33:16 PM
Good point and lets not forget the loss of the 125 million dollar Mars Climate Orbiter spacecraft,due to the use of two different measuring systems by the engineering teams,one engineering team used the english system while the other team used the metric system,which resulted in navigational errors to the spacecraft.I would like to think NASA has implicated some new rules,along with a long list of QC checks.With a budget of 1/2 of one percent,you can't afford losses like that.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on June 04, 2016, 04:00:21 PM
I suppose after seeing that, I should get out of bed and get back to work on my science thing.

Instead of the insurance, health, infrastructure thing?
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: ka9q on June 05, 2016, 03:56:05 AM
The specific units that were confused during Mars Climate Observer were those of force -- the thrust of the attitude control thrusters. They were used in a model to estimate the unwanted perturbations on the trajectory as a result of various attitude changes. The thruster manufacturer specified them in pounds-force and JPL interpreted them in newtons. A pound is bigger than a newton, so this underestimated the effect.

The spacecraft was on a collision course with the Martian atmosphere. The trajectory seemed off and the staff asked for more tracking time but was turned down by management. Had the extra tracking been done, they would have confirmed the problem with enough time to fix the problem.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: Peter B on June 05, 2016, 04:54:38 AM
http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/robotic-exploration/why-the-mars-probe-went-off-course

Superb article by James Oberg which details the problems with the spacecraft - or, more precisely, people and processes within JPL.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: smartcooky on June 05, 2016, 06:31:47 AM
http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/robotic-exploration/why-the-mars-probe-went-off-course

Superb article by James Oberg which details the problems with the spacecraft - or, more precisely, people and processes within JPL.


What a complete and utter cock-up!!!

A multi million dollar probe was lost because people didn't fill in the correct forms.... that's bureaucrats for you!!!
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on June 05, 2016, 07:50:44 AM
This reminds me of a favorite saying in my profession:
Companies NEVER have enough money to perform an operation the right way, but they ALWAYS have enough money to fix the problem that was caused.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: BazBear on June 05, 2016, 03:28:47 PM
This reminds me of a favorite saying in my profession:
Companies NEVER have enough money to perform an operation the right way, but they ALWAYS have enough money to fix the problem that was caused.
Penny wise, dollar/pound foolish.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: Allan F on June 05, 2016, 06:39:36 PM
http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/robotic-exploration/why-the-mars-probe-went-off-course

Superb article by James Oberg which details the problems with the spacecraft - or, more precisely, people and processes within JPL.

Just like Apollo 1, Challenger and Columbia.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: smartcooky on June 05, 2016, 07:48:36 PM
http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/robotic-exploration/why-the-mars-probe-went-off-course

Superb article by James Oberg which details the problems with the spacecraft - or, more precisely, people and processes within JPL.

Just like Apollo 1, Challenger and Columbia.


I agree, all avoidable tragedies.

This is especially so of Challenger as administrators in NASA ignored repeated warnings from Engineers that launching in freezing temperatures was dangerous. It was only a piece of blind luck (a small piece of aluminium oxide sealing a leak at the last moment) that prevented STS-51L from exploding right there on the launch pad.

In particular, fluid dynamics engineer Roger Boisjoly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Boisjoly) correctly predicted that the O-Rings would fail in the freezing temperatures. He was ignored, and that decision cost seven astronauts their lives.

In a further insult to Boisjoly, he was treated abysmally by his bosses and colleagues at Morton-Thiokol for telling the truth about what happened.

For mine, the Challenger disaster remains as one of the most disgraceful examples in spaceflight of bureaucratic negligence, right from the political pork-barrelling that resulted in the SRB's being made in Utah and needing to have O-Rings in the first place (a design compromise so that they could be transported to the Cape) to the ignoring of repeated warnings about the SRB's safety in cold conditions.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: ka9q on June 05, 2016, 07:53:02 PM
I think the Columbia disaster was worse. The technical details of the failure were different but the management failures were the same. They didn't learn from Challenger.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on June 05, 2016, 08:23:04 PM
I think the Columbia disaster was worse. The technical details of the failure were different but the management failures were the same. They didn't learn from Challenger.
I agree  100% with they didn't learn, which was the original intent of the thread, would the same type of mistake be made with JWST.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: Peter B on June 06, 2016, 08:54:24 AM
http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/robotic-exploration/why-the-mars-probe-went-off-course

Superb article by James Oberg which details the problems with the spacecraft - or, more precisely, people and processes within JPL.


What a complete and utter cock-up!!!

A multi million dollar probe was lost because people didn't fill in the correct forms.... that's bureaucrats for you!!!

I'd disagree that there's anything unique about the ability of bureaucrats to stuff up. In my experience people in private enterprise can manage it just as well.

A good example here in Australia in the last couple of years is how one of our two major supermarket chains, Woolworths, seems to have thrown away half a billion dollars on a largely failed hardware chain called Masters. They seemed to manage to do everything wrong: they opened stores a long way from where people lived (compared to the most popular chain which has stores in town centres); they managed to have their stock ranges out of season, thanks to being tied to an American chain; their staff included a lot of inexperienced juniors (compared to the most popular chain which employs a lot of retired tradesmen); and they engaged in a lot of pointless micromanagement (staff are required to park their cars tail-in).
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: sts60 on June 06, 2016, 09:28:26 AM
http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/robotic-exploration/why-the-mars-probe-went-off-course

Superb article by James Oberg which details the problems with the spacecraft - or, more precisely, people and processes within JPL.

What a complete and utter cock-up!!!

A multi million dollar probe was lost because people didn't fill in the correct forms.... that's bureaucrats for you!!!

You should re-read the article.  It wasn't about "bureaucrats not filling in the right forms".  It was much more complicated than that
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: smartcooky on June 06, 2016, 11:07:20 PM
http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/robotic-exploration/why-the-mars-probe-went-off-course

Superb article by James Oberg which details the problems with the spacecraft - or, more precisely, people and processes within JPL.

What a complete and utter cock-up!!!

A multi million dollar probe was lost because people didn't fill in the correct forms.... that's bureaucrats for you!!!

You should re-read the article.  It wasn't about "bureaucrats not filling in the right forms".  It was much more complicated than that

Oh, I am well aware of that, I was just pulling out a sound bite....

"Although the navigators continued to express concern about the spacecraft trajectory, NASA's Stephenson explained why there had been no management response. "They did not use the existing formal process for such concerns," he stated. JPL has a special form to invoke a so-called incident surprise and analysis procedure, and the navigators did not follow the rules about filling out that form to document their concerns."

Its this kind of bureaucracy that really pisses me off. I had it in the Air Force so I'm familiar with the types of pen-pushing shiny-arses who stand between safety and success. It is exactly this kind of attitude that results in things like the Challenger and Columbia disasters; the engineers warn of the dangers, the paper shufflers and bean-counters don't listen....BANG! More dead people!
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: sts60 on June 06, 2016, 11:47:47 PM
Ha, sorry.  I should have realized you understood it better. 

Although I don't have time right now to pontificate, this sort of thing is of much interest to me, as safety & mission assurance (S&MA) is basically what I currently do for a living. 
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on November 08, 2016, 05:48:23 PM
The ground test of the mirror's curvature.
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-completes-webb-telescope-center-of-curvature-pre-test
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on February 15, 2017, 05:55:41 PM
Good to have a back up plan for Hubble in case JWST fails.  There is a good animation of the deployment of JWST, so many places for a failure.  I hope that all goes well.

http://www.universetoday.com/133429/dream-chaser-spacecraft-may-used-hubble-repair-mission/
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: Dalhousie on February 21, 2017, 10:08:51 PM
http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/robotic-exploration/why-the-mars-probe-went-off-course

Superb article by James Oberg which details the problems with the spacecraft - or, more precisely, people and processes within JPL.

What a complete and utter cock-up!!!

A multi million dollar probe was lost because people didn't fill in the correct forms.... that's bureaucrats for you!!!

You should re-read the article.  It wasn't about "bureaucrats not filling in the right forms".  It was much more complicated than that

Oh, I am well aware of that, I was just pulling out a sound bite....

"Although the navigators continued to express concern about the spacecraft trajectory, NASA's Stephenson explained why there had been no management response. "They did not use the existing formal process for such concerns," he stated. JPL has a special form to invoke a so-called incident surprise and analysis procedure, and the navigators did not follow the rules about filling out that form to document their concerns."

Its this kind of bureaucracy that really pisses me off. I had it in the Air Force so I'm familiar with the types of pen-pushing shiny-arses who stand between safety and success. It is exactly this kind of attitude that results in things like the Challenger and Columbia disasters; the engineers warn of the dangers, the paper shufflers and bean-counters don't listen....BANG! More dead people!

How many people have military stuff ups killed? 
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: smartcooky on February 22, 2017, 05:22:41 AM
http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/robotic-exploration/why-the-mars-probe-went-off-course

Superb article by James Oberg which details the problems with the spacecraft - or, more precisely, people and processes within JPL.

What a complete and utter cock-up!!!

A multi million dollar probe was lost because people didn't fill in the correct forms.... that's bureaucrats for you!!!

You should re-read the article.  It wasn't about "bureaucrats not filling in the right forms".  It was much more complicated than that

Oh, I am well aware of that, I was just pulling out a sound bite....

"Although the navigators continued to express concern about the spacecraft trajectory, NASA's Stephenson explained why there had been no management response. "They did not use the existing formal process for such concerns," he stated. JPL has a special form to invoke a so-called incident surprise and analysis procedure, and the navigators did not follow the rules about filling out that form to document their concerns."

Its this kind of bureaucracy that really pisses me off. I had it in the Air Force so I'm familiar with the types of pen-pushing shiny-arses who stand between safety and success. It is exactly this kind of attitude that results in things like the Challenger and Columbia disasters; the engineers warn of the dangers, the paper shufflers and bean-counters don't listen....BANG! More dead people!

How many people have military stuff ups killed?

Where would you like me to start?
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: Zakalwe on February 22, 2017, 05:27:34 AM
Good to have a back up plan for Hubble in case JWST fails.  There is a good animation of the deployment of JWST, so many places for a failure.  I hope that all goes well.

http://www.universetoday.com/133429/dream-chaser-spacecraft-may-used-hubble-repair-mission/

That looks like vapourware to me. How would such a system get to the HST orbit? And de-orbit? Is it big enough to allow astronauts to suit up for EVA? Does it even have an airlock to allow EVAs?
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: Kiwi on February 22, 2017, 08:19:34 AM
How many people have military stuff ups killed?

For a start, just one example: 2,721 Kiwis killed and 4,752 wounded at Gallipoli between 25 April and 19 December 1915* in a monumental stuff-up by the British, who kindly saved their own troops and put the colonials in the front line. Then there were all the Australian casualties from the ANZACs... But we're wandering off topic, so this should go to a new thread.

* Two Hundred Years of New Zealand History, A W Reed, Reed Trust, Wellington, 1979, pages 207-208.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: Glom on February 22, 2017, 09:17:30 AM
I think troops from the metropole did plenty of dying elsewhere.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: Dalhousie on March 28, 2017, 06:13:53 PM
How many people have military stuff ups killed?

For a start, just one example: 2,721 Kiwis killed and 4,752 wounded at Gallipoli between 25 April and 19 December 1915* in a monumental stuff-up by the British, who kindly saved their own troops and put the colonials in the front line. Then there were all the Australian casualties from the ANZACs... But we're wandering off topic, so this should go to a new thread.

* Two Hundred Years of New Zealand History, A W Reed, Reed Trust, Wellington, 1979, pages 207-208.

Casualties from the UK at Gallipoli amounted to 73,485 so your opinion is not borne out by a moment's research. 
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: sts60 on March 29, 2017, 01:00:07 AM
Took this picture today....  JWST at Goddard, with vibration and acoustic testing completed, prior to departing for JSC.  Next up, thermal/vac testing at JSC's Chamber A, in which the Apollo CSM stack was tested.

(http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/sts060/misc/IMG_7827.jpg)
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: Kiwi on March 29, 2017, 09:23:09 AM
Casualties from the UK at Gallipoli amounted to 73,485 so your opinion is not borne out by a moment's research.

Fair enough. But small countries often think the following types of figures are more important. I'll use the third kind of lies, statistics, :) but was last taught maths in 1964 so could be a little rusty.

Gallipoli casualties divided by 1914 population
UK – 73,485 / 46,000,000 = 0.0015975
AU – 28,150 /   4,948,990 = 0.0056880
NZ –   7,991 /   1,158,436 = 0.0068981

56880 / 15975 = 3.56
68981 / 15975 = 4.31

Therefore, on a population basis Australia had three times and NZ had four times the casualties of the UK.

Figures from these web pages:--
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/media/interactive/gallipoli-casualties-country
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/war/british-empire-facts-and-stats

We do the same with medals at the Olympics and often come up shining.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: Kiwi on March 29, 2017, 09:43:16 AM
Took this picture today....

Some people have all the luck! Does that mean you'll be changing your username to
STS60-JWST?
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on March 29, 2017, 09:46:20 PM
Took this picture today....  JWST at Goddard, with vibration and acoustic testing completed, prior to departing for JSC.  Next up, thermal/vac testing at JSC's Chamber A, in which the Apollo CSM stack was tested.

(http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/sts060/misc/IMG_7827.jpg)

Nice job to get to see these items up close an personal.  Here's hoping all the tests work out an JWST has no issues.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on January 16, 2018, 11:28:48 AM
JWST has passed the cryogenic tests

https://jwst.nasa.gov/recentaccomplish.html

Still looking for launch in 2019.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on March 29, 2018, 08:31:41 AM
And now the launch slips again.

https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/jwst-slips-another-year-to-2020-could-breach-8-billion-cost-cap/
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on July 03, 2018, 07:42:44 AM
And the launch slips again.
https://www.universetoday.com/139549/good-news-james-webb-is-still-a-go-bad-news-launching-in-2021/
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: molesworth on July 03, 2018, 02:15:42 PM
And the launch slips again.
https://www.universetoday.com/139549/good-news-james-webb-is-still-a-go-bad-news-launching-in-2021/
Well, someone's calculated the actual launch date :
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/jwst_delays.png)
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on July 04, 2018, 10:26:01 AM
And the launch slips again.
https://www.universetoday.com/139549/good-news-james-webb-is-still-a-go-bad-news-launching-in-2021/
Well, someone's calculated the actual launch date :
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/jwst_delays.png)

At the rate of accomplishments that may be more accurate.  We shall see.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: smartcooky on July 06, 2018, 01:02:23 AM
I, for one, would prefer they do it all properly and not take things for granted or skip over any testing, and if that means delays, then so be it. We have all seen what could happen if they slip up, and for this one, they will get no second chances. There won't be any repair missions to Earth-Sun L2.

NOTE: For anyone who doesn't understand what I'm talking about here, Google the phrase "Perkin Elmer Hubble Mirror"!!
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on June 01, 2019, 08:47:27 AM
Some "final" thermal testing complete.

https://www.universetoday.com/142389/phew-james-webb-passes-its-final-thermal-vacuum-test-still-on-track-for-2021/
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: apollo16uvc on June 01, 2019, 06:58:44 PM
If it fails there wont be any telescope of this scale in 50 years.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on August 29, 2019, 01:38:03 PM
It is assembled for the first time.
https://www.space.com/nasa-james-webb-space-telescope-complete.html?utm_source=sdc-newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20190829-sdc

Yah!
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on October 23, 2019, 03:03:52 PM
The sun shield deployed successfully.
https://www.universetoday.com/143804/james-webb-tests-its-sun-shield-so-far-so-good/
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: jfb on January 30, 2020, 11:57:02 AM
Planned March 2021 launch date is likely to slip to July:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01/report-webb-telescope-has-just-a-12-percent-chance-of-making-launch-date/

Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on January 30, 2020, 12:10:51 PM
Planned March 2021 launch date is likely to slip to July:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01/report-webb-telescope-has-just-a-12-percent-chance-of-making-launch-date/

If that!
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: smartcooky on January 30, 2020, 01:58:03 PM
I'd rather see them testing vigorously and thoroughly than succumbing to time pressure, skipping tests and ending up "doing a Hubble". This beast will be at L2.... for all intents and purposes, unreachable if the slightest thing goes wrong. There will be no JWST Repair Missions if that happens.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on January 30, 2020, 02:10:51 PM
I'd rather see them testing vigorously and thoroughly than succumbing to time pressure, skipping tests and ending up "doing a Hubble". This beast will be at L2.... for all intents and purposes, unreachable if the slightest thing goes wrong. There will be no JWST Repair Missions if that happens.

That's why I started the thread, my concerns for doing this right, they only have one chance.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on May 15, 2020, 03:18:00 PM
James Webb is Fully Stowed Into its Launch Configuration.

https://www.universetoday.com/146091/james-webb-is-fully-stowed-into-its-launch-configuration/

Scheduled liftoff: March 30th, 2021, (or maybe July 2021.)
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: Peter B on May 15, 2020, 10:05:33 PM
James Webb is Fully Stowed Into its Launch Configuration.

https://www.universetoday.com/146091/james-webb-is-fully-stowed-into-its-launch-configuration/

Scheduled liftoff: March 30th, 2021, (or maybe July 2021.)

Good luck to it. I hope it doesn't experience any Galileo-style problems due to the delays in launching it.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on June 10, 2020, 11:38:01 AM
James Webb is Fully Stowed Into its Launch Configuration.

https://www.universetoday.com/146091/james-webb-is-fully-stowed-into-its-launch-configuration/

Scheduled liftoff: March 30th, 2021, (or maybe July 2021.)

Good luck to it. I hope it doesn't experience any Galileo-style problems due to the delays in launching it.

Well
Quote
To test the James Webb Space Telescope’s readiness for its journey in space, technicians successfully commanded it to deploy and extend a critical part of the observatory known as the Deployable Tower Assembly.

The primary purpose of the deployable tower is to create a large gap between the upper part of the observatory that houses its iconic gold mirrors and scientific instruments, and the lower section known as the spacecraft bus which holds its comparatively warm electronics and propulsion systems. By creating a space between the two, it allows for Webb’s active and passive cooling systems to bring its mirrors and sensors down to staggeringly cold temperatures required to perform optimal science.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2020/tower-extension-test-a-success-for-nasa-s-james-webb-space-telescope

Looks like they read your mind, I also hope it doesn't experience any issues with this complicated procedure.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on June 11, 2020, 08:27:52 AM
Planned March 2021 launch date is likely to slip to July:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01/report-webb-telescope-has-just-a-12-percent-chance-of-making-launch-date/



And just after NASA announces,
Quote
Despite initial comments by NASA officials that work would be suspended entirely on the telescope, activities did continue there, including a test announced by NASA June 9 of its Deployable Tower Assembly that separates the mirror from the spacecraft bus.

the agency confirmed the Mar 21 launch date is a no go.

https://spacenews.com/nasa-confirms-jwst-will-miss-march-2021-launch-date/

Looks like the July is a better bet, but I'm not that hopeful since they didn't even list a target date.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on June 15, 2020, 03:37:52 PM
Here is a comprehensive update by Fraser Cain.
https://www.universetoday.com/146506/well-it-looks-like-james-webb-is-getting-delayed-again-but-it-should-still-launch-in-2021/

Quote
“I’m very optimistic about this thing getting off the launch pad in 2021.”
Thomas Zurbuchen, NASA Associate Administrator for Science.

I'm hoping everything comes together.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on July 21, 2020, 04:00:26 PM
Comprehensive test of the satellite, still aiming for Oct 2121 launch.
https://www.universetoday.com/147073/james-webb-completes-a-comprehensive-systems-test-for-the-first-time/
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: ajv on July 21, 2020, 07:52:51 PM
... still aiming for Oct 2121 launch.

Yeah, probably.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on July 26, 2020, 09:50:37 AM
Actually I made a fat finger entry on the launch date it should have been Oct. 2021.
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: apollo16uvc on July 26, 2020, 02:18:06 PM
If this thing fails there won't be a budget for anything comparable for the foreseeable 50 years.

Much like how many won't see anything comparable to the Pioneer or Voyager probes in their lifetime. (Partially due to a shortage on the radioactive material with a long enough lifespan.)
Title: Re: James Webb Space Telescope
Post by: bknight on August 31, 2020, 03:42:39 PM
The engineers put the spacecraft through on ground tests.
https://www.universetoday.com/147597/james-webb-is-working-perfectly-on-the-ground-next-trick-doing-it-from-space/

Hopefully still looking to Mar 2021.