Lucy spacecraft and James Webb space telescope

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the operational challenges and concerns related to the Lucy spacecraft and the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). Participants explore the implications of technical failures, budget overruns, and the complexities of space missions, with a focus on the upcoming deployment of JWST's sunshield and its potential risks.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that a solar array on the Lucy spacecraft failed to fully deploy, but suggest that the mission may still be viable with the available solar power.
  • Concerns are raised about the JWST's 300 single-point failure modes, with some participants questioning the feasibility of its deployment given the complexity and lack of true space environment testing.
  • Others argue that the number of failure modes may not be as alarming if they include major structural elements, suggesting a more nuanced view of the risks involved.
  • There is a discussion about the significant delays and budget overruns associated with JWST, with some participants expressing skepticism about future funding and timelines.
  • Some participants mention other upcoming space telescope projects designed to be simpler and cheaper than JWST, indicating a broader context of space exploration efforts.
  • One participant expresses optimism about the JWST's upcoming deployment, despite acknowledging the unforgiving nature of mechanical systems in space.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of optimism and skepticism regarding the JWST's deployment and the implications of its technical challenges. There is no clear consensus on the severity of the risks or the adequacy of the current plans for both JWST and Lucy.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexities of funding and managing large-scale space projects, noting the challenges of communicating delays and budget increases to stakeholders. The discussion reflects a range of perspectives on the implications of technical failures and the future of space exploration.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in space exploration, engineering challenges in aerospace projects, and the management of large scientific endeavors may find this discussion relevant.

anorlunda
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Messages
11,326
Reaction score
8,754
Apparently, one of the solar arrays on the Lucy spacecraft failed to fully deploy.
https://scitechdaily.com/nasas-lucy...problematic-solar-array-is-75-to-95-deployed/

The fault may not be fatal. They may have enough solar power to complete the mission.

At the same time, the James Web Space telescope is said to have 300 single-point failure modes. See the video.
When I first heard that, I thought it foolish to even hope for successful deployment. So many failure modes, the inability to test in a true space environment, the complexity, the inability to send repair missions in case of a failure.

But I do not believe those NASA engineers to be fools. If they are confident of success, they must have good reasons. The trouble on Lucy rattles my optimism a bit, but does not destroy it.

So, the most suspenseful science/engineering story since Apollo 11 and Apollo 13 is coming in December. I for one will be sitting on the edge of my chair for 29 days. @mfb seems to have his finger on space news. Perhaps he'll start a thread in December that keeps us posted on developments.

By the way, 29 days is not the complete story. It will be years before James Webb is fully operational.

 
  • Love
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: pinball1970 and Fervent Freyja
Physics news on Phys.org
JWST is 14 years late and an order of magnitude over budget. In that environment it is very difficult to say even "we want more tests" much less "we want to change this part".
 
Including the service missions Hubble was probably more expensive.

300 single points of failure doesn't sound so bad if you consider that e.g. every major structural element is part of that list. But it will be a very interesting month for sure.
 
mfb said:
Including the service missions Hubble was probably more expensive.

Perhaps. Quite likely - there were what, five of them? But the problem is it's not their money. It belongs to the People of the United States of America. It is difficult to go to Congress and say "We know we told you 2007, and 2008, and 2009, all the way to 2021. And we know we told you $1B, and $2B and here we are at $10B. But we need a little more money and a little more time. "
 
JWST is not the only one. There are four other space telescope projects in the works. All four of them are designed to orbit the L2 point. According to the video, all four are intended to be simpler and cheaper than the JWST; not surprising because technology marches on.

2:54 Habitable Exoplanet observatory (HabEx)
8:53 Lynx X-Ray observatory
12:00 Origins Space Telescope (OST)
17:17 Large Ultraviolet, Optical, Infrared Surveyor (LUVOIR)

 
By 4 days, everything has been checked and the telescope is healthy.

Now the sunshield pallet deployments will happen on Dec 25 (US time).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: pinball1970
mfb said:
By 4 days, everything has been checked and the telescope is healthy.

Now the sunshield pallet deployments will happen on Dec 25 (US time).
Crossing my fingers and toes.
Mechanicals are totally unforgiving and the JWST has a lot of them.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
748
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
7K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
12K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K