What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

NASA’s new gold-covered telescope will put the Hubble to shame (1 Viewer)

cstu

Footballguy
NASA’s new gold-covered telescope will put the Hubble to shame

Posted April 30, 2016 - 10:41pm

By Sarah Kaplan
Washington Post

The universe’s biggest space telescope is as tall as a three-story building and as wide as a tennis court. Its main mirror, a collapsible honeycomb of 18 gleaming, gold-covered hexagons, is large enough to collect light from the very first, most distant stars and sensitive enough to capture the heat signature of a bumblebee on the moon.

Someday — someday soon, NASA officials hope — it will soar a million miles above Earth, giving astronomers an unprecedented glimpse at the edge of space and the beginning of time.

On Wednesday, they were content to admire their new telescope as it gleamed beneath the fluorescent lights of the sterile “cleanroom” at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

“It sure is shiny,” one woman said.

That’s the least of the adjectives you could use to describe the James Webb Space Telescope, a 14,300-pound, $8.8 billion piece of hardware more than two decades in the making. It has been hailed as revolutionary and questioned as a boondoggle, and at times there were doubts about whether it would even come to be. In 2011, with work on the telescope behind schedule and over budget, Congress nearly voted to scrap the program.

A compromise kept things going, with a new launch date of October 2018. Earlier this year, engineers finished assembling the gigantic mirror, and this week, they removed its protective coverings for the first time. No one at NASA had seen the assembled telescope in all its gilded splendor before — not even the JWST program director, Eric Smith.

“It’s amazingly beautiful,” Smith said. “I’ve seen this as PowerPoints and CAD drawings for about 20 years now. But to actually see those dreams made manifest is really pretty moving.”

The centerpiece of the project is the telescope itself: the primary mirror, at more than 250 square feet, and two smaller mirrors, designed to collect and focus some of the faintest light in the universe. It is far larger than any other telescope that NASA has launched - the primary mirror on the Hubble Space Telescope, which JWST will replace, has less than one-fifth of the collecting area — and it will orbit at a much colder and more distant point in space. That meant that NASA had to come up with entirely new ways to build it.

Each hexagon in the mirror is made of lightweight beryllium, which can withstand the minus-388-degree temperatures the telescope will encounter far off in space. The hexagons are coated with a thin layer of gold because the element is the best reflector of infrared light, the wavelength that marks the most distant objects in the universe (the universe’s expansion causes waves of light to stretch out as they travel through space and time, a phenomenon called “red shifting”). The JWST will be able to detect light from stars that formed 13.5 billion years ago — a mere 200 million years after the Big Bang, the cosmic equivalent of the blink of an eye.

And it’s portable, too: The mirror was designed to fold up like an immense origami figure, so it can fit onto the rocket that will carry it into orbit.

In another corner of the cleanroom at Goddard, engineers in white protective suits and blue gloves cluster around the JWST’s instrument box, which will be affixed to the back of the telescope after each component has been tested. There will be four scientific instruments on board when JWST is launched — two provided by NASA and one each from the Canadian and European space agencies. Each is designed to sense light at a specific range of wavelengths, allowing the telescope to, say, peer through clouds of dust and gas to watch new stars in the making, or gaze back through time and space to capture the faint light of the most distant galaxies.

The instruments are essential to JWST’s four scientific missions: finding the earliest stars and galaxies, understanding how galaxies evolved, observing the formation of new stars and solar systems, and scanning Earth’s neighboring planets for their chemical properties and signs of life.

But first they must all fit into their box, an effort that Lynn Chandler, the JWST program’s spokeswoman, describes as “the ultimate game of Operation.”

“You’ve got to get it all in there, and you can’t touch anything,” she said.

Leaving even the smallest eyelash or faintest smudge on the equipment could have catastrophic consequences for the telescope — like getting dirt on your contact lens, if your contact lens were as big as an RV and a million miles away from any cleaning solution. A group standing on the viewing platform joked about what would happen if scientists identified a fantastic new galaxy, then realized it was actually someone’s fingerprint.

There’s no chance of that happening, Chandler said. The cleanroom is orders of magnitude cleaner than an operating room, and the engineers and technicians in it are covered from their booties to their surgical caps. Only their eyes peer out over their face masks.

They will continue assembling and testing the equipment at Goddard — a process that includes shaking it inside a launch simulator and blasting it with noise so loud that it chips paint from the walls — then send the telescope and instruments on to the Johnson Space Center in Houston. In late 2017, they will head to contractor Northrop Grumman’s facility in California to meet up with their spacecraft and kite-shaped sun shield (which protects the telescope from interference from the sun). Then it’s on to the launch site in French Guiana, where the whole ensemble is due to take off in October 2018.

NASA estimates that the telescope will begin sending back data roughly six months after that. This time three years from now, scientists could be gazing at some of the oldest things they have ever seen.

“The telescope is really humanity’s deep-space exploration device,” Smith said. “… Our curiosity drives us to ask what is out there, and this is the ultimate expression of that.”

- See more at: http://amestrib.com/news/nasa-s-new-gold-covered-telescope-will-put-hubble-shame#sthash.OyRSBUt8.dpuf



 
Last edited by a moderator:
How in the name of all that is holy can a high tech telescope cost $8.8B?

That's a couple B more than an aircraft carrier.  Something smells fishy around here...

 
How in the name of all that is holy can a high tech telescope cost $8.8B?

That's a couple B more than an aircraft carrier.  Something smells fishy around here...
Each hexagon in the mirror is made of lightweight beryllium, which can withstand the minus-388-degree temperatures the telescope will encounter far off in space. The hexagons are coated with a thin layer of gold 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Each hexagon in the mirror is made of lightweight beryllium, which can withstand the minus-388-degree temperatures the telescope will encounter far off in space. The hexagons are coated with a thin layer of gold 
I call bull####. I watched Galaxy Quest. Giant spheres of Beryllium are just laying around. Generally at abandoned mines.

 
Each hexagon in the mirror is made of lightweight beryllium, which can withstand the minus-388-degree temperatures the telescope will encounter far off in space. The hexagons are coated with a thin layer of gold 
Again, this thing is $2.0B more than the newest aircraft carrier.  I'm not saying it's not awesome, high tech as ####, and made from all sort of rare stuff.  However, almost $9.0B?

 
The Falcon 9 cost way less than a billion to develop and launch.  The Hubble cost $1.5B to develop and launch.  How in the name of god is this thing 6x more expensive than the Hubble?
The article said that Hubble is one-fifth the size. Even if that is only the lenses, you have to think the rest is rather large as well. So 5x bigger than the $1.5B Hubble, made of beryllium and coated in gold... yeah, no reason that is way more expensive.

 
We don't need anymore aircraft carriers so making this telescope is money well spent. NASA is underfunded as is. This telescope is a great thing and should be an event. 

 
I don't want to hear NASA asking for #### anymore.  "We need more funding!  We need more funding!"  Meanwhile they're making gold-plated telescopes?!?!?

 
They say it can detect the heat signature from a single bee on the moon.  This is worth its weight in gold if space killer bees find their way to the moon and build a hive.  we will have early warning so that no astronauts visiting the moon blunder into the hive and get stung to death.

It also could have application at the NCAA men's basketball tournament so that folks in the cheap seats could maybe view the court.

 
I'm not saying the telescope isn't fantastic and worthy of the efforts and funding.

What I am trying to do is to call everyone's attention to excessive government spending and you're all like "it's made of gold"  "it's made of beryllium"  "It's bigger than than the Hubble so it has to cost way more."  A ton of gold (I highly doubt there's a ton on this thing) cost about $65M.  Beryllium is a couple of hundred bucks a pound.  Let's call that $35M.  Where'd the other $8.79B go?  1,000 scientist making $500k each for 10 years is $5B.  Someone please justify the other $3.7B to me.

 
I'm not saying the telescope isn't fantastic and worthy of the efforts and funding.

What I am trying to do is to call everyone's attention to excessive government spending and you're all like "it's made of gold"  "it's made of beryllium"  "It's bigger than than the Hubble so it has to cost way more."  A ton of gold (I highly doubt there's a ton on this thing) cost about $65M.  Beryllium is a couple of hundred bucks a pound.  Let's call that $35M.  Where'd the other $8.79B go?  1,000 scientist making $500k each for 10 years is $5B.  Someone please justify the other $3.7B to me.
I don't think you are going to get the project's accounting breakdown on a magic football website.

After reading the waitbutwhy piece on SpaceX, which touches on the degree of gouging that goes on in the military industrial complex, I am not surprised by any numbers associated with NASA.

 
The Falcon 9 cost way less than a billion to develop and launch.  The Hubble cost $1.5B to develop and launch.  How in the name of god is this thing 6x more expensive than the Hubble?
The Falcon and Hubble weren't made of gold,Jerry.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not saying the telescope isn't fantastic and worthy of the efforts and funding.

What I am trying to do is to call everyone's attention to excessive government spending and you're all like "it's made of gold"  "it's made of beryllium"  "It's bigger than than the Hubble so it has to cost way more."  A ton of gold (I highly doubt there's a ton on this thing) cost about $65M.  Beryllium is a couple of hundred bucks a pound.  Let's call that $35M.  Where'd the other $8.79B go?  1,000 scientist making $500k each for 10 years is $5B.  Someone please justify the other $3.7B to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0hK1wyrrAU

 
The Falcon 9 cost way less than a billion to develop and launch.  The Hubble cost $1.5B to develop and launch.  How in the name of god is this thing 6x more expensive than the Hubble?
Well to start it is significantly over budget.  But there were technologies here that were incredibly difficult to figure out.  The mirrors, sunshade, and structure were big challenges.  The structure was developed to be extraordinarily low thermal expansion to a level not even thought of before.  And it had to be verified. The shade and mirrors had similar challenges.

That's largely where the money went.  Huge emphasis on testing and verification as this thing well never be able to be serviced - being put out at L2.

NASA will be very glad when this launches.  This thing has been a huge drag on overall budgets for them for a while now.  But given Hubble is, by far, the best thing they have put into space this one should be awesome.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What do you suppose the sphincter factor will be when this thing takes off from the launch pad?

A rocket that's carrying supplies to the ISS blowing up is one thing. Can you imagine?...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well to start it is significantly over budget.  But there were technologies here that were incredibly difficult to figure out.  The mirrors, sunshade, and structure were big challenges.  The structure was developed to be extraordinarily low thermal expansion to a level not even thought of before.  And it had to be verified. The shade and mirrors had similar challenges.

That's largely where the money went.  Huge emphasis on testing and verification as this thing well never be able to be serviced - being put out at L2.

NASA will be very glad when this launches.  This thing has been a huge drag on overall budgets for them for a while now.  But given Hubble is, by far, the best thing they have put into space this one should be awesome.
Let's make sure somebody double checks the units of measurement this time.

 
What do you suppose the sphincter factor will be when this thing takes off from the launch pad?

A rocket that's carrying supplies to the ISS blowing up is one thing. Can you imagine?...
Knowing a number of people in this it will be off the charts.  There is no do over.   It has to launch, get out to L2, deploy from the booster, unfold the mirrors, extend the sun shade, and a host of other things.  

It will be a very extended sphincter hold before release is allowed.

 
matuski said:
Each hexagon in the mirror is made of lightweight beryllium, which can withstand the minus-388-degree temperatures the telescope will encounter far off in space. The hexagons are coated with a thin layer of gold 
It's shocking that this came before President Trump's reign. 
 

The JWST will be able to detect light from stars that formed 13.5 billion years ago — a mere 200 million years after the Big Bang, the cosmic equivalent of the blink of an eye.
this pisses me off.  I mean really, you're 98.5% there and you couldn't go a measly 200 million years further?  It's the cosmic equivalent of taking a kickoff to the 1 yard line and kneeling before crossing the event horizon, er goal line.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ignoramus said:
I don't want to hear NASA asking for #### anymore.  "We need more funding!  We need more funding!"  Meanwhile they're making gold-plated telescopes?!?!?
It ain't worth doing if it ain't blingin. Dem aliens will know who da top dawg is. 

 
It's shocking that this came before President Trump's reign. 
 

this pisses me off.  I mean really, you're 98.5% there and you couldn't go a measly 200 million years further?  It's the cosmic equivalent of taking a kickoff to the 1 yard line and kneeling before crossing the event horizon, er goal line.
The first 200 million years were nothing but working meetings, conference calls, and symposia on what the universe should look like, proposed expansion rates, black hole statutory size limits, etc.  Boooring.  You're not missing anything.

 
The first 200 million years were nothing but working meetings, conference calls, and symposia on what the universe should look like, proposed expansion rates, black hole statutory size limits, etc.  Boooring.  You're not missing anything.
I want to be there for roll call. 

 
James Daulton said:
I'm not saying the telescope isn't fantastic and worthy of the efforts and funding.

What I am trying to do is to call everyone's attention to excessive government spending and you're all like "it's made of gold"  "it's made of beryllium"  "It's bigger than than the Hubble so it has to cost way more."  A ton of gold (I highly doubt there's a ton on this thing) cost about $65M.  Beryllium is a couple of hundred bucks a pound.  Let's call that $35M.  Where'd the other $8.79B go?  1,000 scientist making $500k each for 10 years is $5B.  Someone please justify the other $3.7B to me.
First, it took 20 years to figure out how to make this happen.

Second, the value this will provide to science is priceless and $9B seems cheap to me for what we will discover about the universe.

 
I want to be there for roll call. 
In all seriousness I seen to remember that the red shift of the earliest universe was outside the wavelength range of this instrument.  I do remember that this instrument has to cover a relatively large swath of the IR range to cover the red shifts of older and older stars.

 
James Daulton said:
How in the name of all that is holy can a high tech telescope cost $8.8B?

That's a couple B more than an aircraft carrier.  Something smells fishy around here...
It's a really nice telescope.  :takesabiteofwatermelon:

 
joffer said:
there is no light from the first 300 million years.  it's opaque.
When did the first stars form in the universe?




Answer:


Results from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) released in February 2003 show that the first stars formed when the universe was only about 200 million years old. Observations by WMAP also revealed that the universe is currently about 13. 7 billion years old. So it was very early in the time after the Big Bang explosion that stars formed.

Observations reveal that tiny clumps of matter formed in the baby universe; to WMAP, these clumps are seen as tiny temperatures differences of less than one-millionth of a degree. Gravity then pulled in more matter from areas of lower density and the clumps grew. After about 200 million years of this clumping, there was enough matter in one place that the temperature got high enough for nuclear fusion to begin - providing the engine for stars to glow.

This result surprised many scientists who thought that it would have taken much longer for gravity to pull enough matter together to make a star.
This is for the people wondering why the telescope won't be able to see anything from those first 200 million years.

 
why will this be better just because it is shineier and golden here is a little something my momma taught me when i was little just because it glitters does not mean it is gold put that in your old knowlege pipe and smoke it brohans and when you do take it to the bank

 
why will this be better just because it is shineier and golden here is a little something my momma taught me when i was little just because it glitters does not mean it is gold put that in your old knowlege pipe and smoke it brohans and when you do take it to the bank
I don't know, but I've been told, its hard to run with the weight of gold

Other times I've heard it said, its just as hard with the weight of lead

 
This is for the people wondering why the telescope won't be able to see anything from those first 200 million years.
my statement isn't quite right.  there is light, its just not in the visible spectrum.  Sand had a good point about the range of IR that the telescope has to cover being a limiting factor.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top