Hubble’s Successor: The James Webb Space Telescope
Science@ESA (Episode 4): Following The Redshift (Part 2) – Hubble’s Successor: The James Webb Space Telescope.
In this fourth episode of the Science@ESA vodcast series Rebecca Barnes will identify some of the key discoveries achieved with the famous Hubble Space Telescope, look at the concept of redshift, and meet a new telescope that will be used to uncover the early Universe.
—
Subscribe to Science & Reason:
• http://www.youtube.com/Best0fScience
• http://www.youtube.com/ScienceMagazine
• http://www.youtube.com/FFreeThinker
—
Named in 2002 in honour of NASA’s administrator during the Apollo programme, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) mission is a collaborative project between the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the European Space Agency and the Canadian Space Agency.
JWST will address many of the outstanding issues of modern Astronomy related to the ‘Early Universe’ and is expected to yield scientific breakthroughs as did its predecessor, the Hubble Space Telescope. JWST will be a general-purpose observatory with a suite of astronomical infrared-sensitive instruments.
Compared to existing or planned observatories, JWST will have the unique advantage of combining superb image quality throughout a wide wavelength range, a wide field of view and unparalleled photon sensitivity due to its 6.5-metre diameter telescope primary mirror.
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/area/index.cfm?fareaid=29
—
The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is a planned infrared space observatory, the partial successor to the aging Hubble Space Telescope. The JWST will not be a complete successor, because it will not be sensitive to all of the light wavelengths that Hubble can see.
The main scientific goal is to observe the most distant objects in the universe, those beyond the reach of either ground based instruments or the Hubble. The JWST project is a NASA-led international collaboration with contributors in fifteen nations, the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Canadian Space Agency (CSA).
Originally called the Next Generation Space Telescope (NGST), it was renamed in 2002 after NASA’s second administrator, James E. Webb (1906-1992). Webb had headed NASA from the beginning of the Kennedy administration through the Johnson administration (1961-68), thus overseeing all the manned launches in the Mercury through Gemini programs, until just before the first manned Apollo flight.
Current plans call for the telescope to be launched on an Ariane 5 rocket in June 2014, on a five-year mission (10 year goal). The JWST will reside in solar orbit near the Sun-Earth L2 point, which is on a line passing from the Sun to the Earth, but about 1.5 million km farther away from the Sun than is the Earth.
This position, which moves around the Sun in exact orbital synchrony with the Earth, will allow JWST to shield itself from infrared from both Sun and Earth, by using a single radiation shield positioned between the telescope and the Sun-Earth direction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope
.
Duration : 0:6:42
[youtube adi4ADVlUvg]
neonsilkworm wrote …
neonsilkworm wrote – We’ll easily be star-borne before resources are exhausted.
I’m not at all convinced that interstellar travel will ever be practical. However if we consider the resources of the entire solar system there may be enough to last practically forever. I’m with DDTrampled here – lets get off this planet and start taking advantage of the resources and opportunities in space. For example moving mining and manufacturing into space would greatly benefit the earthly environment.
neonsilkworm I have …
neonsilkworm I have no quarrel with anything you’ve said in this comment. But it does bring us back to my original comment to you – free market would have no interest in funding something like this telescope, and you have explained why this is true – no profit in it. And I think research of this nature should be done.
We’ll easily be …
We’ll easily be star-borne before resources are exhausted. We are highly innovative and create new products from new substances with every century.
Now… self-destruction via nuclear winter, overpopulation, meteor extinction… that’s what we ought to worry most about, a sudden, premature obliteration of the habitability of our own planet.
Beneficial = …
Beneficial = profitable, absolutely. A company invests in research which will bring it future profits, through products and services which the market values. If the people do not desire it or the company cannot create the desire through marketing, such research would be a sunk cost.
If the benefit MAY only be realized after the costs are incurred, this is basically gambling, and very few investors are interested in such risk. This is why a solid rationale and profit motive is so important.
neonsilkworm wrote …
neonsilkworm wrote – Free markets would guarantee only beneficial research is conducted.
I’m sure you are right. Beneficial defined by the corporation conducting the research. You never really know what research will be beneficial and in what way it will be beneficial until after it is conducted. Can you show me any research ever conducted by the free market that was not driven by the profit motive?
@Ansonidak
YouTube …
@Ansonidak
YouTube comments are too limited, so I’ll give you a gist. Free markets would guarantee only beneficial research is conducted. Should we care if water/simple life is on Titan? Probably not anytime soon. Is it cool to know? Absolutely! For scientists and enthusiasts.
It would maximize efficiency of research and resources. Most of all, it would remove the coercion of tax dollars spent on projects the gov’t is not authorized to conduct (10th amendment).
Awesome…
Awesome…
Our future depends …
Our future depends on exploring space. The earths resources are being used up making Sony radios, cell phones and big screen tvs for everyone. Just to make a few people rich. The earth isn’t going to last forever and there needs to be a lot more effort put into things like this than there is.
Got u JWSt and …
Got u JWSt and really u r awesome…But be on time to perform duties..
good luck!!!
)
@ …
@ pointCOUNTERpoint01 I know that and you know that but how often do corporations invest money in pure research that is not directed specifically at something that think will make a profit in the near future? So, I think my point remains valid. The free market isn’t going to fund something like this, or LHC.
@Ansonidak There is …
@Ansonidak There is profit in knowledge.
omg somebody strap …
omg somebody strap a rocket on my and blast me up there.
Why would the free …
Why would the free market do anything like this? there is no profit in it.
OMG! l’m so excited …
OMG! l’m so excited! l can’t wait to see what the JWST will bring to the world of science! Now l’m even more excited to get my degree (Physics) and get to work! The JWST will be an invaluable instrument to astronomy; but that doesn’t mean Hubble won’t be my first love. ^_^
I don’t get …
I don’t get libertarianism – could you message me saying why you think it would work?
You just don’t seem like a lot of the dumbasses I come across.
It’s tough being a …
It’s tough being a libertarian and a science enthusiast.
Can’t support stealing money from everyone to subsidize these programs, yet when I see them come together, it’s very exciting.
I’ll bet a free market could do even better
Even better, …
Even better, imagine if we KEPT the money stolen from us to pay for war and like this. I’d start my own science foundation!
it looks kind of …
it looks kind of like a star destroyer.
she has a cool voice
she has a cool voice
I think this …
I think this folding mirror could reduce costs for earth bound telescopes by mass production of smaller mirrors being fitted together to make a larger mirror.
I agree the launch …
I agree the launch costs would be the same…ASSUMING we used the shuttle. However, on an expendable, you don’t have to take 7 people and a 120,000 pound reusable cargo shroud (with built-in ariplane) with you. Also consider the economies of scale and technology improvements from launching a Hubble class mission every 5 years or so, not to mention any residual value left from the previous telescope.
Yup, you’re exactly …
Yup, you’re exactly right, and you should also know that it is a metastable point, like a ball at the top of a cone-shaped hill. If it starts to move off the point it will accelerate away from it. This means that it has to station-keep in order to stay here. However, it still uses less fuel there than it does in LEO.
I disagree with your last. The launches of a maint vs a new mission are roughly the same; so compare cost of maint mission (without launch) to new build. Won’t wash.
following the red …
following the red shift back to the earlier stars and galaxies. Sounds exciting!
Punchexx: if it was …
Punchexx: if it was further out than Earth and in a planetary orbit, it would take longer than one year to orbit the sun and would drift backwards relative to us. The special thing about the L2 point is that while it is MOSTLY orbiting the sun, it is also just barely orbiting the Earth…just enough to speed it up to make it take one year to travel around the sun despite the greater distance.
Also: We could’ve replaced Hubble many times over for the cost of the servicing missions.
Why does it have …
Why does it have severely warped and wavey mirrors in the renderings? I can get smoother mirrors at the home improvement store. Those things will be polished smooth to the sub-micron level.