8 ms·
Could you elaborate on the complexity, comparing it to other complex science projects that succeeded? I'm a layman, curious if this is actually riskier than wha
by d33 7y ago
Could you elaborate on the complexity, comparing it to other complex science projects that succeeded? I'm a layman, curious if this is actually riskier than what humanity has done so far.
- robotixonic 7y agoI'm a layman too, and just watched this https://youtu.be/bTxLAGchWnA https://youtu.be/bTxLAGchWnA to better understand the complexity.
- enceladus_ice 7y agoI think a big amount of the complexity comes from the folded up sunshield. I remember it had torn during a test deployment last year. Here is a quick animation showing the whole deployment process: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpVz3UrSsE4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpVz3UrSsE4
- nullwasamistake 7y agoIf it tears bad it's technically possible to send up a shield that floats near the telescope. There were some plans for that way back during the design phase if I remember right. Still wouldn't be cheap or easy
- mikepurvis 7y agoIt looks from the renders like the telescope has solar panels, antennas, etc on the sun/earth-side of the shield. Wouldn't sending a standalone shield screw that up as it would shade them?
- nullwasamistake 7y agoProbably, although you could shape the shield not to. It's still far more complex than just attaching the thing right to the telescope. And glancing starlight leaking in between the shield and the telescope could be a big problem. I looked it up, the original proposal was actually to use a mobile shield to occlude far away stars for direct planet imaging. I think a similar approach could "fix" JWT but let's hope we never get there
- bumby 7y agoFor one, I think it has an astronomically (ha) high number of single-points-of-failure. A quick Google search reported 344.
- mikepurvis 7y agoOne imagines that for every single point of failure they've got some kind of plan for how to still derive scientific value while operating it in a degraded state, similar to how Hubble was able to take pictures before service mission 1 and COSTAR.
- FrojoS 7y agoThis video explains it very well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8yRDrl76d0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8yRDrl76d0 Half way through the video, I understood why it's so expensive and risky. On the other hand, Apollo 11 had many 'firsts' that couldn't be tested before the actual mission and it worked out 'first shot'. Of course there were some problems and Apollo 13 showed that the odd's where not too good.
- eafkuor 7y agoWow, this video is mindblowing.
- NikolaeVarius 7y agoHuge difference is that Apollo had highly trained human beings on board to fix things that could not be planned for. There were also 10 previous missions to Apollo 11 to work out the kinks, with one failing with loss of life. JW is not designed to be fixed or fail, nor are there training runs. It HAS to work first shot.
- petschge 7y agoRegarding the 10 missions before Apollo 11: It's a little more complicated. Apollo 1 is the name that was given to honor the astronauts who died in the pad accident. Apollo 2 and 3 didn't exists. But a whole bunch of other tests did exist testing Saturn 5 before we got to the unmanned Apollo 4, 5 and 6 tests. And starting with Apollo 7 humans were included. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apollo_missions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apollo_missions for details.
- NikolaeVarius 7y agoI probably should have known this. I've read alot on Apollo, but never really internalized some of these facts.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]