4 ms·

I mean, the giddy idiot in me just gets excited about the urgent need for a human L2 mission to fix it.

lostmyoldone 7y ago
Likewise. My train of thought goes like "So what if it fails? There's a lot of money sunk into that! Well, maybe someone would actually decide it's worth going to the L2 to fix it, wouldn't that be cool!!" So yeah, not the only idiot...
- GlenTheMachine 7y ago
  We would probably do this robotically.
  - ethbro 7y ago
    "What do we do when the robotic satellite fails?" "Send another robot!"
    - GlenTheMachine 7y ago
      https://sspd.gsfc.nasa.gov/restore-L.html https://sspd.gsfc.nasa.gov/restore-L.html also https://www.darpa.mil/program/robotic-servicing-of-geosynchronous-satellites https://www.darpa.mil/program/robotic-servicing-of-geosynchr...
      - jvanderbot 7y ago
        Thank you. I was hoping to post these!
    - Buttons840 7y ago
      "What do we do when the L2 point is filled with broken robots?" Could that happen?
      - GlenTheMachine 7y ago
        Unclear. L2 is an unstable Lagrange point, so the robots wouldn't just stay put. But that doesn't mean they would leave, either, necessarily. They could end up in funky Lissajous orbits and go flying through L2 regularly. The orbital mechanics around Lagrange points are weird.
- mikeash 7y ago
  If SpaceX’s Starship/Super Heavy (née BFR) actually pans out, it should be able to easily perform this mission.
  - bdamm 7y ago
    With the irony being that if BFR pans out, this mission could have ended up being launched on it and eliminate a pile of complexity in the process. The mirrors wouldn't have to be hinged, for example.
    - jvanderbot 7y ago
      Imagine going back to 1984, and telling the Hubble successor team "Just wait for a future heavy commercial space launch before planning any larger telescopes". Or to 1997, and telling Goddard "Your specs will require technological development that we feel should be halted until a commercial spaceflight program develops. We're pretty sure next year someone will found a e-commerce business that will make him a billionaire, and he'll sort it all out." Or to 2002, when tech internet tech was booming and paypal was going IPO, to tell TRW that the $824 million they just acquired should be put on a shelf until about 20 years later. Or to 2005, 12 years before BFR was announced, when it appeared cost growth was a factor (not at all related to northrup aquisitions). Again, 2010 it passed review, 7 years before announcement. Is it really irony or somehow a waste? I don't think so. (Full disclosure: I'm working on alternative tech to deoployables for large-aperture telescopes, but I greatly appreciate their efforts on JWST, given what we had over the last 20 years).
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Likewise. My train of thought goes like "So what if it fails? There's a lot of money sunk into that! Well, maybe someone would actually decide it's worth going to the L2 to fix it, wouldn't that be cool!!" So yeah, not the only idiot...

GlenTheMachine 7y ago
We would probably do this robotically.
- ethbro 7y ago
  "What do we do when the robotic satellite fails?" "Send another robot!"
  - GlenTheMachine 7y ago
    https://sspd.gsfc.nasa.gov/restore-L.html https://sspd.gsfc.nasa.gov/restore-L.html also https://www.darpa.mil/program/robotic-servicing-of-geosynchronous-satellites https://www.darpa.mil/program/robotic-servicing-of-geosynchr...
    - jvanderbot 7y ago
      Thank you. I was hoping to post these!
  - Buttons840 7y ago
    "What do we do when the L2 point is filled with broken robots?" Could that happen?
    - GlenTheMachine 7y ago
      Unclear. L2 is an unstable Lagrange point, so the robots wouldn't just stay put. But that doesn't mean they would leave, either, necessarily. They could end up in funky Lissajous orbits and go flying through L2 regularly. The orbital mechanics around Lagrange points are weird.
mikeash 7y ago
If SpaceX’s Starship/Super Heavy (née BFR) actually pans out, it should be able to easily perform this mission.
- bdamm 7y ago
  With the irony being that if BFR pans out, this mission could have ended up being launched on it and eliminate a pile of complexity in the process. The mirrors wouldn't have to be hinged, for example.
  - jvanderbot 7y ago
    Imagine going back to 1984, and telling the Hubble successor team "Just wait for a future heavy commercial space launch before planning any larger telescopes". Or to 1997, and telling Goddard "Your specs will require technological development that we feel should be halted until a commercial spaceflight program develops. We're pretty sure next year someone will found a e-commerce business that will make him a billionaire, and he'll sort it all out." Or to 2002, when tech internet tech was booming and paypal was going IPO, to tell TRW that the $824 million they just acquired should be put on a shelf until about 20 years later. Or to 2005, 12 years before BFR was announced, when it appeared cost growth was a factor (not at all related to northrup aquisitions). Again, 2010 it passed review, 7 years before announcement. Is it really irony or somehow a waste? I don't think so. (Full disclosure: I'm working on alternative tech to deoployables for large-aperture telescopes, but I greatly appreciate their efforts on JWST, given what we had over the last 20 years).

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]