OT: PSA: FINALLY It's a Go!! Christmas Morning at 7:20 AM the James Webb Space Telescope Is Set To Launch After a Decade of Delays

[RutgersRaRa]

It was going to go up yesterday but the weather didn't cooperate, so we get a Christmas launch. If all goes well--no explosions and the 300+ parts all open properly--the JWST will give us a view into the universe that we've never had before. Here's a link to NASA's site, and here's a link to the countdown clock.

It's gonna take a little while to reach its orbit at L2, one of IIRC five relatively static points where the equilibrium between the sun's gravity and earth's gravity causes it to essentially remain in one spot, with only minor occasional course corrections required to keep it there. The telescope will be constantly shielded from the sun by virtue of its position on the other side of the earth and moon relative to the sun, as well as its special shields. So many other nerd-like things to share, but this is awesome. Now it just has to work.

If we can get to a Gator Bowl at 5-7, the JWST should be in good shape. It's science.

EDIT UPDATE: Here's the NASA LINK regarding Webb's updated distance from earth and to L2.

 

[RUScrew85]

I wouldn't be surprised it doesn't make it all way to the Lagrange point and open fully and properly. This NASA ain't the NASA of the Apollo days.

 

[RutgersRaRa]

I wouldn't be surprised it doesn't make it all way to the Lagrange point and open fully and properly. This NASA ain't the NASA of the Apollo days.

It’s still got some smart (and nervous) folks, so we’ll see how it goes. I’m hopeful. Then again I’m a Rutgers fan and that’s how I roll. Later Gator!

 

[Scarlet Craig]

It was going to go up yesterday but the weather didn't cooperate, so we get a Christmas launch. If all goes well--no explosions and the 300+ parts all open properly--the JWST will give us a view into the universe that we've never had before. Here's a link to NASA's site, and here's a link to the countdown clock.

It's gonna take a little while to reach its orbit at L2, one of IIRC five relatively static points where the equilibrium between the sun's gravity and earth's gravity causes it to essentially remain in one spot, with only minor occaasionnaal course corrections required to keep it there. The telescope will be constantly shielded from the sun by virtue of its position on the other side of the earth from the sun, was well as the special shields. So many others nerd-like things to share, but this is awesome. Now it just has to work.

If we can get to a Gator Bowl at 5-7, the JWST should be in good shape. It's science.

Slight clarification…it will be on the other side of the moon from the sun at
Lagrange point L2 about 1.5 million miles away.

can’t wait to see what this thing can do!

 

[DanceAppreciationTA]

I wouldn't be surprised it doesn't make it all way to the Lagrange point and open fully and properly. This NASA ain't the NASA of the Apollo days.

The prime is Northrop, so still the same old contractors making these things ... it's just such a delicate telescope ... I'd be absolutely floored if it works.... FINGERS CROSSED!

I got to see it when it was undergoing TVAC testing at JSC ... here's a pic I took!

 

[RU848789]

Psyched and hope all goes well. Hopefully no unit conversion errors, like the one that killed the Mars probe a few decades ago. Having worked for 30 years in a mixed English/metric unit system and with very dangerous (explosive and toxic) chemicals in large volumes, such errors used to scare the crap out of me.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la...sense, the spacecraft was lost in translation.

 

[RUaMoose]

Bout time

 

[Source]

Just don't hit Santa on your way up.

 

[RutgersRaRa]

Slight clarification…it will be on the other side of the moon from the sun at
Lagrange point L2 about 1.5 million miles away.

can’t wait to see what this thing can do!

If it's essentially tracking on the opposite side of the moon, that would take it inside the earth-sun orbit (nearer the sun) and therefore outside L2, as well as burn unnecessary fuel, wouldn't it? My understanding was Webb would be in L2 opposite the earth so the earth's shadow blocked much of the heat, radiation and light from the sun. Since Webb will be a million miles from earth, not sure why it would track the moon given that the moon is 250k miles from us with a different orbit around the sun than L2. What am I missing here?

 

[RutgersRaRa]

Psyched and hope all goes well. Hopefully no unit conversion errors, like the one that killed the Mars probe a few decades ago. Having worked for 30 years in a mixed English/metric unit system and with very dangerous (explosive and toxic) chemicals in large volumes, such errors used to scare the crap out of me.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-oct-01-mn-17288-story.html#:~:text=NASA lost its $125-million,space agency officials said Thursday.&text=In a sense, the spacecraft was lost in translation.

The fuels for the Webb that enable it to correct itself and (I think) power the instruments once it's in orbit are so toxic that there were only three people qualified to handle it for this mission. There's something like 350 pounds of one type of fuel and 250 of another, and evidently one whiff of either kills you.

 

[drewbagel423]

If it's essentially tracking on the opposite side of the moon, that would take it inside the earth-sun orbit (nearer the sun) and therefore outside L2, as well as burn unnecessary fuel, wouldn't it? My understanding was Webb would be in L2 opposite the earth so the earth's shadow blocked much of the heat, radiation and light from the sun. Since Webb will be a million miles from earth, not sure why it would track the moon given that the moon is 250k miles from us with a different orbit around the sun than L2. What am I missing here?

Even though L2 is on the opposite side of the Earth from the sun, it will not be in eclipse. If you were to look at the sun from behind the Earth, JWST would appear to move around in a near circle as the two revolve around the sun. JWST still relies on solar power so it needs a view of the sun. It has a solar shield and all the sensitive instruments are pointing away from the sun, into deep space.

 

[RutgersRaRa]

The prime is Northrop, so still the same old contractors making these things ... it's just such a delicate telescope ... I'd be absolutely floored if it works.... FINGERS CROSSED!

I got to see it when it was undergoing TVAC testing at JSC ... here's a pic I took!

View embedded media

Leader in the clubhouse!! Spill the beans on how you got there....

 

[RutgersRaRa]

Even though L2 is on the opposite side of the sun from the Earth, it will not be in eclipse. If you were to look at the sun from behind the Earth, JWST would appear to move around in a circle as the two revolve around the sun. JWST still relies on solar power so it needs a view of the sun. It has a solar shield and all the sensitive instruments are pointing away from the sun, into deep space.

It sounds like L2 is affected partly by the moon's gravitational pull, thus "moving" the point out of earth's shadow. Not sure about the bending of spacetime and other related issues, but if L2 moves around a bit, outside of earth's shadow, it seems that would be the moon's contribution to L2's movement.

 

[RUScrew85]

The prime is Northrop, so still the same old contractors making these things ... it's just such a delicate telescope ... I'd be absolutely floored if it works.... FINGERS CROSSED!

I got to see it when it was undergoing TVAC testing at JSC ... here's a pic I took!

View embedded media

Sure same relationships with all the subs. The subs aren't the problem (well Boeing is) but NASA is making the decisions and NASA is corrupt and mostly incompetent at this point.

 

[RUScrew85]

The fuels for the Webb that enable it to correct itself and (I think) power the instruments once it's in orbit are so toxic that there were only three people qualified to handle it for this mission. There's something like 350 pounds of one type of fuel and 250 of another, and evidently one whiff of either kills you.

I'm going to guess it's regular old highly dangerous Hydrazine. I'm too lazy to look it up.

It's a hypergolic 2 part fuel that ignites on contact. And I'm still too lazy to look it up.

 

[DanceAppreciationTA]

Sure same relationships with all the subs. The subs aren't the problem (well Boeing is) but NASA is making the decisions and NASA is corrupt and mostly incompetent at this point.

I don't think you can blame NASA for that but rather blame our politicians. Democrats/Republicans, equal blame. Bush ends shuttle, Obama ends Cancellation, Trump pushes for 2024 Lunar Landing with no help with budget. And it's not even a party affiliation problem ... it's a problem of the system ... why do we have folks in Congress/White House with non-STEM degrees deciding how the architecture for lunar exploration and further should be set up.

The other problem is that NASA isn't allowed to think long term because every new administration has their own vision on what NASA should be doing. Imagine hitting the reset button every 4, 8 years. Now add on the fact that America's legacy/lobbying problem has infiltrated government contracts for decades ... cost plus contracts doomed America and we're oblivious to the fact that the defense industry continues to profit off of these cost plus contracts ... honestly, the figure is likely a trillion in waste due to these cost plus programs. There's your problem!

Thankfully, private industry/VCs have been able to bring in funding for all the different avenues to space exploration .... they changed the dynamic and now you see fixed price contracts over the past few years. I really hope this spills over to the defense industry ... unlikely -___-

 

[RutgersRaRa]

I'm going to guess it's regular old highly dangerous Hydrazine. I'm too lazy to look it up.

It's a hypergolic 2 part fuel that ignites on contact. And I'm still too lazy to look it up.

Hydrazine sounds familiar, based on a show I saw a couple of days ago on the loading of the scope onto the rocket. Of course they could have methylmethiolatecoughsyrupystuff and I might have remembered that as hydrazine.

 

[RUfromSoCal?]

on time and on budget, baby!!!!


on a more serious note.... are there any cameras on this thing to see it deploy/set-up or are we just going to depend on "telemetry"?

 

[RUScrew85]

I don't think you can blame NASA for that but rather blame our politicians. Democrats/Republicans, equal blame. Bush ends shuttle, Obama ends Cancellation, Trump pushes for 2024 Lunar Landing with no help with budget. And it's not even a party affiliation problem ... it's a problem of the system ... why do we have folks in Congress/White House with non-STEM degrees deciding how the architecture for lunar exploration and further should be set up.

The other problem is that NASA isn't allowed to think long term because every new administration has their own vision on what NASA should be doing. Imagine hitting the reset button every 4, 8 years. Now add on the fact that America's legacy/lobbying problem has infiltrated government contracts for decades ... cost plus contracts doomed America and we're oblivious to the fact that the defense industry continues to profit off of these cost plus contracts ... honestly, the figure is likely a trillion in waste due to these cost plus programs. There's your problem!

Thankfully, private industry/VCs have been able to bring in funding for all the different avenues to space exploration .... they changed the dynamic and now you see fixed price contracts over the past few years. I really hope this spills over to the defense industry ... unlikely -___-

I understand your points and they are valid but they don't absolve NASA from the disaster that was the Shuttle they designed it and it never achieved what was promised AND they mismanaged themselves into blowing 2 up, the disaster that was Constellation - Billions for nothing and the current $20B(?) waste that is Aretemis (SP) - 10 years and billions for something SpaceX will be launching by the bushel in the next two years - At like 2% the price per launch.

Don't get me wrong - I'm a amateur astronomer, I've done some deep space long exposure astrophotography. I've got three friggin telescopes. I'd love to see a bigger and better Hubble out there. I just think it's level of complexity and parking it in an orbit that won't facilitate service is setting the table for failure. Like I said this NASA ain't the Apollo NASA.

Theses guys should be writing checks to JPL to build probes and financing their launches with SpaceX. And MAYBE setting national space exploration goals working with Congress. Let the private market build the rockets - they've built a bunch while NASA has been burning billions on nothing.

 

[RUScrew85]

Hydrazine sounds familiar, based on a show I saw a couple of days ago on the loading of the scope onto the rocket. Of course they could have methylmethiolatecoughsyrupystuff and I might have remembered that as hydrazine.

I'm sure it's something like if you said it has two parts. Almost certainly hypergolic to ensure there is minimal chance of failure of these kinds of rocket motors/thrusters.

But like I said I'm mostly guessing based on what's happened in the past.

 

[RUfromSoCal?]

I understand your points and they are valid but they don't absolve NASA from the disaster that was the Shuttle they designed it and it never achieved what was promised AND they mismanaged themselves into blowing 2 up, the disaster that was Constellation - Billions for nothing and the current $20B(?) waste that is Aretemis (SP) - 10 years and billions for something SpaceX will be launching by the bushel in the next two years - At like 2% the price per launch.

Don't get me wrong - I'm a amateur astronomer, I've done some deep space long exposure astrophotography. I've got three friggin telescopes. I'd love to see a bigger and better Hubble out there. I just think it's level of complexity and parking it in an orbit that won't facilitate service is setting the table for failure. Like I said this NASA ain't the Apollo NASA.

all very true......

but, a LOT of the early Shuttle design was driven by the Air Force/black programs - and expectations of a West Coast launch Center and cheap on-orbit spy/communication satellites and then, they backed-out too late in the design phase to re-task/design a smaller/less expensive overall design.

of course, some smart person(s) should have pointed out the total fallacy and dangers of this early on....

 

[Zimm80]

My friends could you please recommend a decent telescope , in the near future I’ll be living at my farm 4353 ft above sea level in an area away from the city lights which I hope will help as I look into the night sky, any suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

 

[RUScrew85]

on time and on budget, baby!!!!


on a more serious note.... are there any cameras on this thing to see it deploy/set-up or are we just going to depend on "telemetry"?

Good question. Cheap on board camera would be smart to see how things are progressing or help debug problems. That makes me think NASA has not included them.

God I miss the 60s and 70s. LOL

 

[drewbagel423]

Hydrazine sounds familiar, based on a show I saw a couple of days ago on the loading of the scope onto the rocket. Of course they could have methylmethiolatecoughsyrupystuff and I might have remembered that as hydrazine.

I'm sure it's something like if you said it has two parts. Almost certainly hypergolic to ensure there is minimal chance of failure of these kinds of rocket motors/thrusters.

But like I said I'm mostly guessing based on what's happened in the past.

Hydrazine and dinotrogen tetroxide as the oxidizer.

 

[RUScrew85]

My friends could you please recommend a decent telescope , in the near future I’ll be living at my farm 4353 ft above sea level in an area away from the city lights which I hope will help as I look into the night sky, any suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

That's a long answer.

First thing: Buy the book Backyard Astronomer's Guide - it explains the basics.

Book

Can't get that to hotlink

see also for sales and more info https://www.astronomics.com/

Some basics. What do you expect to see? Planets and moons are cool and in color. Nothing else in the sky other than stars will have color. Most will be invisible unless long exposure photography is used. Stars are just points of colored light just like with a naked eye - there's just more available to see. You can and should spend some nights out with a pair of binoculars first (10X30 are a great choice). This will let you cheaply find out if sitting outside in the cold sucks.

If you see a nebula or galaxy it will be grey and fuzzy like a dim semi transparent cotton ball. It's disappointing and what drove me to astro-photog. I spent the money and damnit I wanted to see some real images. Long exposures enable you to bring out details and some color in your image.


Just to set your expectations.

Cheap boxed scopes from regular stores are basically useless.

Suggest you look at a Computerized Goto scope in the $300-500 range like maybe a 2-2.5" refractor Goto

https://www.telescope.com/Orion/Telescopes/GoTo-Computerized-Telescopes/rc/2160/pc/1/15.uts

Celestron makes Goto scopes too but don't seem to be on that site.

I spent a LOT of money here: https://www.astronomics.com/

You will also require three-ish eyepieces but you might get some real cheapo starters with the scope depending on what you buy.

The web site https://www.cloudynights.com/ is basically the Knight Report of astronomy. You can browse there for info, ask questions, learn.

You are taking the first step - should you get hooked - in a very expensive hobby. Be careful LOL.

And seriously get binocs and sit outside and get the book. That will get you ready to see if you want to start dumping real money into this. And if you get anywhere near serious it's gonna cost.

One final very important thing and I'm not kidding.

NEVER LOOK AT THE SUN WITH BINOCS OR ANY KIND OF TELESCOPE AND DON'T LEAVE THEM AROUND WHERE A CHILD OR DUMMY CAN MAKE THAT MISTAKE. YOU WILL NOT FEEL PAIN YOU WILL INSTANTLY BECOME B L I N D.

Seriously.

 

[RUScrew85]

Hydrazine and dinotrogen tetroxide as the oxidizer.

Yeah that was the second part.

 

[Zimm80]

That's a long answer.

First thing: Buy the book Backyard Astronomer's Guide - it explains the basics.

Book

Can't get that to hotlink

see also for sales and more info https://www.astronomics.com/

Some basics. What do you expect to see? Planets and moons are cool and in color. Nothing else in the sky other than stars will have color. Most will be invisible unless long exposure photography is used. Stars are just points of colored light just like with a naked eye - there's just more available to see. You can and should spend some nights out with a pair of binoculars first (10X30 are a great choice). This will let you cheaply find out if sitting outside in the cold sucks.

If you see a nebula or galaxy it will be grey and fuzzy like a dim semi transparent cotton ball. It's disappointing and what drove me to astro-photog. I spent the money and dmanit I wanted to see wome real images. Long exposures enable you to bring out details and some color in your image.

Just to set your expectations.

Cheap boxed scopes from regular stores are basically useless.

Suggest you look at a Computerized Goto scope in the $300-500 range like

https://www.telescope.com/Orion/Telescopes/GoTo-Computerized-Telescopes/rc/2160/pc/1/15.uts

Celestron makes Goto scopes too but don't seem to be on that site.

I spent a LOT of money here: https://www.astronomics.com/

You will also require three-ish eyepieces but you might get some real cheapo starters with the scope depending on what you buy.

The web site https://www.cloudynights.com/ is basically the Knight Report of astronomy. You can browse there for info, ask questions, learn.

You are taking the first step - should you get hooked - in a very expensive hobby. Be careful LOL.

And seriously get binocs and sit outside and get the book. That will get you ready to see if you want to start dumping real money into this. And if you get anywhere near serious it's gonna cost.

One final very important thing and I'm not kidding.

NEVER LOOK AT THE SUN WITH BINOCS OR ANY KIND OF TELESCOPE AND DON'T LEAVE THEM AROUND WHERE A CHILD OR DUMMY CAN MAKE THAT MISTAKE. YOU WILL NOT FEEL PAIN YOU WILL INSTANTLY BECOME B L I N D.

Seriously.

Thank you greatly for all the information, I’ll be in a warmer climate in the mountains of Colombia / coffee region , so weather won’t be a problem , the house will have a terrace where I plan on searching the night sky , I find anything having to do with space fascinating, let’s put it this way I’ve been looking up into the skies since I was a kid.

 

[iReC89]

Thanks for the heads up! Really looking forward to what the Webb finds.

 

[RU848789]

Hydrazine and dinotrogen tetroxide as the oxidizer.

Yeah, was curious, so I looked it up. I've worked with both, moreso hydrazine, as it's a favorite of some organic chemists for forming heterocyclic nitrogen-containing rings, like pyrazoles on target molecules. We only ever used the somewhat safer hydrazine-hydrate solution, but even that is still pretty dangerous in chemical reactors, as the basis of safety is usually that keeping all of the organic molecules/solvents under nitrogen is enough to prevent potential fires, since one needs an oxidant usually, like the oxygen in the air (and an ignition source, which can often come from static) - however, hydrazine can still "oxidize" other organic compounds without oxygen present, leading to fire, if the conditions/concentrations are right, so we had to have careful control of those systems. I've known a few people who worked in the rocket fuel world and they're just nuts, lol - they used to joke that things are much safer these days as people aren't dying anymore, just losing the occasional finger.

https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/2021/12/06/nasas-james-webb-space-telescope-fully-fueled-for-launch/

 

[RutgersRaRa]

My friends could you please recommend a decent telescope , in the near future I’ll be living at my farm 4353 ft above sea level in an area away from the city lights which I hope will help as I look into the night sky, any suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

I’ll chime in to add a couple of thoughts even after @RUScrew85’s info. For capability and cost it’s tough to beat a Celestron 8 with an equatorial mount, which counters the earth’s rotation in order to keep objects in the scope’s field of view. The tracking software is incredible nowadays—you type in the object or its coordinates, which are supplied in a book or the software it comes with, and it finds the object for you. It comes in around $1500 with some bells and whistles and gives you options should you get really into it, such as astrophotography. But the images you’ll see with a C8 (“8” refers to the size of the mirror, which is 8”) are shocking, especially for the first time.

Get a Mylar filter so you can look at the sun and see sunspots, among other solar things. The filter is cheap and so worth it. And heed the cautions @RUScrew85 gave you. Never even come close to looking at the sun without a filter. Otherwise the C8 or other scopes are a blast.

 

[RutgersRaRa]

On its way! Two minutes to final engine separation now.

 

[RutgersRaRa]

The solar panels deployed and Webb has power, and now we wait to see if all the other parts deploy as planned.
Merry Christmas!

 

[RutgersRaRa]

Traveling about 3 miles/second on its way to L2, which will take about a month. Here's the real-time NASA LINK to where it's at relative to earth and L2.

 

[RutgersRaRa]

It's been gradually slowing down and is now traveling at 2.5 miles/second. Not sure which primary gravitational forces are acting upon it to slow it down, but it's still moving along at a nice clip. I suppose it would have to slow down in order for it to not blow through the L2 place it's gonna occupy.

 

[RUScrew85]

Thank you greatly for all the information, I’ll be in a warmer climate in the mountains of Colombia / coffee region , so weather won’t be a problem , the house will have a terrace where I plan on searching the night sky , I find anything having to do with space fascinating, let’s put it this way I’ve been looking up into the skies since I was a kid.

I was too. Finally got my first scope at like 45.

Good luck and enjoy.

 

[RUScrew85]

The solar panels deployed and Webb has power, and now we wait to see if all the other parts deploy as planned.
Merry Christmas!

Coolio!

 

[29PAS]

Traveling about 3 miles/second on its way to L2, which will take about a month. Here's the real-time NASA LINK to where it's at relative to earth and L2.

Thanks for the link - very cool.

 

[nutfromSEC117]

Almost 10% of way there

 

[RutgersRaRa]

Almost 10% of way there

Distance-wise, yes, time-wise, no. It's speed has slowed considerably, from around 7 miles/second shortly after launch to 1.3 miles.second as of the time of this post. It's gonna take a month to get to L2.

Here's a link to get ongoing distance and speed info: NASA LINK

 

[RUScrew85]

Distance-wise, yes, time-wise, no. It's speed has slowed considerably, from around 7 miles/second shortly after launch to 1.3 miles.second as of the time of this post. It's gonna take a month to get to L2.

Here's a link to get ongoing distance and speed info: NASA LINK

Deep gravity well it's coasting out of?