Webb Launch Delayed Again
Keith’s note: At a ASEB virtual meeting today SMD AA Thomas Zurbuchen announced that Webb will not be launch in March 2021 saying “That is not in the cards right now.” Delays due to COVID-19 resulted in single shifts of work instead of the planned double shifts. No new launch date has been offered but Zurbuchen was optimistic that a launch in 2021 is still possible.
Why is this magnificent device named for a NASA administrator?
No, it’s not a snarky question, nor intentionally impertinent or confrontational- at least, it’s not my intent. It’s curiosity. NASA took lofty, and appropriate, names for the previous Great Observatories: Galileo, etc. In fact, NASA names, even the ones offered by school kids, have been nothing short of – well, inspirational: Voyager. Mariner. Pioneer. Cassini/ Huygens. The list goes on. All stellar, all recognizing scientists who changed the direction of human understanding.
Of course I’m aware of Administrator Webb’s contributions.
But I’m not aware of any discussion about the name, and that’s the root of my question? Anyone have direct knowledge? Was there ever any push back, or disagreement, when NGST became the James Webb Space Telescope?
I also don’t know why they decided to name NGST for James Webb. I have noted that it’s odd, as you have just noted. Past telescopes have been named for famous astronomers or (for ground-based telescopes) for the people or organizations who funded them. It’s also ironic that JWST is named for someone many consider the best manager NASA every had, but it’s also criticized as being infamously the worst managed project NASA has every had. (On the other hand, I also don’t like Solar Probe Plus being names for Gene Parker; in that case it’s an objection to the precedent and the idea of naming things for living people. And definitely not anything against Dr. Parker.)
Thanks. I wasn’t even thinking about associating the name with a (perhaps) boondoggle.
I was fishing, though, hoping that one or two of the lurkers who popup from time to time had the requisite history.
Wikipedia provides some discussion of the project complexity, noting “Early development work for a Hubble successor between 1989 and 1994 led to the Hi-Z telescope concept”, and continues:
Dr. Goldin served NASA 4/1992 to 11/2001, followed by Sean O’Keefe 12/2001 – 12/2004. The Webb name was announced in 2002; when it was chosen, the process, and the thinking background are what I’m after.
Among those with possibly first hand knowledge would be Lori Garver, then serving in senior positions, again according to Wikipedia:
“…[Ms. Garver] worked at NASA from 1996–2001, first as a special assistant to the NASA administrator and senior policy analyst for the Office of Policy and Plans, and then as the Associate Administrator for the Office of Policy and Plans.”
As I recall personally, around 2000 to 2002 or so Ms. Garver was continuing her interest in commercial space, perhaps far from those naming the scope. (I also recall being strongly opposed to her views on commercial activities, as much as I could learn about them. Was I ever wrong!)
That’s what I’ve pulled together so far, but will keep digging. Has to be an interesting story.
The statement by NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe at the time:
“It is fitting that Hubble’s successor be named in honor of James Webb,”
“Thanks to his efforts, we got our first glimpses at the dramatic landscape of outer space. He took our nation on its first voyages of exploration, turning our imagination into reality. Indeed, he laid the foundations at NASA for one of the most successful periods of astronomical discovery. As a result, we’re rewriting the textbooks today with the help of the Hubble Space Telescope, the Chandra X-ray Observatory, and the James Webb Telescope.”
It’s a start, noting that the Administrator was on board; and without noting the incongruity of one name as he listed others.
I imagine there is some sort of process for naming. Perhaps I am wrong.
Here is the closest to an official rationale I could find:
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/c…
Thanks for both of your replies. I knew about the link, which appears at least to me to be somewhat after the fact. The curious part: Webb was named after Chandra, Cassini-Huygens, after Hubble, after Galileo.
It’s a head scratcher.
Yes, Administrator Webb who worked so hard to make NASA a well run agency, would likely be ashamed to have his name associated with such a boondoggle of constant cost overruns and delays.
Assuming that it is successfully deployed and makes the great discoveries that we are expecting, I think most of this will be largely forgotten. Not that it should be forgotten, but realistically only if it fails will there be a huge outcry, if it succeeds then I think all of the problems will become just a footnote like it was with Hubble.
Given the JWST’s gold coated mirror segments, I propose that the NGST unofficially be referred to at the “Tyco Brahe Next Generation Space Telescope” in reference to Brahe’s fabled gold prosthetic nose. 🙂
Not a great investment from a value perspective.
NASA’s best value investment of the last 15 years? SpaceX.
If this bird meets expectations – and without Hubble’s initial heartache – I predict the eventual cost and delays will fade to footnotes.
I’m hoping, though, that the lessons become institutionalized.
didn’t have you pegged as an optimist !
What’s a ten year slip among friends.
This is probably in the top three worst major NASA project ever. Let’s just consider all the programs it killed through its sheer existence as the Beast that ate NASA Space Science. Nevermind that if it made any of its earlier launch dates, except for the “far future” one of 2018, it would have run out of fuel or very nearly so by now.
The payoff from this will never be worth it. And the jokers thinking of leveraging its dead end technology for LUVOIR are smoking something real good.
How old is this thing at this point? They were polishing mirrors when we were arguing about DIRECT vs Constellation. SpaceX basically built itself as a company in the time it took this telescope to get put together.
Part of me thinks the only suitable end of this program is for its sunshield to fail to deploy and rendering it space junk, thus teaching America a big lesson about too big to fail space imbroglios. Irony is of course, WFIRST is probably going to be the more scientifically interesting program, at one third the price.
At this point, they might as well rename it the “Whatever Space Telescope”.
The most difficult part of my job is design development. And that’s in a field with few secrets. NASA contracted based on performance specifications (I think this is true?); to provide a scope meeting the specifications required a hell of a lot of original research and invention.
Aside from a stunning instrument, let’s imagine that NASA has learned and will fashion contracts a bit differently; separating construction and design is a start, a fact learned aeons ago in my world. Nothing is built or fabricated until it lives on paper or silicon. And with the software available today this isn’t asking too much; a new jetliner made from composites showed the way.
I’m at the edge of my own knowledge here: I do know and have observed software packages that fully express every moving part of a proposed device. Eric Berger mentions the difficulty of testing each component fully in space conditions.