Galaxy Zoo was started in July of 2007. NSS Phoenix first posted about Galaxy Zoo in June of 2008.

Hundreds of thousands of human eyeballs have yielded research results. One of the most recent peer-reviewed publications Galaxy Zoo Green Peas: Discovery of A Class of Compact Extremely Star-Forming Galaxies was published 7 September 2009 in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.), and the Abstract was published on the Galaxy Zoo Forum. The Abstract begins: “We investigate a class of rapidly growing emission line galaxies, known as “Green Peas,” first noted by volunteers in the Galaxy Zoo project because of their peculiar bright green colour and small size, unresolved in SDSS imaging.”

The newest project is the dynamics of Galaxy Mergers. Once you register and login, you are presented with the Current Target of merging galaxies.Your task is to watch sample mergers played out dynamically and select one if it appears similar to the target. As the website makes clear: This one takes a lot of patience. However, if you look at enough states, eventually you will get solutions that are close. So click on “Take Me There” and get started.

Credit: Galaxy Zoo (Creative Commons License).

Credit: Galaxy Zoo (Creative Commons License).

In the center of the screen is your target merger. When you click on “More”, eight new simulations will be run, one at a time in each box. The “Animate” check box in the upper right shows the actual collision, rather than just the end result. If none of the collisions look like the target, then skip them and click on “More” again. If you find a collision that resembles the target, click on the simulation and it will be added to the “Selected Sims” panel on the right. Remember, not selecting a simulation is just as important as selecting one. It lets the Galaxy Zoo researchers know that a particular set of conditions will not produce the target merger. Once you have found a candidate, you can refine the simulation. Click on the “Enhance” tab.

To the left is an image of the Enhance screen for mergers. First, select the simulation from the right hand panel (double click). Then, you can “Add More Stars” and watch the simulation at greater detailNow the fun begins. You can adjust the orientation of the simulation by click and hold on the image and drag. Although the target merger can only be seen from the orientation shown, the sim can be rotated in three dimensions. There are a lot of variables to play with: Mass, Velocity, Depth, Size, Angles 1 and Angles 2. You can flip the galaxies. For a detailed description of these variables, see the instructions. Once you have the collision as close as possible, click on “Save Sim”. Adjustments are tricky and even slight variations in a variable can produce wildly divergent results.

Credit: Galaxy Zoo (Creative Commons License).

Happy Mergers.

The Space Shuttle Atlantis Landed at Kennedy Space Center at 9:44 AM EST as Scheduled. Enjoy the eye candy.

Atlantis on Approach to Kennedy	Image Credits: NASA TV
Lined up and Straight	Atlantis View from the Cockpit. Headsup Display
Landing – Looking for that 15,000 Foot Runway	Flare over the Runway
Touchdown	Chute
Slowing	Atlantis Stopped – With Eagle

Rather than buying space books, we suggest our chapter members and friends give an NSS MEMBERSHIP as a holiday gifts instead. In fact, give three:

• One regular “Adult” for a good friend
• One “Student” for your child or grandchild
• One “Senior Citizen” for a friend who remembers watching the Apollo lunar landings

Besides being a relatively low-cost gift that keeps on giving for an entire year (or at least every other month) to the lucky recipient(s), you’ll help expand the Phoenix chapter as well as the NSS as a whole.

Be sure to check the appropriate box with our chapter registration number (Phoenix = 504)

“Ad Astra”

A Russian Proton / Breeze M launch vehicle lifted off from Baikonur at 7:19 AM Phoenix time 24 November. 9 hours and 12 minutes later, the Breeze M released the Eutelsat W7 communications satellite in a Geo Stationary Orbit. International Launch Services (ILS) was responsible for the mission. The 5,627 kg W7 satellite was built by Thales Alenia Space and has a 15 year life expectancy.

Ignition. Credit: www.zenite.nu

Liftoff. Credit: www.zenite.nu

“The Augustine Commission for Dummies”

(Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4. Part 5. Wrap Up.)

Given the intent of the politicians to fight for the funding their districts currently receive from the Constellation Program (CxP – the current program developing the Ares I and Ares V rockets) as well as go begging for more, and given the budget constraints the NASA faces, it is instructive to see where this course will end up. In the Senate, Richard Shelby has announced his intention to fight for Constellation and will try to increase funding to the Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama. Senator Bill Nelson of Florida is fighting for Kennedy Space Center and all the jobs and funding there. In the House, Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona and Pete Olson of Texas have dug in their heels and reiterated their backing of the Constellation program (See Space News, 21 November 2009).

All this is taking place against the backdrop of the Augustine Commission’s Final Report, which has made it clear that Ares I is over budget and underpowered. As Jeff Greason said at the Committee deliberations, if Santa Clause gave us Ares I and Ares V tomorrow, we would have to scrap them immediately because they would be too expensive to operate.

The Forum at NasaSpaceFlight has been for many years the authoritative site for information on all things NASA. It has been home to the rebel alliance of NASA and industry engineers that have advocated the in-line shuttle derived launch vehicle for the past four years.

The source of this concern was former Administrator Michael Griffin’s decision in 2005 to replace the dual-launch, in-line shuttle derived architecture recommended by NASA engineers, with his personal choice of a small Ares I and a very large Ares V. Instead of building one rocket using existing shuttle components as Congress had directed, he would build two brand new rockets. This decision came just two weeks before the scheduled release of the NASA document on the Constellation program.

Now, four years later in 2009, when the in-line shuttle derived launch vehicle should have been making its first flight, we are five or six years away from Ares I making its first flight. The Shuttle is scheduled for retirement next year and America will have to buy seats on the Russian Soyuz to get to the International Space Station. And the International Space Station is scheduled for de-commissioning in 2015 and would be de-orbited into the Pacific Ocean.

This reality gave birth to the Augustine Commission and its Final Report. We have covered in detail the findings of the Committee. Now we look to consider the possible outcomes.

Philip Metschan (writing as ‘Phoegh’), a long time contributor to the Forum at NasaSpaceFlight, has produced a marvelous interactive series of graphics available at directlauncher.com that illustrate the options identified by the Augustine Commission.

The Budget and Time Line for these options are given in the following table. Included are destinations beyond low Earth orbit (LEO) and the impact of each option on the existing workforce.

We can draw the following conclusions, which are illustrated in the Graphics mentioned earlier and shown below. We start with Option 1, the Program of Record (POR – Constellation) and the funding level provided in FY 2010:

• Option 1 – Ares I crew vehicle is ready a year after the ISS is de-orbited (2015) and Ares V is completed in 2028 with no funds to conduct exploration. There is no Moon in the picture.
• Option 2 – Scrap Ares I and substitute Commercial Crew Access to LEO. The money saved is used to keep the ISS operating until 2020. Ares V is completed in 2028 with no funds to conduct exploration. There is no Moon in the picture.
• Option 3 – Add $3 Billion per year to the existing program. Ares I crew vehicle is ready a year after the ISS is de-orbited (2015) and Ares V is completed in 2019. The Moon is reached in 2025, but no other destinations beyond LEO can be funded.
• Option 4 – Add $3 Billion per year to the existing program. Scrap Ares I and substitute Commercial Crew Access to LEO. The money saved is used to keep the ISS operating until 2020. Ares V is completed in 2023. The Moon is reached in 2030, but no other destinations beyond LEO can be funded.
• Option 4B – Add $3 Billion per year to the existing program. Extend the Shuttle to 2015. Scrap Ares I and substitute Commercial Crew Access to LEO. The money saved is used to keep the ISS operating until 2020. Ares V is completed in 2023. Develop the Propellant Depot by 2026. The Moon is reached in 2030.
• Option 5A – Add $3 Billion per year to the existing program. Scrap Ares I and substitute Commercial Crew Access to LEO. The money saved is used to keep the ISS operating until 2020. Scrap Ares V in favor of a smaller Ares V Lite, which is completed in 2023. Visit EML-1 or EML-2 in 2026. Visit a Near Earth Object (NEO) Sometime in the Future.
• Option 5B – Add $3 Billion per year to the existing program. Scrap Ares I and substitute Commercial Crew Access to LEO. The money saved is used to keep the ISS operating until 2020. Scrap Ares V in favor of a commercial heavy launch capability, which is completed in 2021. Develop the Propellant Depot by 2024. Visit a Near Earth Object (NEO) in 2026 and Phobos in 2028. Return to the Moon in 2029.
• Option 5C – Add $3 Billion per year to the existing program. Scrap Ares I and substitute Commercial Crew Access to LEO. The money saved is used to keep the ISS operating until 2020. Scrap Ares V in favor of a the Direct Team’s Jupiter 241, which is completed in 2022. Visit EML-1 or EML-2 in 2023. Develop the Propellant Depot by 2024. Visit a Near Earth Object (NEO) in 2027 and Phobos in 2029. Return to the Moon in 2030.

Those are the options explored by the Augustine Commission in their Final Report.

Notice, however, that there is one more slide, Option 5D. This is the architecture that was presented to the Augustine Commission during their first public session on 17 June 2009 by the Direct Team. It provides for:

• Add $1 Billion per year to the existing program.
• Extend Shuttle until 2012.
• Scrap Ares I and develop the Jupiter Core (Jupiter 130) for carrying crew on Orion to LEO and ISS by 2014.
• Develop Commercial Crew Access to LEO to replace the Jupiter 130 by 2015. Use Jupiter 130 for ferrying the few large payloads needed by ISS.
• Continue ISS operations until 2020.
• Scrap Ares V in favor of the Upper Stage for the Jupiter Core (Jupiter 241 or Jupiter 246), which is completed in 2017.
• Visit EML-1 or EML-2 in 2018.
• Orbit the Moon in 2019.
• Visit a Near Earth Object (NEO) in 2022.
• Visit Phobos in 2025.
• Develop the Propellant Depot by 2028.

The key here is that the goal of expansion of human civilization into the Solar System is better served, is accomplished sooner, and costs less. Indeed, even without the additional $1 Billion per year, only the extension of the Shuttle operation need be eliminated.

Final Conclusions

• Options 1, 2 and 3, which are favored by the politicians with space flight facilities, get us nowhere and cost far too much.
• Options 4 and 4B get us to the Moon, but neither builds infrastructure for support of future exploration.
• Options 5A, 5B and 5C builds the skills and infrastructure for space exploration, but leave us a crew to LEO gap of five to six years.
• Option 5D builds the skills and infrastructure for space exploration, reduces the crew to LEO gap to one or two years, and gives the international community the ability to descend to the surface of the Moon and Mars.

Time is of the Essence

Finally, this note about the political realities. First, if a decision is delayed for four to six months while the politicians fight for every last bit of funding they want, the infrastructure on which the Jupiter program builds will be dismantled and Options 4B, 5C and 5D will be eliminated.

Second, Congress will likely decide that the Constellation program as currently envisioned is too costly for what will be developed and not worth throwing more money down the drain. Options 1, 2, 3, 4B and 5A will be eliminated.

Thus, only commercial crew and cargo capabilities will be funded. NASA will be reduced to research and contracting for services. The Marshall Space Flight Facility will have little purpose. And the politicians will lose most of the jobs and funding that their districts currently enjoy.

(Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4. Part 5. Wrap Up.)

At 10:33 PM Phoenix time, we have eight (8) minutes and counting until a planned hold at T minus 4 minutes in the launch of the Atlas 5 carrying the Intelsat 14 satellite.

Intelsat 14 under construction. Credit: ULA TV

T minus 8 Minutes. Credit: ULA TV

Launch is scheduled beginning at 10:50 PM Phoenix time. Weather is satisfactory.

We have a new T minus zero scheduled at 11:15 PM Phoenix time. Weather is green through the window. Extended hold due to reprogramming the flight computer (to take into account balloon data) taking longer than expected.

Weather Balloon Profile. Credit: ULA TV

Wind shear aloft. Credit: ULA TV

And the weather information updates are taking a long time. New launch time is 11:35 PM.

Wind shear aloft is a problem. Flight profile would not be good. A new balloon has been launched, and we are awaiting a new launch time.

And the weather aloft has now pushed the launch back to 11:55 PM Phoenix time. The US Air Force Range has approved the change. It is going to be a late night for all concerned.

Eye Candy Details. Credit: ULA TV

More Details, at T minus 4 minutes and holding for weather. Credit: ULA TV

The latest word from ULA is that “Things are improving with regard to developing a new flight program. They’re going to have one more shot to create a new program if this one doesn’t work, that will take us to the end of the window.”

All of this is based on the changing wind profiles aloft.

Weather aloft has improved. The launch director is polling all systems prior to coming out of the hold.

… and we are GO for LAUNCH!

T minus 3:48 and counting. Credit: ULA TV	Ignition. Credit: ULA TV
Launch. Credit: ULA TV	Ascent. Credit: ULA TV
Animation – Centaur Burn. Credit: ULA TV	Mid Course Correction. Credit: ULA TV

All systems are go. We are on the way to Geo Stationary Orbit.

Good Night All.

(Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4. Part 5. Wrap Up.)

In Part 1, we looked at the pieces strewn about our living room floor. In Part 2, we examined the Goals and Destinations in Chapter 3.0. And in Part 3, the three current Human Space Flight programs were reviewed (International Space Station, the Space Shuttle and the Constellation Program). In Part 4, we looked at the launch vehicles examined by The Augustine Commission.

Chapter 6 of the Augustine Commission Final Report deals with Program Options and Evaluation. This is one of the many contentious issues commentators have with the Commission. While they did select five possible exploration programs (Chapter 6), and while they did evaluate various launch vehicles (Chapter 5), the Committee seems to have ignored the possibility that different launch vehicles have greater or lesser ability to cover the five exploration programs. This failure may in the end, prove to be disastrous for human space exploration. As we write, the Space Shuttle infrastructure is being actively dismantled. The end result of failing to evaluate the physical infrastructure and the human infrastructure capable of supporting a Shuttle derived architecture may be that the United States is left with no heavy lift human space flight capability for at least the next several decades. We may have surrendered our space faring capability to Europe, China, Russia, India and Japan.

6.1 Evaluation Criteria

As noted by the Commission:

The Committee did not intend that the evaluation would generate a single numerical score; rather, it would provide a basis for comparison across options, highlighting the opportunities and challenges associated with each. Assigning weights to individual figures of merit is within the purview of the ultimate decision-makers.

Three primary evaluation dimensions were identified:

• Benefits to Stakeholders
• Risk
• Budget Realities

These three dimensions were expanded into 12 criteria for comparing the options.

• Exploration Preparation
• Technology Innovation
• Science Knowledge
• Expanding and Protecting Human Civilization
• Economic Expansion
• Global Partnerships
• Public Engagement
• Schedule and Programmatic Risk
• Mission Safety Challenges
• Workforce Impact
• Programmatic Sustainability
• Life-Cycle Cost

6.2 Key Decisions and Integrated Options

6.2.1 Key Decisions

1. What should be the future of the Space Shuttle?
2. What should be the future of the International Space Station (ISS)?
3. On what should the next heavy-lift launch vehicle be based?
4. How should crews be carried to low-Earth orbit?
5. What is the most practicable strategy for exploration beyond low-Earth orbit?

6.2.2 Integrated Options

The Committee identified five basic options: One based on the Program of Record (POR – Constellation – Ares I and V, Orion and Altair), and four alternatives. Options 2 and 3 were budget compatable alternatives to the POR. Option 4 was a Moon First program (with two variations), and Option 5 was the Flexible Path (avoiding the gravity well of the Moon).

6.2.3 Methodology for Analyzing the Integrated Options

Two budgets were used. The “Constrained Budget” used the FY 2010 budget, while the “Less Constrained Budget” allowed for an increase by 2014 of $3 Billion per year higher than FY 2010.

6.2.4 Reference Cases of the Entirely Unconstrained Program of Record

The Program of Record was evaluated and found to be a total of $45 Billion over the FY 2010 budget by 2020, wherein it is $5 Billion a year over FY 2010 in 2016 and $7 Billion per year over FY 2010 in 2019.

6.3 Integrated Options Constrained to the FY 2010 Budget

6.3.1 Evaluation of Integrated Options 1 and 2

Option 1 was found to allow for rocket development, but lacked funds for exploration. Option 2 extends the lifetime of the ISS, delays rocket development, and has no funds for exploration.

6.3.2 Examination of alternate budget guidance

The Committee found no alternatives to Options 1 or 2 that were viable under the FY 2010 budget. This conclusion has been disputed.

6.4 Moon First Integrated Options Fit to the Less-Constrained Budget

6.4.1 Evaluation of Integrated Options 3 and 4

Option 3 was to execute the POR under a less constrained budget. The ISS is de-orbited in 2010, and the Shuttle flies the remaining missions into 2011. Human lunar return occurs in the mid 2020s and the lunar base becomes operation late in the decade. An alternate extending ISS to 2020 was found to push these dates out by three to four more years.

Option 4 uses the less constrained budget, scraps Ares I and substitutes commercial crew services by 2016 It extends the ISS to 2020. Ares V is scrapped in favor of a dual-launch Ares V Lite vehicle for lunar missions.

Option 4A retires the Shuttle in 2011, while Option 4B extends the Shuttle to 2015 and develops a Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift vehicle in place of Ares V Lite.

6.4.2 Examination of the key decision on the ISS extension

Given the International Partnerships that have been developed, and the fact that the extension to 2020 would only delay the lunar return by a few years, the Committee found that the extension provides greater value than ending the ISS mission.

6.4.3 Examination of the key decision on Ares V vs. Ares V Lite dual launch

Baseline Ares V has more launch capability than the Saturn V, but current NASA studies show that when used in combination with Ares I, it does not have enough launch capability to robustly deliver the currently planned landing and surface systems to the Moon.

The Committee concluded that Ares V Lite represents less development risk, likely will reduce costs and provides more substantial margin for the lunar mission.

6.4.4 Examination of the key decision on the provision of crew transport to low-Earth orbit

Commercial crew services, based on a high-reliability rocket with a capsule and launch escape system could significantly reduce development costs, as well as lower operating costs.

6.4.5 Examination of the key question on Shuttle extension

The Committee favored early retirement of the Shuttle (2010 or 2011), although they noted several advantages to Shuttle extension to 2015, including up-mass and down-mass capability and workforce retention.

6.5 Flexible Path Integrated Options Fit to the Less-Constrained Budget

6.5.1 Evaluation of Integrated Option 5

Option 5 operates the Shuttle into 2011 and extends the International Space Station mission until 2020. A variety of destinations beyond low earth orbit are possible. The Committee developed three variants of this option.

• Option 5A develops the Ares V Lite, visits the Lagrange points, near Earth objects, on-orbit refueling and achieves a lunar return by the end of the 2020s.
• Option 5B develops commercial heavy lift capability, restructures NASA, and follows a similar mission profile as 5A, but on a slower time line.
• Option 5C scraps Ares V Lite and develops a Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift vehicle. 5C follows a similar mission profile as 5A, but on a slower time line.

6.5.2 Examination of the key question on Ares V family vs. Shuttle-derived heavy launcher

While the Shuttle derived in-line launch vehicle (SDLV) with two four-segment solid rocket motors (SRM) and the 8.4 meter external tank (ET) was the 2005 ESAS candidate for the cargo vehicle, it was forced to evolve into the Ares V due to the problems encountered with the underpowered Ares I. For some reason, the Committee decided that in order to match the capabilities of the Ares V, or the Ares V Lite dual-launch mission, that there had to be three SDLV launches. Therefore, operations would be more costly.

This is a clear Committee miss, as the current planned lunar return missions can be accomplished with good margin by a dual-launch SDLV program, thus costing less than the Ares V Lite. There is no need for the enhanced capabilities of the dual-launch Ares V Lite.

6.5.3 Examination of the key question on NASA heritage vs. EELV-heritage super-heavy vehicles

The Committee considers the EELV-heritage super-heavy vehicle to be a way to significantly reduce the operating cost of the heavy lifter to NASA in the long run. It would be a less-capable vehicle, but probably sufficiently capable for the mission. Reaping the long-term cost benefits would require substantial disruption in NASA, and force the agency to adopt a new way of doing business.

6.6 Comparisons Across Integrated Options

6.6.1 Cross-option comparisons

The Flexible Path program (Option 5A) scores more highly than the Baseline (Option 3) on 9 of the 12 criteria outlined in section 6.1 ( See figure 6.6.1-1). The higher rankings include:

• Exploration Preparation (due to much more capable launch system)
• Technology (due to investment in technology)
• Science (because of more places visited)
• Human Civilization (due to the ISS extension)
• Economic Expansion (because of commercial involvement in space elements and crew transport)
• Global Partnerships (gained by extending the ISS)
• Public Engagement (by visiting more new locations, and doing so each year)
• Schedule (exploring beyond low-Earth orbit sooner)
• Life-Cycle Costs (due to commercial crew services)

6.6.2 Examination of the key question on exploration strategy

Three exploration strategies were examined in Chapter 3. The choice of Mars First was found not to be viable due to technological problems. Two strategies remained:

• Moon First on the Way to Mars, with surface exploration focused on developing capability for Mars.
• Flexible Path to Mars via the inner solar system objects and locations, with no immediate plan for surface exploration, then followed by exploration of the lunar and/or Martian surface.

The Moon first is favorable to lunar science and exploration (although much can be done robotically). The Flexible Path missions explore more of the Solar System, while initially doing less on the Moon. Flexible Path has the advantage of developing infrastructure for deep space exploration, including the moons of Mars and Mars itself. The Committe notes that:

Considering that we have visited and obtained samples from the Moon, but not near-Earth objects or Mars, and also that the Flexible Path develops the ability to service space observatories, the Science Knowledge criterion slightly favors the Flexible Path. Broadly, the more complex the environment, the more astronaut explorers are favored over robotic exploration. In practice, this means that astronauts will offer their greatest value-added in the exploration of the surface of Mars.

Final Scoring

Although the Augustine Commission did not publish a final tally of the scores (for reasons they made clear), the following table does compare and tabulate the scores.

Option 5D: We will have more to say about this proposal in our final segment: “Wrapped Up” or “The Augustine Commission for Dummies”.

(Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4. Part 5. Wrap Up.)

This morning (7:45 AM Phoenix), we find Atlantis 27,000 feet from the International Space Station. Nicole Stott will be returning on Atlantis following her mission on the ISS. Live coverage on NASA TV.

Control Room prior to Docking. Image Credit: NASA TV

Atlantis Location and Attitude. Image Credit: NASA TV

Three miles from the ISS and Atlantis completes a short burn.

Nicole comments her ticket is stamped and ready to go for the return flight home.

8:11 AM Phoenix (10:11 EST) and Atlantis is 8,000 feet away. Docking is scheduled for 9:53 AM Phoenix time (11:53 EST)

And at 8:20, Atlantis is less than 5,000 feet away from ISS.

Control Room Approach Display. Image Credit: NASA TV	Atlantis Go for 600 Foot Approach. Image Credit: NASA TV
ISS from Atlantis. Image Credit: NASA TV	Atlantis Closing. Image Credit: NASA TV
Cargo Bay Open. Image Credit: NASA TV	Atlantis Closing on the IIS. Image Credit: NASA TV

At about 8:53 AM (10:53 EST), Atlantis will perform the heat shield inspection back flip.

Tile Inspection. Image Credit: NASA TV

Closing Display. Image Credit: NASA TV

Shuttle Atlantis closing at 0.2 feet per second with 20 minutes to go until docking.

Speed is now down 0.17 foot per second as Atlantis is less than 100 feet away from the docking port.

50 feet.

Final approach maneuver at 30 feet.

20 feet. 15 feet. 10 feet. 5 feet.

Docking confirmed at 9:51 AM Phoenix time.

The Space Shuttle Atlantis has completed LH2 and LOX fueling. Launch is scheduled for 12:28 Phoenix time. NASA TV is carrying the launch live.

Fueling. Image Credit: NASA TV

Orbiter. Image Credit: NASA TV

Weather remains an issue, and the probability of good weather has fallen from 90% to 70%.

Suiting Up. Image Credit: NASA TV

Strapping In. Image Credit: NASA TV

Its 12:10 AM EST (10:10 AM Phoenix). Extraneous items are being removed from the flight deck in preparation for closing the hatch.

Counting Down. Image Credit: NASA TV

T-Minus 82 Minutes. Image Credit: NASA TV

Weather forecast is improving. Currently alternate landing sites for the launch have satisfactory weather for launch. Atlantis is in the middle of a planned hold and the count will resume at t-minus 9 minutes (2:19 PM EST) at 12:19 PM in Phoenix.

The count has been picked up at T-minus 9 minutes. Weather is good.

Ignition. Image Credit: NASA TV	Liftoff. Image Credit: NASA TV
Solid Motor cutoff in 10 seconds. Image Credit: NASA TV	Separation. Image Credit: NASA TV

Main Engine Cutoff. OMS Burns were successful. Atlantis is now chasing the International Space Station, and is scheduled for docking on Wednesday.

More launch images:

Engine Ignition. Image Credit: NASA TV	Liftoff. Image Credit: NASA TV
Through the Clouds. Image Credit: NASA TV	Through the Clouds. Image Credit: NASA TV
Booster Separation. Image Credit: NASA TV	Booster Separation. Image Credit: NASA TV
Shuttle Rolls Upright. Image Credit: NASA TV	Shuttle Leaves External Tank. Image Credit: NASA TV

Credit: NASA Video

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is an infrared observatory, and a partial successor to the Hubble Space Telescope. JWST does not view visible light because light from the earliest universe has shifted toward the infrared (red shift). Infrared sensitivity is required in order to see further back in time toward the beginning of the universe than either Hubble or ground based observatories.The James Webb Space Telescope is a joint venture between NASA, the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Canadian Space Agency (CSA). In all, fifteen countries are making contributions to JWST. The are four main components to the scientific mission: Search for the first stars and galaxies that formed after the Big Bang Study galaxies and their formation and evolution Understand the formation of stars and planetary systems Study the origins of life on planetary systems

JWST is scheduled for launch in 2014 aboard an Ariane 5 rocket. It will take up residence at the Sun-Earth Lagrange point 2 (SEL-2). SEL-2 is 1,500,000 km beyond the Earth from the Sun (the Earth-Moon L2 is 61,500 km beyond the Moon). The location was chosen in order to be able to shield the telescope from the infrared radiation of the Sun and the Earth. Currently, SEL-2 is occupied by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), which was launched 30 June 2001, and the Herschel and Planck observatories, which were launched together on an Ariane 5 on 14 May 2009. The image at left is a cutaway diagram the the Ariane 5 rocket, illustrating how the JWST will fold up inside the payload fairing. With the large screen behind it, the JWST will be about 21 m in width. It will stand about three stories high. The main telescope mirror, which measures 6.5 m in diameter, is too large to launch in one piece. Instead, it consists of 17 individual mirror segments mounted on a frame which will be folded inside the fairing of the Ariane 5 at launch. Once it arrives at SEL-2, it will unfold, as this animation shows. There are four instruments designed to conduct the investigations on board the James Webb Space Telescope: Mid-Infrared Instrument, or MIRI – provided by the European Consortium with the European Space Agency (ESA), and by the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) Near-Infrared Camera, or NIRCam – provided by the University of Arizona Near-Infrared Spectrograph, or NIRSpec – provided by ESA, with components provided by NASA/GSFC. Fine Guidance Sensor, or FGS – provided by the Canadian Space Agency. The FGS contains a dedicated Guider and a Tunable Filter Camera.

Credit: European Space Agency

Credit: NASA   Credit: NASA

The image at left shows the locations of the four instruments in the Integrated Science Instrument Module (ISIM). Below, the image shows the location of the instrument package within the JWST. The Mid-Infrared Instrument (MIRI) is an imager/spectrograph that covers the wavelength range of 5 to 27 micrometers. The camera provides wide-field broadband imagery, and the spectrograph module provides medium-resolution spectroscopy over a smaller field of view compared to the imager. The nominal operating temperature for the MIRI is 7K. Additional information can be found at the MIRI website, Space Telescope Science Institute. The Near Infrared Camera (NIRCam) is an imager with a large field of view and high angular resolution. The NIRCam covers a wavelength range of 0.6 to 5 micrometers. More on NIRCam. The Near Infrared Spectrograph (NIRSpec) measures the simultaneous spectra of more than 100 objects in a 9-square-arcminute field of view. This instrument provides medium-resolution spectroscopy over a wavelength range of 1 to 5 micrometers and lower-resolution spectroscopy from 0.6 to 5 micrometers. See the Space Telescope Science Institute information on NIRSpec. The Fine Guidance Sensor (FGS) sensor is used for both “guide star” acquisition and fine pointing. See information from the Space Telescope Science Institute about NIRSpec.

Recent Events

In October, the NIRSpec Engineering Test Unit (ETU) was completed by Astrium, and will be shipped to the United States later this year for integration testing. For additional information on the ETU, see this article in Space News. Integration testing will allow work to continue while the final NIRSpec instrument is developed. Along with the NIRSpec ETU, a test model of the other European instrument, the Mid-Infrared Instrument (MIRI) will also be delivered.

See also:

The Wikipedia article on JWST.
NASA home page for JWST.
ESA home page for JWST.
CSA home page for JWST.
Make your own Paper Model of the JWST.
YouTube and JWST.