http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4749
On a remotely related note, I accidentally hit this story about composites development for the submillimeter telescope in the late eighties, and the mess that happened around it at JPL. Of course, it is written by only one involved party, but the story seems juicy.http://mars-lunar.net/archives/The%20PSR%20Story.pdf
the mirror coatings and focal point are for infrared
Yes they are doing it to cut down costs for NASA, and Europe and the USA have already done joint mission with Soho and Cassini-Huygens. JWST had a cost overrun reported on the order of $1 billion, NASA then planned save money by getting a free launch on an Ariane 5 in exchange for observing time on JWST.
With all the hubub about this telescope not having a visible light camera, whats the difficulty (or why isn't it being done) in adding a visible light camera to go along with the infrared one?
Quote from: dmc6960 on 09/13/2006 06:40 pmWith all the hubub about this telescope not having a visible light camera, whats the difficulty (or why isn't it being done) in adding a visible light camera to go along with the infrared one?I'm a huge HST fan. But this question perplexes me somewhat. We don't walk up to Hubble and put our eye to an eyepiece. We have layers of sensors and avionics and data reduction equipment on the ground which act as intermediaries for us to see what Hubble sees. Does it matter if the original wavelength is in the narrow optical spectrum available to human eyesight?Once we have the IR detected, we can shift the spectra digitally to see what JWST can see. The pictures will be inspiring whether the science drives us to IR or visible.