-
SpaceX FH: Nancy Grace Roman Telescope : KSC LC-39A : NET Oct 2026
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 19 Jul, 2022 20:19
-
-
#1
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 19 Jul, 2022 20:32
-
https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1549492284932050944NASA has selected Falcon Heavy to launch the Roman Space Telescope, which is designed to study dark energy and dark matter, search for and image exoplanets, and more. Liftoff is targeted for no earlier than October 2026 from Launch Complex 39A in Florida
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-awards-launch-services-contract-for-roman-space-telescopeJul 19, 2022
CONTRACT RELEASE C22-015
NASA Awards Launch Services Contract for Roman Space Telescope
NASA has awarded a NASA Launch Services (NLS) II contract to Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) in Hawthorne, California, to provide launch service for the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope mission. The Roman Space Telescope is the top-priority large space mission recommended by the 2010 Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey.
NLS II is an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract. The total cost for NASA to launch the Roman telescope is approximately $255 million, which includes the launch service and other mission related costs. The telescope’s mission currently is targeted to launch in October 2026, as specified in the contract, on a Falcon Heavy rocket from Launch Complex 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
The telescope’s science program will include dedicated investigations to tackle outstanding questions in cosmology, including the effects of dark energy and dark matter, and exoplanet exploration. Roman also includes a substantial general investigator program to enable further studies of astrophysical phenomena to advance other science goals.
The telescope was previously known as the Wide Field InfraRed Survey Telescope (WFIRST), but it was later renamed in honor of Dr. Nancy Grace Roman for her extraordinary work at NASA, which paved the way for large space telescopes.
NASA’s Launch Services Program at Kennedy is responsible for launch vehicle program management of the SpaceX launch service. The Roman Space Telescope project is managed by NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.
For more information about NASA programs and missions, visit:
https://www.nasa.gov
-end-
Attached image caption:
A high-resolution illustration of the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope against a starry background.
Credits: NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center
-
#2
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 19 Jul, 2022 20:39
-
-
#3
by
tyrred
on 19 Jul, 2022 21:24
-
Would this launch require an extended fairing?
-
#4
by
russianhalo117
on 19 Jul, 2022 22:19
-
Would this launch require an extended fairing?
It might given FIA/KH spacecraft heritage however the finalised spacecraft dimensions i cannot locate however I would ballpark compare it between Herschel and Hubble.
-
#5
by
deltaV
on 19 Jul, 2022 22:37
-
Why is this launch so expensive ($255M)? IIRC a fully expended Falcon Heavy launch is ~$150M and if there's reuse that lowers prices. IIRC previous NASA Falcon launches have been priced ~$50M more than usual due to government paperwork. Is there $100M of extra paperwork for this launch?
-
#6
by
tyrred
on 19 Jul, 2022 22:51
-
Would this launch require an extended fairing?
Would this launch require an extended fairing?
It might given FIA/KH spacecraft heritage however the finalised spacecraft dimensions i cannot locate however I would ballpark compare it between Herschel and Hubble.
Ok. Dimensions via Wikipedia (sans payload adaptors) :
Herschel: 7.5 m × 4.0 m (25 ft × 13 ft)
Hubble: 13.2 m × 4.2 m (43 ft × 14 ft)
Can't find the standard Falcon payload fairing dimensions at the moment, my Google-fu is weak on mobile. Anyone else have those numbers?
Can't find Falcon
-
#7
by
jketch
on 19 Jul, 2022 23:01
-
Why is this launch so expensive ($255M)? IIRC a fully expended Falcon Heavy launch is ~$150M and if there's reuse that lowers prices. IIRC previous NASA Falcon launches have been priced ~$50M more than usual due to government paperwork. Is there $100M of extra paperwork for this launch?
I'm sure it's partially paperwork and partially that there is no other launcher available. All launchers that could launch this are either out of production (Atlas 5, DIVH, Ariane 5) or yet to launch (Vulcan, New Glenn, Ariane 6)
-
#8
by
ccdengr
on 19 Jul, 2022 23:09
-
Can't find the standard Falcon payload fairing dimensions at the moment, my Google-fu is weak on mobile. Anyone else have those numbers?
Appendix A in
https://www.spacex.com/media/falcon-users-guide-2021-09.pdf"The standard SpaceX Falcon fairing is 5.2 m (17.2 ft) in outer diameter and 13.2 m (43.5 ft) high overall... The extended fairing has the same diameter as the standard faring (5.2 m, 17.2 ft) and an overall height of 18.7 m (61.25 ft)."
-
#9
by
whitelancer64
on 19 Jul, 2022 23:10
-
Why is this launch so expensive ($255M)? IIRC a fully expended Falcon Heavy launch is ~$150M and if there's reuse that lowers prices. IIRC previous NASA Falcon launches have been priced ~$50M more than usual due to government paperwork. Is there $100M of extra paperwork for this launch?
There is probably
a lot of special processing that NASA requires for the Roman telescope that does not happen for normal payloads.
-
#10
by
spacenuance
on 19 Jul, 2022 23:12
-
I am assuming NASA would want to launch this on a US rocket, given this is much less an international project compared to JWST. Tory stated earlier this year that ULA would not bid Vulcan for this mission, leaving only SpaceX and possibly Blue Origin if they choose to bid. Given that SpaceX becomes the default, and maybe only logical choice in this circumstance, why not grab some extra money for an almost guaranteed contract? It could also be possible that the telescope will require special care and processing, such as vertical integration. It could also be possible that SpaceX foresees a future in 2026 or 2027 where F9 and FH launches are much less frequent, therefore leading to the program costing more to run for more high profile launches that will still ride to space on the Falcon rockets. Anyways, I will be interested to see if Blue bid on this launch.
-
#11
by
Robotbeat
on 19 Jul, 2022 23:21
-
Would this launch require an extended fairing?
Would this launch require an extended fairing?
It might given FIA/KH spacecraft heritage however the finalised spacecraft dimensions i cannot locate however I would ballpark compare it between Herschel and Hubble.
Ok. Dimensions via Wikipedia (sans payload adaptors) :
Herschel: 7.5 m × 4.0 m (25 ft × 13 ft)
Hubble: 13.2 m × 4.2 m (43 ft × 14 ft)
Can't find the standard Falcon payload fairing dimensions at the moment, my Google-fu is weak on mobile. Anyone else have those numbers?
Can't find Falcon
here you go.
-
#12
by
Asteroza
on 19 Jul, 2022 23:38
-
Why is this launch so expensive ($255M)? IIRC a fully expended Falcon Heavy launch is ~$150M and if there's reuse that lowers prices. IIRC previous NASA Falcon launches have been priced ~$50M more than usual due to government paperwork. Is there $100M of extra paperwork for this launch?
Possible, but unlikely, reason being NASA going halfsies on the proposed NSL supporting LC-39A VIF with the NRO?
-
#13
by
wannamoonbase
on 20 Jul, 2022 00:01
-
Why is this launch so expensive ($255M)? IIRC a fully expended Falcon Heavy launch is ~$150M and if there's reuse that lowers prices. IIRC previous NASA Falcon launches have been priced ~$50M more than usual due to government paperwork. Is there $100M of extra paperwork for this launch?
Possible, but unlikely, reason being NASA going halfsies on the proposed NSL supporting LC-39A VIF with the NRO?
I concur the additional cost above the listed FH price will be NASA ‘paperwork’ vertical integration, lack of competition and perhaps the extended payload fairing.
This is a huge get for SpaceX and FH.
-
#14
by
Jim
on 20 Jul, 2022 00:30
-
I am assuming NASA would want to launch this on a US rocket, given this is much less an international project compared to JWST. Tory stated earlier this year that ULA would not bid Vulcan for this mission, leaving only SpaceX and possibly Blue Origin if they choose to bid. Given that SpaceX becomes the default, and maybe only logical choice in this circumstance, why not grab some extra money for an almost guaranteed contract?
No, the contract has not to exceed prices
-
#15
by
Jim
on 20 Jul, 2022 00:33
-
Why is this launch so expensive ($255M)? IIRC a fully expended Falcon Heavy launch is ~$150M and if there's reuse that lowers prices. IIRC previous NASA Falcon launches have been priced ~$50M more than usual due to government paperwork. Is there $100M of extra paperwork for this launch?
Possible, but unlikely, reason being NASA going halfsies on the proposed NSL supporting LC-39A VIF with the NRO?
no
-
#16
by
AmigaClone
on 20 Jul, 2022 00:37
-
I am assuming NASA would want to launch this on a US rocket, given this is much less an international project compared to JWST. Tory stated earlier this year that ULA would not bid Vulcan for this mission, leaving only SpaceX and possibly Blue Origin if they choose to bid. Given that SpaceX becomes the default, and maybe only logical choice in this circumstance, why not grab some extra money for an almost guaranteed contract?
No, the contract has not to exceed prices
I think what '
spacenuance' was implying was that SpaceX's bid for this mission might have been higher than the minimum they could have bid with those same services and still had a profit.
-
#17
by
Jim
on 20 Jul, 2022 00:37
-
Why is this launch so expensive ($255M)? IIRC a fully expended Falcon Heavy launch is ~$150M and if there's reuse that lowers prices. IIRC previous NASA Falcon launches have been priced ~$50M more than usual due to government paperwork. Is there $100M of extra paperwork for this launch?
It isn't so expensive or out of family
EC - $178M
HALOPPE - $332M
-
#18
by
Jim
on 20 Jul, 2022 00:38
-
I think what 'spacenuance' was implying was that SpaceX's bid for this mission might have been higher than the minimum they could have bid with those same services and still had a profit.
Nobody bids the minimum
-
#19
by
Brovane
on 20 Jul, 2022 00:39
-
I am assuming NASA would want to launch this on a US rocket, given this is much less an international project compared to JWST. Tory stated earlier this year that ULA would not bid Vulcan for this mission, leaving only SpaceX and possibly Blue Origin if they choose to bid. Given that SpaceX becomes the default, and maybe only logical choice in this circumstance, why not grab some extra money for an almost guaranteed contract?
No, the contract has not to exceed prices
With FAR is there additional protections when a contract is sole source which forces the supplier to do some justification for the contract price? Our was it just a matter of SpaceX and NASA negotiating and NASA told SpaceX this is our not to exceed price so SpaceX just bid that price?
-
#20
by
Jim
on 20 Jul, 2022 00:45
-
I am assuming NASA would want to launch this on a US rocket, given this is much less an international project compared to JWST. Tory stated earlier this year that ULA would not bid Vulcan for this mission, leaving only SpaceX and possibly Blue Origin if they choose to bid. Given that SpaceX becomes the default, and maybe only logical choice in this circumstance, why not grab some extra money for an almost guaranteed contract?
No, the contract has not to exceed prices
With FAR is there additional protections when a contract is sole source which forces the supplier to do some justification for the contract price? Our was it just a matter of SpaceX and NASA negotiating and NASA told SpaceX this is our not to exceed price so SpaceX just bid that price?
The NLS II contract is IDIQ and NTE prices were negotiated years ago.
-
#21
by
Brovane
on 20 Jul, 2022 00:52
-
The NLS II contract is IDIQ and NTE prices were negotiated years ago.
Thank you, that is interesting. So SpaceX would have known it could bid the pre-negotiated NTE price and almost certainly get the contract because of lack of alternatives?
-
#22
by
whitelancer64
on 20 Jul, 2022 01:25
-
Would this launch require an extended fairing?
Would this launch require an extended fairing?
It might given FIA/KH spacecraft heritage however the finalised spacecraft dimensions i cannot locate however I would ballpark compare it between Herschel and Hubble.
Ok. Dimensions via Wikipedia (sans payload adaptors) :
Herschel: 7.5 m × 4.0 m (25 ft × 13 ft)
Hubble: 13.2 m × 4.2 m (43 ft × 14 ft)
Can't find the standard Falcon payload fairing dimensions at the moment, my Google-fu is weak on mobile. Anyone else have those numbers?
Can't find Falcon
IIRC, NRGT / WFIRST was supposed to be slightly smaller than the Hubble in terms of length. I can't seem to google up any reference to its physical dimensions, though, which is weird.
-
#23
by
russianhalo117
on 20 Jul, 2022 01:39
-
Would this launch require an extended fairing?
Would this launch require an extended fairing?
It might given FIA/KH spacecraft heritage however the finalised spacecraft dimensions i cannot locate however I would ballpark compare it between Herschel and Hubble.
Ok. Dimensions via Wikipedia (sans payload adaptors) :
Herschel: 7.5 m × 4.0 m (25 ft × 13 ft)
Hubble: 13.2 m × 4.2 m (43 ft × 14 ft)
Can't find the standard Falcon payload fairing dimensions at the moment, my Google-fu is weak on mobile. Anyone else have those numbers?
Can't find Falcon
IIRC, NRGT / WFIRST was supposed to be slightly smaller than the Hubble in terms of length. I can't seem to google up any reference to its physical dimensions, though, which is weird.
The height of telescope is slightly less than that of hubble but approximately equal to or greater than than Herschel by visual appearance yet the scale of each graphice is unknown and the physical dimensions could be ITAR'd due to NRO and and Ball manufactured GFE as the dimensions of the pre NRO GFE design were fully known.
-
#24
by
Robotbeat
on 20 Jul, 2022 03:39
-
Why is this launch so expensive ($255M)? IIRC a fully expended Falcon Heavy launch is ~$150M and if there's reuse that lowers prices. IIRC previous NASA Falcon launches have been priced ~$50M more than usual due to government paperwork. Is there $100M of extra paperwork for this launch?
Well...
...Falcon Heavy is almost in the same situation as Delta IV Heavy. It flies rarely, more rarely than expected, so not only does SpaceX have the bargaining power due to having the only flying SHLV at the moment, but it probably costs SpaceX more than they thought it would cost back when they were projecting like 10 Falcon Heavies per year or whatever. And it's for 5 years from now, when they hope to be doing the vast majority of their launches with Starship.
Then again, tons of commonality with Falcon 9, obviously, so it's not as bad as Delta IV Heavy which only had commonality with Delta IV medium, which rarely flew.
Plus, if you adjust $150 million for inflation since 2013 when Falcon Heavy was announced until today, it's $190 million. And if adjusted through 2027 at ~3% compound annual interest, then it's about $220 million.
And it has to use the longer, more expensive fairing.
-
#25
by
DanClemmensen
on 20 Jul, 2022 04:26
-
Why is this launch so expensive ($255M)? IIRC a fully expended Falcon Heavy launch is ~$150M and if there's reuse that lowers prices. IIRC previous NASA Falcon launches have been priced ~$50M more than usual due to government paperwork. Is there $100M of extra paperwork for this launch?
Well...
...Falcon Heavy is almost in the same situation as Delta IV Heavy. It flies rarely, more rarely than expected, so not only does SpaceX have the bargaining power due to having the only flying SHLV at the moment, but it probably costs SpaceX more than they thought it would cost back when they were projecting like 10 Falcon Heavies per year or whatever. And it's for 5 years from now, when they hope to be doing the vast majority of their launches with Starship.
Then again, tons of commonality with Falcon 9, obviously, so it's not as bad as Delta IV Heavy which only had commonality with Delta IV medium, which rarely flew.
Plus, if you adjust $150 million for inflation since 2013 when Falcon Heavy was announced until today, it's $190 million. And if adjusted through 2027 at ~3% compound annual interest, then it's about $220 million.
And it has to use the longer, more expensive fairing.
If I were a SpaceX accountant, I would be looking at the cost of FH missions. Based on the current track record, it appears that every single FH payload slips, sometimes a lot. But SpaceX must commit to the original launch date, which means they must tie up resources that could otherwise be applied to other things. Just looking at the list of F9 boosters, they seem to have about 21 active boosters, of which about 9 are being held out for FH either as FH core or FH side. They can interconvert F9 and FH side boosters, but not FH cores, and converting takes time. Those nine boosters must be housed somewhere and must be cared for, and meanwhile they are all in danger of obsolescence due to Starship. All of these costs must be rolled into the price.
-
#26
by
Brovane
on 20 Jul, 2022 12:14
-
Reading the press release.
"NLS II is an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract. The total cost for NASA to launch the Roman telescope is approximately $255 million, which includes the launch service and other mission related costs. "
For that $255M could those other mission related costs be a separate contractor from SpaceX? For example could a different contractor be charging $40M to transport the telescope to KSC, test and then integrate the payload onto the FH? However that $40M cost is part of the $255M to launch the telescope but isn't part of what SpaceX is doing which is the launch service.
-
#27
by
tbellman
on 20 Jul, 2022 12:17
-
Why is this launch so expensive ($255M)? IIRC a fully expended Falcon Heavy launch is ~$150M and if there's reuse that lowers prices. IIRC previous NASA Falcon launches have been priced ~$50M more than usual due to government paperwork. Is there $100M of extra paperwork for this launch?
Note though what the NASA press release says: "
The total cost for NASA to launch the Roman telescope is approximately $255 million, which includes the launch service and other mission related costs. (My bolding.) My understanding is that the $255M includes several other things than just what NASA will pay SpaceX for the launch.
Those other things could be things like transport of the telescope from the manufacturing location to KSC; NASA personnel helping with or watching over the integration on the rocket; propellant for the telescope; NASA personnel monitoring and controlling the telescope during the launch and its cruise towards SEL2; and probably a number of things I can't think of. (These are just examples that could reasonably count as "cost of launching". I don't know if there is some official list of what goes under launch and what goes under e.g. development or operations. Jim probably knows...)
I'm not sure if it will show up explicitly on the
USA Spending site, or if it will just be one or more anonymous lines under the
NASA Launch Services II contract. The Europa Clipper launch contract shows up as a separate contract, but that wasn't bought under NLS II from my understanding.
-
#28
by
edzieba
on 20 Jul, 2022 14:29
-
Is it a reasonable assumption that NGRST requires vertical integration? Dealing with gravity sag in large mirrors in one axis is annoying enough, in two orthogonal axes would be worse. NGRST's design is also constrained by some design assumptions made for FIA due to the donated telescope assemblies, and FIA was conceived when vertical integration for national security launches was the norm.
-
#29
by
whitelancer64
on 20 Jul, 2022 14:55
-
Is it a reasonable assumption that NGRST requires vertical integration? Dealing with gravity sag in large mirrors in one axis is annoying enough, in two orthogonal axes would be worse. NGRST's design is also constrained by some design assumptions made for FIA due to the donated telescope assemblies, and FIA was conceived when vertical integration for national security launches was the norm.
Yes. Spy sats require vertical integration, the mirrors are from spy sats.
-
#30
by
Robotbeat
on 20 Jul, 2022 15:27
-
The mirror is particularly lightweight in NGR, so maybe this is an exception?
-
#31
by
kevin-rf
on 20 Jul, 2022 15:41
-
Lightweight, means less structure to support any sagging when turned on its side.
-
#32
by
Jim
on 20 Jul, 2022 17:03
-
If I were a SpaceX accountant, I would be looking at the cost of FH missions. Based on the current track record, it appears that every single FH payload slips, sometimes a lot. But SpaceX must commit to the original launch date, which means they must tie up resources that could otherwise be applied to other things.
No, they get reimbursed for payload slips.
-
#33
by
Jim
on 20 Jul, 2022 17:08
-
Reading the press release.
"NLS II is an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract. The total cost for NASA to launch the Roman telescope is approximately $255 million, which includes the launch service and other mission related costs. "
For that $255M could those other mission related costs be a separate contractor from SpaceX? For example could a different contractor be charging $40M to transport the telescope to KSC, test and then integrate the payload onto the FH? However that $40M cost is part of the $255M to launch the telescope but isn't part of what SpaceX is doing which is the launch service.
a. Transport to the launch site is not part of the launch service. Spacecraft testing and launch site ops is always done by the spacecraft contractor is included in the cost of the spacecraft.
B.
other mission related costs has been explained many times before. It for LSP contractors: mission integration support, launch site comm and telemetry, payload processing facility, propellant, gases, etc
-
#34
by
DanClemmensen
on 20 Jul, 2022 17:13
-
If I were a SpaceX accountant, I would be looking at the cost of FH missions. Based on the current track record, it appears that every single FH payload slips, sometimes a lot. But SpaceX must commit to the original launch date, which means they must tie up resources that could otherwise be applied to other things.
No, they get reimbursed for payload slips.
Good. I'm glad I'm not a SpaceX accountant.
I wonder of those reimbursements cover all of the costs, some of which would be difficult to quantify. Can SpaceX specify a fixed monthly delay cost, or must they justify the payment based on some computation of actual delay-related costs?
-
#35
by
Jim
on 20 Jul, 2022 17:14
-
Those other things could be things like 1. transport of the telescope from the manufacturing location to KSC;
2. NASA personnel helping with or watching over the integration on the rocket; 3. propellant for the telescope; 4. NASA personnel monitoring and controlling the telescope during the launch and its cruise towards SEL2
1. No, spacecraft cost
2. Yes, especially analytical integration
3. sometimes.
4. Spacecraft task and cost.
-
#36
by
russianhalo117
on 20 Jul, 2022 19:27
-
Would this launch require an extended fairing?
Would this launch require an extended fairing?
It might given FIA/KH spacecraft heritage however the finalised spacecraft dimensions i cannot locate however I would ballpark compare it between Herschel and Hubble.
Ok. Dimensions via Wikipedia (sans payload adaptors) :
Herschel: 7.5 m × 4.0 m (25 ft × 13 ft)
Hubble: 13.2 m × 4.2 m (43 ft × 14 ft)
Can't find the standard Falcon payload fairing dimensions at the moment, my Google-fu is weak on mobile. Anyone else have those numbers?
Can't find Falcon
here you go.
12.4m height in On-orbit science configuration so yes Extended PLF is required:
Slides:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39248.msg2388006#msg2388006
-
#37
by
Jim
on 20 Jul, 2022 19:35
-
Good. I'm glad I'm not a SpaceX accountant.
I wonder of those reimbursements cover all of the costs, some of which would be difficult to quantify. Can SpaceX specify a fixed monthly delay cost, or must they justify the payment based on some computation of actual delay-related costs?
It is pre priced.
-
#38
by
yg1968
on 20 Jul, 2022 20:36
-
-
#39
by
scr00chy
on 21 Jul, 2022 01:18
-
-
#40
by
Robotbeat
on 21 Jul, 2022 03:18
-
I’m skeptical. Probably that is being misunderstood. SpaceX now offers the extended fairing as a pre-developed option since they’re already developing it for another payload(a).
-
#41
by
tyrred
on 21 Jul, 2022 04:07
-
I’m skeptical. Probably that is being misunderstood. SpaceX now offers the extended fairing as a pre-developed option since they’re already developing it for another payload(a).
Perhaps the deployable aperture cover, when stowed, decreases the launch configuration length to fit within standard fairing.
In still skeptical, as well.
Time will tell.
-
#42
by
Conexion Espacial
on 07 Feb, 2023 18:42
-
-
#43
by
zubenelgenubi
on 17 May, 2023 02:03
-
Cross-post; my
bold:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2023/nasa-completes-heart-of-roman-space-telescope-s-primary-instrument [May 16]
The heart of NASA’s Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope was recently delivered to Ball Aerospace in Boulder, Colorado, for integration into the WFI (Wide Field Instrument). Called the FPS (Focal Plane System), it serves as the core of Roman’s camera. When the mission launches by May 2027, astronomers will use this system to gather exquisite images to help unravel the secrets of dark energy and dark matter, discover exoplanets, and explore many topics in infrared astrophysics.
-
#44
by
StraumliBlight
on 17 Apr, 2024 14:32
-
NASA’s Roman Space Telescope’s ‘Eyes’ Pass First Vision Testhttps://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ota-harris-240402-004-copyrevb.jpgEngineers at L3Harris Technologies in Rochester, New York, have combined all 10 mirrors for NASA’s Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope. Preliminary tests show the newly aligned optics, collectively called the IOA (Imaging Optics Assembly), will direct light into Roman’s science instruments extremely precisely. This will yield crisp images of space once the observatory launches.
“This is the pre-launch first light, our first time seeing through the entire telescope,” said Joshua Abel, the lead systems engineer for the Roman Space Optical Telescope Assembly at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. “We’re excited to enter the next phase of the project!”
Each of Roman’s mirrors had passed individual tests, but this was the first time they were assessed together. Engineers had to make sure light would move through all of the optics in a tightly controlled way, or else the telescope’s images would appear blurred.
“The telescope’s optics are crucial for all of Roman’s future observations,” said Bente Eegholm, an optical engineer working on Roman’s Optical Telescope Assembly at Goddard. “In addition to the large primary mirror and the secondary mirror, eight relay mirrors serve Roman’s two science instruments. All 10 telescope mirrors need to be aligned to well within the width of a human hair in order to optimize the telescope’s imaging quality such that Roman can fully achieve its science goals.”
The meticulous month-long alignment process involved a series of iterations to bring test images into ever-sharper focus. Once the mirrors were all properly situated, technicians permanently locked them in place. Three of the mirrors will still be movable in space thanks to actuators – mechanisms that control the mirrors’ positions – which will allow astronomers to fine-tune the alignment even further once Roman begins its observations.
The IOA’s vision test establishes a baseline for upcoming vibration and acoustic tests. Engineers will compare measurements from before and after those tests to make sure the optics will withstand the strong shaking and intense sound waves during launch.
After that, the IOA will have a final “eye” exam – this time in vacuum conditions at its cold operational temperature. Materials expand and contract with temperature shifts, and Roman’s optics will go from room temperature conditions on Earth to a frigid 9 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 13 degrees Celsius) in space.
“Our prediction of the small change we expect to see going from ambient to these colder temperatures is very important,” Abel said. The test will also measure the IOA’s performance in extremely low pressure to assess how it will operate in the vacuum of space.
“The joint team from L3Harris and NASA has fully achieved the goals of the test,” said Scott Smith, Roman telescope manager at Goddard. “The technicians and engineers have executed a successful optical test with precision and excellence while maintaining their commitments to schedule.”
The entire Optical Telescope Assembly, of which the IOA is a core component, is expected to be complete and delivered to Goddard this fall.
[zubenelgenubi: Attach files. Do not embed them.]
-
#45
by
StraumliBlight
on 21 May, 2024 17:51
-
NASA Tool Gets Ready to Image Faraway PlanetsAt JPL on May 17, members of the Roman Coronagraph Instrument team use a crane to lift the top portion of the shipping container that the instrument was stored in for its journey to NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.
-
#46
by
Star One
on 22 May, 2024 10:24
-
NASA’s Roman Space Telescope’s ‘Eyes’ Pass First Vision Test
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ota-harris-240402-004-copyrevb.jpg
Engineers at L3Harris Technologies in Rochester, New York, have combined all 10 mirrors for NASA’s Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope. Preliminary tests show the newly aligned optics, collectively called the IOA (Imaging Optics Assembly), will direct light into Roman’s science instruments extremely precisely. This will yield crisp images of space once the observatory launches.
“This is the pre-launch first light, our first time seeing through the entire telescope,” said Joshua Abel, the lead systems engineer for the Roman Space Optical Telescope Assembly at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. “We’re excited to enter the next phase of the project!”
Each of Roman’s mirrors had passed individual tests, but this was the first time they were assessed together. Engineers had to make sure light would move through all of the optics in a tightly controlled way, or else the telescope’s images would appear blurred.
“The telescope’s optics are crucial for all of Roman’s future observations,” said Bente Eegholm, an optical engineer working on Roman’s Optical Telescope Assembly at Goddard. “In addition to the large primary mirror and the secondary mirror, eight relay mirrors serve Roman’s two science instruments. All 10 telescope mirrors need to be aligned to well within the width of a human hair in order to optimize the telescope’s imaging quality such that Roman can fully achieve its science goals.”
The meticulous month-long alignment process involved a series of iterations to bring test images into ever-sharper focus. Once the mirrors were all properly situated, technicians permanently locked them in place. Three of the mirrors will still be movable in space thanks to actuators – mechanisms that control the mirrors’ positions – which will allow astronomers to fine-tune the alignment even further once Roman begins its observations.
The IOA’s vision test establishes a baseline for upcoming vibration and acoustic tests. Engineers will compare measurements from before and after those tests to make sure the optics will withstand the strong shaking and intense sound waves during launch.
After that, the IOA will have a final “eye” exam – this time in vacuum conditions at its cold operational temperature. Materials expand and contract with temperature shifts, and Roman’s optics will go from room temperature conditions on Earth to a frigid 9 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 13 degrees Celsius) in space.
“Our prediction of the small change we expect to see going from ambient to these colder temperatures is very important,” Abel said. The test will also measure the IOA’s performance in extremely low pressure to assess how it will operate in the vacuum of space.
“The joint team from L3Harris and NASA has fully achieved the goals of the test,” said Scott Smith, Roman telescope manager at Goddard. “The technicians and engineers have executed a successful optical test with precision and excellence while maintaining their commitments to schedule.”
The entire Optical Telescope Assembly, of which the IOA is a core component, is expected to be complete and delivered to Goddard this fall.
[zubenelgenubi: Attach files. Do not embed them.]
Huh aren’t the mirrors still classified, surprised we get an image?
-
#47
by
woods170
on 22 May, 2024 11:50
-
-
#48
by
LouScheffer
on 22 May, 2024 12:24
-
This mirror assembly shows the amazing advances in optics since Hubble:
100x the field of view
1/4 the mass
8x the surface accuracy (this is 1.2 nm RMS, Hubble was about 10nm)
A much shorter optical assembly (long assemblies reduce abberations)
The field of view and the short optical assembly are due to a three mirror anastigmat design (3 curved mirrors), which in turn depended on advances in mirror fabrication that allow very non-spherical shapes. I think the super smooth surfaces are due to new polishing techniques such as using ion beams for exact figuring. I don't know why it's so much lighter (active correction of a thinner mirror?).
I'd assume the extra polishing work NASA had to do on this mirror was to get the extreme (roughly lambda/500) surface accuracy. I believe this is needed for NASAs coronograph, but would not be needed for spy satellite imagery.
-
#49
by
LouScheffer
on 22 May, 2024 17:35
-
I’m skeptical. Probably that is being misunderstood. SpaceX now offers the extended fairing as a pre-developed option since they’re already developing it for another payload(a).
Hubble is 13.2 meters long and 4.2 meters wide, so it could just about fit in the standard Falcon fairing. And it's clear the new optical system is much shorter than Hubble's (compare the images above to
the Hubble design, recalling the mirrors are the same size). That should save a few meters, and so the Roman observatory could reasonably fit.
-
#50
by
woods170
on 24 May, 2024 09:52
-
I’m skeptical. Probably that is being misunderstood. SpaceX now offers the extended fairing as a pre-developed option since they’re already developing it for another payload(a).
Hubble is 13.2 meters long and 4.2 meters wide, so it could just about fit in the standard Falcon fairing. And it's clear the new optical system is much shorter than Hubble's (compare the images above to the Hubble design, recalling the mirrors are the same size). That should save a few meters, and so the Roman observatory could reasonably fit.
Have you bothered to check the size of the payload envelope of the Falcon 9 standard fairing? HST doesn't fit in there (it is at least 2.3 meters too long and at least 1.5 meters too wide at the top) and Roman, in its stowed configuration, fits only barely.
-
#51
by
AndrewM
on 03 Jul, 2024 21:46
-
A couple of snips from the annual GAO report relating to launch. The Roman section is pages 79 & 80 (sheets 88 & 89).
The Roman project continues to operate within its replanned cost and schedule baselines, which were updated in June 2021. The replan set a life-cycle cost of $4.3 billion and a launch readiness date of May 2027. The project is still working to an earlier launch readiness date of October 2026, which was the original baseline date prior to the replan
The project completed a manufacturing readiness review for the flight unit of the Launch Loads Vibration Isolation
System, but the project is tracking a performance risk. The Launch Loads Vibration Isolation System protects the telescope from launch vibrations and spacecraft generated disturbances while on-orbit. This system’s flight isolators are currently a critical path item in the integration and test schedule. If they do not perform as expected, it could result in a schedule delay and increased costs due design changes.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-24-106767.pdf
