-
NASA - Habitable Worlds Observatory (HWO)
by
su27k
on 10 Jan, 2023 04:33
-
NASA unveils initial plan for multibillion-dollar telescope to find life on alien worldsAstronomers are always looking to the next big thing. This week, at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society, researchers packed into a standing-room-only conference room to hear about a successor to JWST, the 6.5-meter space telescope that began operations last year. Flush with JWST’s success, NASA is now planning an optical telescope that would be just as big as JWST and have a grand new goal: looking for signs of life on Earth-like planets, perhaps by the early 2040s.
Mark Clampin, NASA’s astrophysics division director, told the audience that little about the telescope has been settled. But what he did say tantalized them: The telescope will, like JWST, be perched at L2, a gravitational balance point 1.5 million kilometers from Earth. Unlike JWST, it will be designed for robotic servicing and upgrades, which could enable it to operate for decades, getting better with age. Without a dedicated budget, Clampin says he can’t yet make much headway on the design and technology. But he does have a working name for the telescope: the Habitable Worlds Observatory (HWO).
-
#1
by
AS_501
on 10 Jan, 2023 04:56
-
Is this the same as LUVOIR? Looks the same on Wiki.
-
#2
by
russianhalo117
on 10 Jan, 2023 05:01
-
Is this the same as LUVOIR? Looks the same on Wiki.
I belive so. Also a proposed name floating around after British philosopher and science contributor Alan Watts.
-
#3
by
M.E.T.
on 10 Jan, 2023 06:44
-
The lack of ambition is a bit disappointing. A 6.5m telescope by 2040? Why not go straight for a 15m-20m optical telescope, so we can directly observe continents on exoplanets?
Looks like we aren’t getting there in my lifetime. Sigh.
-
#4
by
su27k
on 10 Jan, 2023 07:19
-
Is this the same as LUVOIR? Looks the same on Wiki.
As mentioned in the article, it's a combination of LUVOIR and HabEx.
-
#5
by
cAsE-sEnSlTivE
on 10 Jan, 2023 10:15
-
Maybe no deploying main mirror this time. They can fit a 6 m mirror in the fairing of the new rockets
-
#6
by
matthewkantar
on 10 Jan, 2023 14:49
-
Maybe no deploying main mirror this time. They can fit a 6 m mirror in the fairing of the new rockets
The shade would still need to be deployed.
-
#7
by
VSECOTSPE
on 10 Jan, 2023 14:55
-
The lack of ambition is a bit disappointing. A 6.5m telescope by 2040? Why not go straight for a 15m-20m optical telescope, so we can directly observe continents on exoplanets?
Because the technology does not exist.
-
#8
by
Zed_Noir
on 10 Jan, 2023 15:52
-
In theory using mirror segments similar to the ones on JWST. A segmented mirror space telescope with a monolithic structure of about a 15 meter diameter can be launch to Lagrange point 2 inside a lenticular payload fairing on a 9 meter diameter upper stage/space tug.
Accompany by a separate preposition star shade and other auxiliary spacecrafts.
Of course a specialzed mobile lenticular payload fairing integration tower will be required.
-
#9
by
VSECOTSPE
on 10 Jan, 2023 16:34
-
In theory using mirror segments similar to the ones on JWST. A segmented mirror space telescope with a monolithic structure of about a 15 meter diameter can be launch to Lagrange point 2 inside a lenticular payload fairing on a 9 meter diameter upper stage/space tug.
It’s not the size; it’s the wavelength. JWST is IR; other poster is talking about visible. Mirrors of the necessary precision, the required reflective coating, the instrument sensitivity, etc. all do not exist and represent major leaps in capability. Until those are in place, it makes no sense to blow tens of billions of dollars developing a telescope of that scale. It could not do the job.
Accompany by a separate preposition star shade and other auxiliary spacecrafts.
Needs in-space testing and model validation. Exists only in studies and sub-scale ground tests in the wrong environment.
Of course a specialzed mobile lenticular payload fairing integration tower will be required.
Mirror origami and oddly shaped payload shrouds are secondary or tertiary issues until the core telescope technology demonstrates that enough of the right kind of photons could be gathered and properly organized.
-
#10
by
Blackstar
on 10 Jan, 2023 16:59
-
The lack of ambition is a bit disappointing. A 6.5m telescope by 2040? Why not go straight for a 15m-20m optical telescope, so we can directly observe continents on exoplanets?
Because the technology does not exist.
Even the technology for a 6.5-meter telescope doesn't currently exist and has to be developed. Anything bigger is far more difficult. The decadal survey was faced with the question of recommending 6.5 meters by 2040, or something larger by even later. Nobody wants to wait 30 years to actually do the science.
-
#11
by
Zed_Noir
on 10 Jan, 2023 18:23
-
In theory using mirror segments similar to the ones on JWST. A segmented mirror space telescope with a monolithic structure of about a 15 meter diameter can be launch to Lagrange point 2 inside a lenticular payload fairing on a 9 meter diameter upper stage/space tug.
It’s not the size; it’s the wavelength. JWST is IR; other poster is talking about visible. Mirrors of the necessary precision, the required reflective coating, the instrument sensitivity, etc. all do not exist and represent major leaps in capability. Until those are in place, it makes no sense to blow tens of billions of dollars developing a telescope of that scale. It could not do the job.
Accompany by a separate preposition star shade and other auxiliary spacecrafts.
Needs in-space testing and model validation. Exists only in studies and sub-scale ground tests in the wrong environment.
Of course a specialzed mobile lenticular payload fairing integration tower will be required.
Mirror origami and oddly shaped payload shrouds are secondary or tertiary issues until the core telescope technology demonstrates that enough of the right kind of photons could be gathered and properly organized.
Just posted that it could be done. Nothing about affordability and development time.
The visible light/UV mirror segments should be available in about 12 years for the proposed LUVOIR-B telescope. Otherwise the LUVOIR telescope project is over reaching.
-
#12
by
deadman1204
on 10 Jan, 2023 20:20
-
In theory using mirror segments similar to the ones on JWST. A segmented mirror space telescope with a monolithic structure of about a 15 meter diameter can be launch to Lagrange point 2 inside a lenticular payload fairing on a 9 meter diameter upper stage/space tug.
It’s not the size; it’s the wavelength. JWST is IR; other poster is talking about visible. Mirrors of the necessary precision, the required reflective coating, the instrument sensitivity, etc. all do not exist and represent major leaps in capability. Until those are in place, it makes no sense to blow tens of billions of dollars developing a telescope of that scale. It could not do the job.
Accompany by a separate preposition star shade and other auxiliary spacecrafts.
Needs in-space testing and model validation. Exists only in studies and sub-scale ground tests in the wrong environment.
Of course a specialzed mobile lenticular payload fairing integration tower will be required.
Mirror origami and oddly shaped payload shrouds are secondary or tertiary issues until the core telescope technology demonstrates that enough of the right kind of photons could be gathered and properly organized.
Just posted that it could be done. Nothing about affordability and development time.
The visible light/UV mirror segments should be available in about 12 years for the proposed LUVOIR-B telescope. Otherwise the LUVOIR telescope project is over reaching.
VSECOTSPE is not saying that its "impossible", but that the technology to do it doesn't exist. We do not know how to yet, nor do we have the capability to make it.
Also, ignoring cost is pointless. We "could" make a city on the moon and bankrupt the united states. Doesn't mean we're gonna. Thats why discussion needs to consider the practical constraints.
-
#13
by
jstrotha0975
on 10 Jan, 2023 20:26
-
Is the ATLAS Telescope still on? Last i knew they made a render of it in a Starship payload fairing.
-
#14
by
whitelancer64
on 10 Jan, 2023 20:35
-
Is the ATLAS Telescope still on? Last i knew they made a render of it in a Starship payload fairing.
I think you mean LUVIOR
-
#15
by
Eric Hedman
on 10 Jan, 2023 22:41
-
The lack of ambition is a bit disappointing. A 6.5m telescope by 2040? Why not go straight for a 15m-20m optical telescope, so we can directly observe continents on exoplanets?
Because the technology does not exist.
Even the technology for a 6.5-meter telescope doesn't currently exist and has to be developed. Anything bigger is far more difficult. The decadal survey was faced with the question of recommending 6.5 meters by 2040, or something larger by even later. Nobody wants to wait 30 years to actually do the science.
From the article:"It will also set up a Great Observatories Technology Maturation Program (GOMaP) to refine those technologies for the HWO and do similar prep work for subsequent great observatories."
Am I correct in assuming this is for developing the technology required to build the next telescope before settling on a design? To me that would make sense. Does anyone know how much money they want for the GOMaP program each year and how long they think they need?
-
#16
by
Blackstar
on 11 Jan, 2023 00:02
-
From the article:"It will also set up a Great Observatories Technology Maturation Program (GOMaP) to refine those technologies for the HWO and do similar prep work for subsequent great observatories."
That was recommended in the astrophysics decadal survey. (I was study director for the panel that dealt with the visible/UV telescopes.)
-
#17
by
VSECOTSPE
on 11 Jan, 2023 01:15
-
Am I correct in assuming this is for developing the technology required to build the next telescope before settling on a design?
Yes. From the 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey, page 7-11:
Recommendation: The NASA Astrophysics Division should establish a Great Observatories Mission and Technology Maturation Program, the purpose of which is to co-develop the science, mission architecture, and technologies for NASA large strategic missions identified as high priority by decadal surveys.
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/download/26141#Does anyone know how much money they want for the GOMaP program each year and how long they think they need?
The 2020 Decadal Survey assumes ~$800M over six years for technology maturation (page 7-13):
The survey’s top priority for this program is an IR/O/UV telescope optimized for observing habitable exoplanets and general astrophysics. As described in more detail in Section 7.5.2, the mission is recommended for implementation later in the decade, but only after the successful completion of the associated Great Observatories Mission and Technology Maturation program. Based on TRACE analysis and program panel input, the Survey estimates that 6 years will be required for this maturation, starting as soon as possible, before the mission is ready to be considered for implementation. The estimated cost of this mission and technology maturation program is ~$800 million, based on the cost and schedule analyses from the TRACE for the LUVOIR-B technology maturation program. These costs are carried within the Great Observatory Mission and Technology Maturation Program for approximately 6 years, at which point any residual technology development and the associated costs are transferred to the IR/O/UV mission development line. If this schedule and funding level can be achieved, by late decade it will be possible to assess the mission design, scientific reach, technology readiness at both the component and system level, feasibility of manufacturing processes, and cost for consistency with the survey’s recommendation and NASA’s budget guidance prior to transitioning to formulation and implementation.
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/download/26141#A few cautionary notes:
— Adequate technology maturation is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for bringing a program in on spec/schedule/budget. JWST (then NGST) also had a robust technology plan, even including a few in-space tech demo missions, and it still took longer and was more expensive than anticipated, for reasons both related and unrelated to technology.
— NASA’s astrophysics division doesn’t have a budget that fits the $11B profile for HWO from the 2020 Decadal Survey. Compare the green budget wedge for HWO to the inflationary budget line for the astrophysics division in the sand chart at the link below. Development projects have ideal funding curves, and if their funding is flattened and spread out over more time, they cost more. On top of that mismatch, NASA’s astrophysics division has a mostly flat budget projection in the outyears, not the inflationary line in the sand chart. Even if all the technology boxes for HWO are checked, this will be a major challenge.
https://www.aip.org/fyi/2021/astro2020-decadal-survey-arrives-priorities-major-facilities— The 2020 Decadal Survey was released in November 2021, which was too late to include its recommendations in the White House’s FY2023 budget request for NASA. So the earliest this technology funding may show up is in the FY 2024 budget request, which will be released in about a month. But it’s going to be a very challenging budget environment for NASA in Congress this year and probably next year (see link below), so full or even partial funding for the technology program is far from a slam dunk:
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/house-finally-ready-for-118th-congress-government-spending-cuts-top-priority/Not trying to be a wet blanket, but folks should be sober about the gaps between far-out mission concepts like LUVOIR and the budgets and technology necessary to do just what’s been recommended.
-
#18
by
Blackstar
on 11 Jan, 2023 16:43
-
— The 2020 Decadal Survey was released in November 2021, which was too late to include its recommendations in the White House’s FY2023 budget request for NASA. So the earliest this technology funding may show up is in the FY 2024 budget request, which will be released in about a month. But it’s going to be a very challenging budget environment for NASA in Congress this year and probably next year (see link below), so full or even partial funding for the technology program is far from a slam dunk:
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/house-finally-ready-for-118th-congress-government-spending-cuts-top-priority/
Not trying to be a wet blanket, but folks should be sober about the gaps between far-out mission concepts like LUVOIR and the budgets and technology necessary to do just what’s been recommended.
[I know VSECOTSPE knows this, I'm just throwing my two cents in.]
By "challenging," VSECOTSPE means that the current House leadership is not going to be able to produce a budget for the next several years and the best we can hope for is just more continuing resolutions. Let's hope that we at least get CRs, because the alternative is really bad.
That said, funding this big new telescope was always going to be difficult. The people working on the decadal survey--many of whom have long experience fighting to get big projects approved, and the scars to show for it--debated this issue for months. What some people wanted was a clear, simple endorsement of a big telescope, essentially saying "build this." The problem was that the technology is not ready enough even to make that decision. So the outcome, which is in the DS, was to go with a tech development program first, before committing to build the thing. They knew when they made that recommendation that it is harder to get approval for a tech development program than a spacecraft program, but they concluded that going the other way would not work.
A reminder that when you see these final reports and what is written down, that is only the end result, and that a lot of investigation, research, and discussion happened to lead to that point.
-
#19
by
redliox
on 12 Jan, 2023 06:05
-
I like the direction this concept goes. If not a giant telescope, I'd like to see some form of telescope/study dedicated to focusing on our nearest neighbors, Proxima most obviously but also Epsilon Eridani (Ran?) and Tau Ceti and the like (say within 20 light years [I find it very hard to call a star 1,000 light years 'my neighbor' even on astronomical scales]). If you can't use a giant telescope, a lot of observation time partly compensates...which is hard when splitting time with a few thousand astronomers.
How far do we need to go to get a proper count of our nearest exoplanets?