Those fucking baguettes lost one

northrop grumman charged enough so they have spares or even triples of all the important stuff

can't they launch it with a Soyuz?
I know it's not made for it, but could it carry it?
827 successful launches isn't something to scoff at

*893 successful launches

JWST is already lost.

In 2002, when it was named and the main contract was awarded, it was supposed to cost $2 billion and fly in 2011. Now $8 billion has been spent with launch still no earlier than a year off. That's several times worse than blowing it up on time and within the budget.

Atlas V came within a hair of total mission failure just a dozen launches ago, when it was hauling a Cygnus to ISS and the booster engine fucked up and shut down early.

It also had an upper stage early shutdown in 2007, which was a failed launch by the usual standards, but because it was a US gov't payload on a politically favored contractor's rocket and a failure would have been embarassing for everyone who had pulled strings to make the formation of ULA possible just a few months before this, everyone pretended it didn't count.

Atlas V is very reliable, but the "perfect" record is a combination of luck and fudging.

>Atlas V came within a hair of total mission failure just a dozen launches ago
So?

>It also had an upper stage early shutdown in 2007, which was a failed launch by the usual standards
not a failure, and from the looks of it, neither was this Ariane launch

>but because it was a US gov't payload on a politically favored contractor's rocket and a failure would have been embarassing for everyone who had pulled strings to make the formation of ULA possible just a few months before this, everyone pretended it didn't count.
retarded conspiracy theory

It's going ahead, and if this particular mission fails, someone will fund something similar. Lots of people need it.

The payloads survived the anomaly so things probably didn't go to wrong.

Veeky Forums getting BTFO
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA

Stupid amerimutts on suicide watch yet again :)

No. If JWST is lost then we lose the $16 billion and 2 more decades to launch the new one

JWST doesn't matter. It's a program of the OldSpace era.

Within a couple of years of JWST flying, you'll be able to launch ten times as much mass for a tenth of the cost, in a large-diameter fairing so it can have a solid reflector that's larger than JWST's, and with under a month's notice to the launch company. You'll be able to send a prototype up to a space station and have people test it out in space and fiddle with it.

If JWST blows up, it won't matter because there'll be a dozen better ones within five years.

>Within a couple of years of JWST flying, you'll be able to launch ten times as much mass for a tenth of the cost, in a large-diameter fairing so it can have a solid reflector that's larger than JWST's, and with under a month's notice to the launch company

what controlled substance are you currently flying on, my good dude?

pls not my SJW satellite :'(

sweat, scraped off elon's nuts

>large-diameter fairing so it can have a solid reflector
JWT's mirror is 20 meters across you fucking tool
there was never a rocket that huge
not even close to it

New Glenn will have a 7-meter fairing and a reusable booster with 45 tonne LEO payload, BFR will have a 9-meter fairing and be fully reusable with 150 tonne LEO payload and in-orbit refuelling capability. Both should be flying within a few years of JWST going up.

JWST has a 6.5 meter diameter main reflector. It had to be broken up into 18 segments to fit in the 4.5 m Ariane 5 fairing, and a huge amount of time, money, and effort has been spent ensuring that it will fold out correctly (which is still not certain by any means). Similarly vast resources have been spent keeping the mass down to 6.5 tonnes, so it can be launched on Ariane 5, and on making sure it will work without a prototype being tested in space first, and on ensuring that it will have a long mission life without refilling any consumables, so only one of the very costly launches on a fully-expendable rocket will be required.

When BFR's working, none of that will be necessary. A launch to the same trajectory will cost a few million dollars and allow a spacecraft mass of tens of tonnes and an 8-meter-diameter single-piece main reflector, or an even larger non-circular one. With launch costs like that, there will be space stations both in LEO and in deep space, where people live and work testing satellites and probes, with the real space environment just on the other side of an airlock, with regular scheduled shipments from Earth.

No, it merely has an area of 25 square meters. Its diameter is only 6.5 meters.

Oh, it was probably "20 foot diameter" that you were thinking of, and got it mixed up as "20 meter diameter".

user, even if you could launch a telescope larger than JWST in the alternate reality that you are living in, it still cost quite a bit of money and time to develop telescopes. Even ground based telescopes take quite a bit of time to build.

it's not that crazy. NASA has proposed launching an 8 meter monolithic mirror telescope using the SLS:
stsci.edu/atlast
arxiv.org/pdf/0904.0941.pdf
Interesting thing is that they could use an existing mirror blank from the VLT.

Of course the problem is that no one is working on these telescopes. There's not even any funding allocated today. Precise scientific instruments take time to develop and build. Politics is even slower.

>a huge amount of time, money, and effort has been spent ensuring that it will fold out correctly (which is still not certain by any means).

what are the chances that portions of this have been already tested in one form or another on some NRO bird

the chance is roughly equal to the probability that a snowball does not melt when immersed in molten silicate lava. If the NRO launched something that had folding mirrors that big it'd have fucking negative apparent magnitude. And if it's not using mirrors then that's not the same tech.

Giant space telescopes are LITERALLY worthless though

"The launcher’s liftoff took place on January 25, 2018 at 7:20 pm. A few seconds after ignition of the upper stage, the second tracking station located in Natal, Brazil, did not acquire the launcher telemetry. This lack of telemetry lasted throughout the rest of powered flight. Subsequently, both satellites were confirmed separated, acquired and they are on orbit. SES-14 and Al Yah 3 are communicating with their respective control centers. Both missions are continuing."

user, you can't put a price on fundamental science and answer to big questions. Making new telescopes has helped us develop new technology that can be used for things besides telescopes.

Reminder that the French and USA paid off and conspired to force the UK to abandon one of the cheapest and most efficient rockets in human history.

youtube.com/watch?v=FHBGAyIU8Hw

>the Atlas V cannot possibly be described as providing assured access to space for our nation when supply of its main engine depends on President Putin's permission

-Elon Musk

this

JWST is heavily constrained by its launch vehicle, both in mass and in size. Also the cost is so high partially because cost of space access is so high.

If BFR succeeds to radically lower launch costs and increase payload capabilities then JWST will be an obsolete design. Not just JWST but many other spacecraft, both scientific and other.

For every minute we waited for TM, everyone became more quiet.

As Ariane confirmed the anomaly it felt as if the air in the room have been completely sucked out. I looked around and I started seeing everything in black and white.

It was a pure fucking nightmare.

what a humongous faggot

Fucking baguettes fix your shit., don't dare to fuck up JSWT.

The sensors sure as heck won't be obsolete. The sensors use some crazy MEMS shit

jwst.nasa.gov/microshutters.html

>JWST will RUD at T+18 seconds after engine ignition

>I know it's not made for it, but could it carry it?

No rockets are made for a specific payload, except maybe Saturn V.
Soyuz isn't capable of launching JWST because it's too heavy and it's going too far.

Baguettes fucked up.

Orbit Data
43174/2018-012A: 232 x 43,163km, 20.64°
43175/2018-012B: 232 x 43,198km, 20.64°
43176/2018-012C: 169 x 42,790km, 21.01°
43177/2018-012D: 235 x 43,153km, 20.64°
Target was 250 x 45,000km, 3°

Reminder that Black Arrow was objectively shit and obsolete by the time it flew

Oh fuck off by 17 degrees

does SES get some money back?

arianespace.com/press-release/launch-va241-ariane-5-delivers-ses-14-and-al-yah-3-to-orbit/

My dad works there, everything is fine now

You are so wrong

Perigee is at -15.6° so it will be even worse than just cutting 20°.French fags on suicide watch buy an Atlas next time and get where you want on time

Source.

European and Russian rockets consistently perform better and much safer than their poorly engineered american counterparts.

>14 trillion usd and 50 years later...

lol

see

"Initial investigations show that the situation results from a trajectory deviation.
At the end of the mission, the launcher separated both satellites on a stable orbit. "
They are in an incorrect orbit that will take hundreds of m/s to correct and cut life in orbit significantly sorry that you can't understand arianespace press release

>what are the chances that portions of this have been already tested in one form or another on some NRO bird
We already know from the initial Hubble problems that the intelligence agencies NEVER share such information, even though everyone knows it will come to light and that the only ones to suffer are the tax payers.

Look at the available flightpaths of this fucked up 20 degrees inc. It almost overflew brasil, holy fuck. Some major process errors.

almost-parallel to equator = target
fucked up, suborbital-almost-overflight of brasil line = actual orbit

how the fuck did this not get blown up by range safety we'll never know. I wonder where the core stage, boosters and fairing ended up dropping...

Situation is under control less than 15 minutes after the problem appears

>baguettes

i must say i like this better than saying 'frogs'

Times change

times really change

>ESA
>loses something else

They really need to get their act together

Sats are not in the ocean but they are in a horribly incorrect orbit 20deg inclination and an RAAN is off so easy corrections are out of the picture.

No problem they just have to boost it to near escape velocity and then do a plane change at the top it's how I do it in kerbal space program when my rockets go in any direction other than right.

Jesus Christ that's a mistake you only see in Kerbal.

>Why the SpaceX hype when the more commercially successful Arianespace had been launching rockets with larger payloads for over 30 years?

It's a good question. Is it just because America Fuck yea ?

Because private vs government.

this is good news

Because SpaceX is outcompeting them, and is making rapid progress while Arianespace doesn't seem to have any plans to ever make any, but is content to continue operating at the level of 1970 technology.

Because Space-X is landing rockets and announcing grand plans. Ariane 6 is going to be just another conventional rocket except at some point in the future they want to put wings on the first stage engine to recover them.

What the hell, missions have been blown up for smaller deviations.

Stop shitposting in Veeky Forums, Elon.

>What the hell, missions have been blown up for smaller deviations.
And what mission was that?

how would range safety have blown it up if they couldn't contact the rocket

Holy fuck that's embarrassing. That's almost as bad as when the russians forgot they are launching from a new facility. I'm surprised they didn't trigger the FTS.

Atlas flies what, eight, nine times a year?Good luck booking a launch.

They lost telemetry after second stage ignition. By that point they already deviated quite far from the planned trajectory.

rocket not sending a data stream is a little different from the rocket not being able to reach a self-destruct signal

Yes, because launch costs is what's really holding us back from launching huge telescopes into space. Get real you fucking moron.

Electron's first flight got destroyed when they has connection issues with one piece of third party gear. Everything else was fine but RSO pushed the button just in case.

Where did you get those numbers from?

I'm a big fan of yours Mr. Musk

Probably NSF: forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42215.msg1777656#msg1777656

Well shit. From what those folks are saying it sounds like the rocket was fine, and ESA managed to point the whole launch in the wrong direction.
That's... new.

>HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA
Mom let the hyaena use her computer again.

it's 6.5m you ignorant retard
Lrn2jwst

they are, launch costs and limits on payload mass and volume is that is holding us back

this is the reason why the cost of a space telescope is an order of magnitude larger than cost of a comparable ground telescope

if BFR solves that issue then there will be a paradigm shift

oh yeah absolutely. my mom is dead but this piece of junk just beeped in space. really good news

So it wasn't destroyed for "a smaller deviation".

...

>this is the reason why the cost of a space telescope is an order of magnitude larger than cost of a comparable ground telescope
That's clearly not true. Look at telescopes like Euclid. Euclid is a billion euro mission but it will fly on Soyuz because it doesn't require maximum volume and payload. Not all space telescopes are like JWST, most are much smaller but they are still extremely expensive.

Do you know if we will get good photos out of Euclid? Comparable to Hubble?

Euclid has about half the angular resolution but it has a huge field of view (450 times larger). It's camera has 600 M pixels compared to
hubbles's 16 M. It will make nice images but they will have to be creatively coloured using either the near infrared instrument or other data.

Did the EU ever even land on the moon?

No. They intentionally crashed SMART-1 into the Moon, but that's it.
Also, ESA isn't the EU.

>They have had a perfect record on Ariane 5 since the second flight,

Actually they had 4 failures in the first 14 flights.

ITT jealousy and envy

...?

>we don't like Arianespace because it's not spacex USA USA USA, even if Ariane is undoubtedly better