Talk:James Webb Space Telescope

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Spaceflight (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Astronomy (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon James Webb Space Telescope is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Cosmology (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon James Webb Space Telescope is within the scope of WikiProject Cosmology, which collaborates on articles related to physical cosmology on Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Europe / ESA (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by ESA task force (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject United States / Government (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (marked as Low-importance).


I'd heard that the JWST had a different spectrum from the HST and, thus, was meant to augment rather than supplant the HST. Is this true? blahpers 04:18, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

This is true; JWST will be primarily an infrared observatory, whereas HST was mostly optical. AdamW 20:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your dissagrement of
"intended to be a significant improvement on the aging Hubble Space Telescope"
It's like sayig This apple is redder than that orage is orange. Should we tag a citatin needed to the line and remove it if none is found? I remeber somewhere it said specifically it is not a replacement. I need a sorce for that thoug.--E-Bod 22:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Ps I am verry persanally attached to the HST so it would be inapropreat for me to make that change. The JWT isn't even even disined to be esily servisable and not be an ongoing thing (i remeber a long time ago it will be for 4 years, but this artile says 5(probably more current))(of corse same for all the other projects they allways love to underestimate their equipent so they can't be dissaponted and they proclam How Wonderul a sucsess when the misson last way longer than "expected" --E-Bod 22:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC))
How can it be designed to be easily servicable when it is 1.5 Gm from Earth. Give me a break. Because you love HST doesn't mean you have to bag on JWST. How completely odd.

Deorbit date[edit]

Is it correct to talk about a "deorbit date" for a mission at L2? Something out there isn't going to come back to the Earth when it's finished with... AdamW 20:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not really. Generally the objects at L2 simply drift away from the Earth after stationkeeping activities cease, perhaps to crash into it some time in the very distant future. A more pertinent time is the nominal mission life (5 years) and the goal (10 years). Also, the launch date has been changed to 2013 due to budgetary limitations. I am a novice and reluctant to edit such a nice summary for the mission. PeterStockman 19:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

In 'Current Status,' it says "Recently NASA has decided to slip the launch date two years to 2013." Can someone throw a date there instead of "recently?" Maybe link to a press release? Shaggorama 10:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC) YA — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Deorbit date wrong[edit]

The deorbit date has to be wrong, Hubble will last for at least 20 years yet this will last 5? If this is true then the project should be scrapped for being a waste of time and money.

That five years is more an artifact of the procurement process than an actual plan. Essentially they say "specify what observations you want your proposed instrument to make, design a platform that will achieve that, cost it, and the funding and science comittees will decide if that's good science-value-for-money". So when they say JWST will last five years they really mean that the observations they plan to do in those five years will justify the price of the telescope, and that the engineers are sure (to a reasonable degree of certainty) that the systems they've designed will last long enough to succeed in that goal. In practice things are overspecified, overdesigned, and overbuilt, and so many things last much longer. Nobody expected Voyager to be working after its planned encounters (certainly not a decade later), the Mars rovers were planned to work for a month or two and still work more than a year later, and Hubble was planned for a few years (I think seven). So it's likely that we'll see good science from JWST long after its official death-date. That said, its high altitude means it's way out of the reach of the Space Shuttle (and who knows what, or when, Crew Exploration Vehicle will actually be able to do); there's no chance of an in-flight upgrade - so it almost certainly will have a shorter life than Hubble. That's not such a bad deal, even if it is only five years. Once you amortise the cost of shuttle missions to maintain HST, or face the progressively poorer science you'd get from an aging, deteriorating obervatory, it's probably cheaper and smarter to launch a new, cutting-edge telescope when the old one fails. And just like other modern electronics products, if you don't have to make something repairable you can make it much much cheaper. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The website of JWST refers to a "design" mission length of 5 years and a "goal" mission length of 10 years. I've replaced "deorbit date" with those two numbers. Of course the actual mission length is not known ahead of time. Kingdon 16:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hubble wasn't supposed to last 16 years when they launched it. The Mars Rovers were supposed to last only 3 months (they're still working, more than 2 years later. The same observation can be made about the Galileo probe. What we should understand is that any probe or satellite has a primary mission, which lasts a finite amount of time. If everything goes fine, the mission is extended indefinitely... for as long as the piece of hardware keeps going (and going and going). Limitations can come from batteries or propeller tanks, from the inability to service it (due to the distance), or from degradation suffered from the space medium (cold, radiations, micro-meteorites). Best regards, Hugo Dufort 06:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Failed Wikipedia:Version 0.5 nomination[edit]

I have failed this article for Wikipedia:Version 0.5 for several reasons:

  1. It has very few refs, and none are inline. Articles should have as many references as possible to verify the information.
  2. It isn't very comprehensive. This may be because it's far into the future, so this wasn't really the deciding factor.
  3. It's not very notable. It may be the most important astronomical telescope when launched, but that's at least 7 years away, and most people haven't heard of it now.

With improvements, this may be good enough for Wikipedia:Version 1.0 in the future, but it is not at written encyclopaedia quality yet. I would rate it a strong start class. --Rory096 05:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible grammar error[edit]

Shouldn't the bold phrase be changed to 6 times as large? Although JWST has a planned mass half that of the Hubble, its primary mirror (a 6.5 meter diameter beryllium reflector) has a collecting area which is almost 6 times larger. 05:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Without a source, we can't tell which is correct. It would not be a grammar error; it would be a math error. Mathematically, "six times as large" equates to 6 x 1. "Six times larger" equates to 1 + (6 x 1). Remember that 1.0 is the same as 100%, so the language can be demonstrated logically like this:
  • Let's say you have a weight that is 100 pounds. If you have another weight that is 50% (half) as heavy, it would be 50 pounds. 100 x 0.5 = 50
  • Now again let's say you have a weight that is 100 pounds. If you have another weight that is 50% heavier, it would be 150 pounds. 100 + (100 x 0.5) = 150
--JHP 08:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

CNN has reported that "The Webb telescope will be given a primary mirror whose surface is about six times the size of the one on Hubble." [1] 999mal 07:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible source[edit]

I saw this article on the subject, so I thought I'd list it here as a possible source.

This also looks like a good source for information on the sunshield. Njerseyguy (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Simulated pictures[edit]

It seems to me that the simulated pictures are just hubble deep field pictures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dylanjbyrne (talkcontribs) 12:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

- I agree. They are hubble deep field photos. There is also no reference of where they came from and I can find none saying these are true simulations of the performance. (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Docking ring[edit]

Regarding the docking ring, the New Scientist article URL (added by Ericpsmith (talk · contribs)) works fine for me. I'm not sure why Tuvas (talk · contribs) had trouble accessing it. The spin in this article is very different from the article, that's for sure. But I'm not sure the two quite contradict each other. In the article, the NASA guy is quoted as saying "We are going to design for the James Webb Space Telescope a little ring". Note that he says they will design the ring, not whether they will include the ring in the final design for Webb. If we really wanted to cover whether the ring will happen or not in an NPOV way, we could elaborate more on the pros, the cons, what has been analyzed, what still needs to be analyzed, what has been recommended by whom to whom, etc, etc. But I'm skeptical that we really want that level of detail when we can just use words like "is considering" and link to the articles (and any others which are more authoritative than media news articles, if available). I've made an edit which does roughly that but if we still have problems with what to say, we should probably hash things out on the talk page. Kingdon 00:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it's working for me now... I must have had the one minute that I couldn't connect to the site for some reason... Anyways, I don't have enough time to figure out what's right right now, but thanks for correcting me. Tuvas 01:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Can't take optical pictures like Hubble[edit]

I've read that since the JWST is primarily infrared (with some optical capability), that it won't be able to take pictures in the optical spectrum anywhere near as amazing as the Hubble has been doing, anyone have more info on that? --Fxer 18:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually the JWST is not even sensitive in the optical spectrum. It's instruments are designed for Near Infrared and Mid Infrared. Hubble is sensitive to a MUCH larger part of the spectrum than the JWST. JWST will only replace the Infrared capabilities of Hubble.--Martin Cash 16:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The JWST is being designed to operate from the very red part of the visible spectrum (0.6 micrometers) through the mid-infrared (27 micrometers). Because of its larger mirror diameter than the HST it will have HST-like angular resolution in the near-infrared (1-5 mircometers). What this means is that images from the JWST will be just as sharp as the ones we have all gotten used to from the HST. The multi-color capabilities of the JWST (i.e., different filters) will allow one to reconstruct the images with cooler areas/objects colored 'redder' and higher temperature areas/objects colored "bluer", again just like we are used to seeing from the HST. The pictures will be just as amazing, but from a portion of the spectrum not directly observable with the naked eye. JWST is NOT meant to be a replacement for HST. It is the scientific successor to the HST. It will help astronomers further the study of very faint, distant (highly redshifted) galaxies. These galaxies, formed early in the history of the universe, are filled with objects emitting strongly in the restframe ultraviolet and optical. This radiation is shifted into the near and mid infrared by the expansion of the universe. Hence, to study them one needs to optimize the observatory for that portion of the spectrum. This infrared optimization also opens a wealth of observations in areas other than distant galaxy studies.--ericpsmith 21:49, 27 August 2007


I think a timeline would be helpful, I'd like to know when the project was first announced, major milestones etc... (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if a timeline is the best format (there's some discussion at WP:Proseline although nothing there tells us we must or must not format things as a timeline) but we are indeed lacking a reasonable history of the mission (first concepts, getting it approved, budgetary battles, fleshing out the design, etc). If someone has written a real history (like the many for Apollo), that makes it easier, but we could get in some basic facts without getting in too much trouble with WP:SYN. Kingdon (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The Space Telescope Science Institute has a JWST Project History page that might help with this. Beww (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Public display, cause and effect: How can a model that was assembled in May 2007 possibly "been on display at various places since 2005"? (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is it named after some not notable bureaucrat?![edit]

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, why is it named after some not notable, gay-hunting, bureaucrat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


It's intersting that the JWST is going to be launched by the Ariane rocket. Generally NASA has been mandated to use American launch vehicles (Delta IV or Atlas V). It would be intersting to know the story about this decision. (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The article already states that the ESA is contributing the Ariane rocket to the project, so I'm guessing free European rocket > $300-500m American rocket. (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Poorly written[edit]

In the first three paragraphs alone, one may find mixed tense (will/is), excessive wordiness (exact synchrony - exact is not needed, something is either synchronous or not), superfluous hyphens (solar-orbit should not be hyphenated as orbit is a subjective noun modified by the adjective solar). On the norm, sentences are awkwardly constructed.

This 'style' is practiced throughout the document. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Cost overrun and delayed launch[edit]

  • Is there any miscalculation about cost? why would be so cheap? only $8.8 billion US dollars. Hong Kong Airport's Third Runway already cost $17.57 billion US dollars. How would the JWST be so cheap?

Fold-up for launch?[edit]

I don't see a description of the deployment approach of the large mirror structure in space? Or does it launch with the mirror assembly in final position under some sort of gigantic fairing? (over 7 metres in diameter?). A description of the deployment design for the huge, multiple-layer radiation shield would also be useful. Does such information exist in the public domain? N2e (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

James Webb Space Telescope#JWST optical design already discusses this. I suppose an animation may significantly help in the explanation, I've seen some about. I imagine if any are created by NASA they should be public domain. ChiZeroOne (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately after a quick look it appears they were all made by Northrop Grumman, :-( --ChiZeroOne (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually I may have found one, [4], which if I read the media use policy right should be CC Attribution and free-use compatible. Unfortunately it only shows the mirror deployment and not the sunshade but it's better than nothing. ChiZeroOne (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
If you count the mirror segments in that video, there are 30+ of them. In reality JWST has 18. As a result, the way the video shows the mirror segments unfolding is not accurate. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC).
If they were made after the contract was given to Northrup, the videos should be in PD anyway as being paid for by NASA for NASA. If they were made prior to the contract, as a proposal, it is likely not in PD. --Xession (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed that's true but there is no information to hand about the actual status of those, whether these animations being PD was in fact part of the contract. As far as I'm aware that is not always the case, the animations could have been contracted out to an outside artist by Northrop themselves. I was trying to find an animation that was clearly PD or free-use. ChiZeroOne (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Featured Picture[edit]

File:James Webb Space Telescope Mirror37.jpg has been featured now, but unfortunately due the be backlog it could take up to a year to be displayed on the main page. — raekyt 00:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Who is James Webb?[edit]

Some history on naming is needed —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The article discusses this in the second paragraph of the lead. I don't think there needs to be any more than that. This is an article on the James Webb Space Telescope, not James Webb. The wikilink provides access to more detailed information on the person. This is the same as the Hubble article where Edwin Hubble is only given a couple of short mentions. ChiZeroOne (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this belongs in the lead. I recommend moving it into the body. -daniel
It does, since Webb is not well-known. However, I've cut it to the basics (who and why) and there's a linked biography for those who want more. SBHarris 19:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Program cancellation[edit]

I guess it is official. I just don't know where to put this bit of "news" into this article but I think it is very much appropriate:

Congress just cancelled the telescope, ensuring it will never fly. See the NASA section in this press release from the U.S. House of Representatives website:

As I said, I just don't know how else to work this in, but it is official. I expect that there will be an official statement by NASA about this in the next coming days or so. --Robert Horning (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ouch. I'm not well acquainted with American politics but from what I've read this is a bill still to be debated and hence subject to change? Or is this final? It might be an idea to wait for that official statement from NASA, which might include more detail, before revamping the article though. ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
While there still may be a chance to save the project, it is now an incredibly tough uphill battle that needs a broad constituency to back it up if they want to save it at this point. It isn't "final" as the bill still has to be approved, but this is what is coming out of the appropriations committee where much of the budget negotiations have already taken place. Essentially, the Webb Telescope has been traded for the Space Launch System due to budget cuts. Funding for this won't be restored without something huge being cut to replace it, like the ISS getting splashed into the Pacific Ocean. I also just don't see the huge fan base among ordinary American citizens to scream at getting this built unlike when the Hubble Telescope was being scheduled to be splashed and then at the last minute got another Shuttle service flight to extend its lifetime.
BTW, another source of this story can be found with some more details here:
--Robert Horning (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
More stories are coming in now on the topic with more details:
--Robert Horning (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
While this is not good news for JWST, it's probably premature to stick a fork in it at this point. This is just the initial bill from the appropriations committee in the House. It has to be debated and voted on by the full House (at which point it would also be subject to amendments). Furthermore, the Senate Appropriations Committee has to prepare its own bills, which are considered and voted upon in that chamber. Finally, the differences between the House and Senate budgets have to be resolved in conference before the final budget gets sent to the President for signature (or veto). Seventypercent (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Zeroing funding does not mean that JWST will never fly. They're likely to mothball it in a warehouse. Other mothballed NASA projects have flown decades later, when new funding was found. (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Most of the above is severely overstated, bordering on outright misinformation. In no way has JWST been 'officially' cancelled at this point. All that has happened is that one subcommittee of the House of Representatives has proposed cutting its funding, as part of the negotiations leading towards a FY2012 federal budget. However, the full House of Representatives has yet to weigh in, much less the US Senate or the President. One subcommittee of one house voting for something is a far cry from making it the law of the land. Note that the President's FY2012 Budget Request for NASA included roughly $400M for JWST, and that there are strong supporters in both chambers of the legislature for this project. Yes, it is noteworthy that it has been proposed to cancel the telescope, sure, but please keep some perspective on the way that Federal budget negotiations work! It is very, very common for there to be all kinds of changes proposed early in the negotiations that end up having no impact on the final budget that is adopted. Mperrin (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Last comment here is right. I know someone working at Northrop Grumann on JWST and they are going strong. Lots of news (see the picture below.) I'm a fan. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

power supply[edit]

hey; there doesn't seem to be anything about the satellite's power supply? Lx 121 (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Like Hubble, it will be solar powered. This is true of essentially all astronomical satellites, and thus is probably not noteworthy enough to deserve specific mention. Mperrin (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

respectfully disagree. most automobiles are powered via internal combustion engine; most run on either diesel or gasoline fuel; it's still important & relevant to note the specifics, in describing a particular model/type/etc. of automobile Lx 121 (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

What? We're talking about satellites not cars. FFS if it bothers you add a section on power sources, especially if you find something interesting like isotope thermals. (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Well if this telescope is solar powered then why will it only have an 11 year life span? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Program Saved by Senate?[edit]

Important articles:

--Radical Mallard (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this still needs to be passed by the House before it means anything. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 19:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
With the House and the Senate not in the same political party together with the fact that several budget bills have not been approved now for a couple of years or longer, I agree that the skepticism is justified here. At best you might hope for a "continuing resolution" with the NASA budget.... which would include some funding for the telescope. That would say "continue what you were doing last year", which is a continuation of previous years due to a lack of a budget being passed then. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

NASA, ESA and CSA: Equal contributions to the project?[edit]

This sentence make it sound like that NASA, ESA and CSA have contributed equally to the project:

"The telescope is an international collaboration of about 17 countries led by NASA, the European Space Agency, and the Canadian Space Agency."

But NASA call themselves the lead partner in the project:

"NASA is the lead partner in Webb, with significant contributions from the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Canadian Space Agency (CSA)."

--Siddtech9 (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This used to be in the article, to help answer this question "As of the 2005 re-plan, the life-cycle cost of the project was estimated at about US$ 4.5 billion. This is comprised of approximately $3.5 billion for design, development, launch and commissioning, and approximately $1.0 billion for ten years of operations.[1] The ESA is contributing about 300M Euros, including the launch[2], and the Canadian Space Agency about $39M Canadian[3]." This is out of date, but the point remains that that the USA is by far the biggest, then ESA, then CSA.
  1. ^ John Mather. "James Webb Space Telescope (JWST)" (PDF). National Academy of Science. Retrieved 2008-07-05. 
  2. ^ "European agreement on James Webb Space Telescope’s Mid-Infrared Instrument (MIRI) signed". ESA. 2008=06-04. Retrieved 2009-09-06.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ "Canadian Space Agency: Canada's Contribution to NASA's James Webb Space Telescope.". Canadian Corporate News. Retrieved 2008-09-06. 

LouScheffer (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought the essence of a collaborative project was cooperation. It's not a competition to see who can do the most! (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Very cold mirror[edit]

The introductory paragraph mentions a very large and "very cold" mirror. If that is a terminology I'm not familiar with, it needs to be explained, or be made into a link. But I'm inclined to think it's vandalism. (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, but a crucial technical point. An infra-red telescope needs a very cold mirror (otherwise the glow from the mirror itself fogs the images). The Hubble uses a room temperature mirror, and hence cannot see far into the infrared. In the Webb, the designers go to a great deal of trouble to keep the mirror very cold (about 40K as I recall - colder than liquid nitrogen). It's very difficult - in particular you need to make sure the mirror(s) work at a temperature very different from the temperature used during polishing - but absolutely necessary. LouScheffer (talk) 11:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

File:James Webb Space Telescope Mirror37.jpg to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:James Webb Space Telescope Mirror37.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 18, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-08-18. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 18:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the day
James Webb Space Telescope

Six beryllium mirror segments of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) undergoing a series of cryogenic tests at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. The JWST is a planned space telescope that is a joint collaboration of 20 countries. It will orbit the Sun approximately 1,500,000 km (930,000 mi) beyond the Earth, around the L2 Lagrange point. It is expected to launch in 2018.

Photo: NASA/MSFC/David Higginbotham/Emmett Given
ArchiveMore featured pictures...

Very cold[edit]

The 2nd sentence of the 1st paragraph descibribes the mirror as "very cold". That sounds strange. is it correct? Pass a Method talk 13:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of very cold, ~40K is pretty cold! The mirror itself is not actively cooled, there may be others that operate at colder temperatures but off the top of my head I can't think of any. I think the point the editor was trying to get across is that the sun-shield reduces the spacecraft/mirror temperature so thermal radiation from the observatory itself doesn't blind JWST's infra-red sensors. ChiZeroOne (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

James E. Webb[edit]

I couldn't find were the article discussed the man James Webb, or why it's named after him. If it's in there it should be more prominent. Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

James E. Webb was director of NASA from 1961 to 1968, during the time that the Apollo program went from a wild goal to a firmly designed, financed, and built project (Apollo 8 went around the Moon in Dec 2008, recall). Wwheaton (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You mean 1968. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

JWST at SXSW[edit]

I think this is notable enough to be included, for what it shows about JWST outreach efforts, if not just for the 3 day exhibit. It's covered by reliable sources: Story in the LA Times]. And there certainly aren't many other projects with travelling models, at least of this size.

The long term impact, of course, must be measured in the long term. One somewhat incestuous way to measure this would be to look at the impact on page view rates, or search for coverage in other sources. LouScheffer (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Here I've reverted the unreversion of the removal of this addition. See WP:BRD -- let's not edit war over this in the article while we're discussing theinclusion of this material here. My opinion is that it is WP:UNDUE. Re some specifics about the removed insertion (e.g., "currently"), see WP:DATED. Further n this vein, I suggest further removal of the words "More recently" from the immediately prior paragraph abut the model, and incorporation of the remaining text into the paragraph prior to that. 23:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Recently you and User talk:Dawnseeker2000 made three edits to JWST that were perfectly correct in a purely technical sense. Dawn removed a statement without a reference, then removed it again since (in his opinion) it does not have enough long term impact. Then WTMitchell removed it a third time, without discussing on the talk page first, pointing to whole pile of WP:XXX rules and regulations. If the insertion was done by an established, or even registered, editor I'd have no problem at all with this. But for an edit made by an IP, it certainly goes against Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers.
Here is an IP who is not a troll, not a vandal, and added factually and grammatically correct information which might be interesting to a number of people (in particular, those who visit Wikipedia since they see the model at SXSW). Almost surely, he (or she) had the reference available, but did not put it in since they did not know how. As for notability, any established editor knows that if another editor removes something as un-notable, the usual response is to go to the talk page and argue it out there. An IP editor often does not know this, so it's worth adding a "please discuss on talk page" to an edit summary for such a deletion. Also, explaining in words (and kind words) is a lot more helpful than a large pile of Wikipedia-specific acronyms. We *need* new editors, and having correct stuff deleted three times, with lots of wiki-lawyering about the correct procedure for it, is not a welcoming experience. LouScheffer (talk) 05:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Update! JWST currently undergoing 4 month vacuum test[edit]

This article needs some serious updating. I'll try to add stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monochrome monitor (talkcontribs) 23:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect Orbit Details[edit]

The current version of the "Orbit" section says the telescope will have a planned elliptical orbit around L_2, with a radius of 800,000 kilometers, but the concept of a radius does not make sense in an ellipse. Is the orbit actually a circular one? Is anyone able to clarify this specification? (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

JWST deployment infograph[edit]

File:How the James Webb Space Telescope will deploy post-launch..jpg
This graphic shows how the James Webb Space Telescope will deploy after launch.

I've just found this on nasa's flickr and uploaded it on commons. Is it worth it finding a space for it in the article? Tetra quark (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

...anyone? Perhaps I should just be bold and add it, but I'm not sure Tetra quark (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Look great to me; really great! -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
@Charles Edwin Shipp: I'll add it tomorrow then. Oh and by the way, what do you think of the new lead image? Do you think it is better than the previous one? Tetra quark (talk) 06:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

External Links[edit]


This article has approximately 20 External Links: WP likes 1 or 2. Perhaps some thining-out can be possible?

Started thining out. As an example, the President of the USA has 11.Richard Nowell (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Removed NASA, STScI and ESA ExLinks as there are already numerous links to those organisations in the article. Richard Nowell (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Development section tweak[edit]

"Later that year, TRW would be acquired by Northrop Grumman in a hostile bid and became Northrop Grumman Space Technology/Ball Aerospace."

TRW was acquired by Northrop Grumman to become, at the time, Northrop Grumman Space Technology. Ball Aerospace was and is a separate company and not part of the merger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:SullivanCarew (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)SullivanCarew|SullivanCarew]] (talkcontribs) 01:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)