• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

James Webb Telescope

Frustrating, but I'd rather it was right.

A bit like waiting for a new album by one of my favourite artists: I'd rather wait for it to be right than get a rushed release and it not as good.
 
https://phys.org/news/2018-03-nasa-next-generation-space-telescope.html

I think we should all march if there is any further delay to the launch. Mankind depends on the results of James Webb and our escape to the stars, because American politicians cannot be relied on to do their duty as protectors of Earth.

I think you're wrong. This isn't hubble, it won't be serviceable. It has to be perfect the first time, and if they need more time to get it right, then they should have it.
 
"Simply put, we have one shot to get this right before going into space," explained Thomas Zurbuchen, NASA's associate administrator of science.
I really wish NASA would stop doing this prototype-only stuff. If we can justify designing a single sun-shaded telescope operating at a lagrange point a million kilometers from Earth, why not send three and have a bit of redundancy?
 
I predict that the James Webb telescope will detect galaxies formed from the center outward ��

No pulling forces are needed to explain any phenomenon. Not on a small scale, not on a large scale.

Black hole vs. Expanding black star which emit dark expanding light / pushing force

https://youtu.be/C7qXyaxK5p8

��
 
I predict that the James Webb telescope will detect galaxies formed from the center outward ��

No pulling forces are needed to explain any phenomenon. Not on a small scale, not on a large scale.

Black hole vs. Expanding black star which emit dark expanding light / pushing force

https://youtu.be/C7qXyaxK5p8

��

Surely that should be: Contacting white hole vs contracting white star that sucks in contracting heavy / pulling weakness? :confused:
 
I really wish NASA would stop doing this prototype-only stuff. If we can justify designing a single sun-shaded telescope operating at a lagrange point a million kilometers from Earth, why not send three and have a bit of redundancy?

Yeah, shame on NASA for not magically tripling, quadrupling the money Congress budgets for them!
 
I really wish NASA would stop doing this prototype-only stuff. If we can justify designing a single sun-shaded telescope operating at a lagrange point a million kilometers from Earth, why not send three and have a bit of redundancy?

Giving this some more thought: I don't think we can justify it. Or if we can, it's only barely. It's definitely in the "nice to have category". If we don't send this up now, we'll send it up later. Or we'll send something else up later. Or someone else will send something up at some point.

And yes, it is possible that this will be the one that finds the cure for cancer or discovers the benevolent aliens or whatever. Maybe it'll turn out that if we'd gotten off our asses and launched seventeen of them a hundred years ago, it would have prevented the Great Depression, avoided WW2 and the Cold War, and stopped the election of Donald Trump. But I doubt it.

Cosmology isn't really something that calls for redunancy at $1bn+ per item. A large part of the justification for throwing even $10bn at it is NASA's promise that they can get it right (or at least make it work) the first time.

Too, how could you do something like the JWST without at least one prototype? Even the Apollo hardware designs went through revisions and improvements as they learned the lessons of each prototype they flew.

What'll really happen is that if/when this prototype proves itself, future researchers will consider use it as a basis for future telescopes of similar principles and design. But it doesn't really make sense to fund half a dozen all at once right now. It barely makes sense to use the one.

I hate to say it, but where investing in redundancy makes sense is in national defense. Ironically, we could probably have had redundant HSTs, as that telescope used many components and design features originally developed for reconnaissance satellites. Apparently there's a couple sets of Hubble-grade optics lying around, that could be put into orbit to replace the HST. But... NASA would rather focus on the JWST right now. And I agree with that priority.
 
The only thing taking longer is George R.R. Martin finishing off A Song of Ice and Fire!
 
Will James Webb be the next victim of cancellation?

NASA Needs to Rename the James Webb Space Telescope (Op-Ed in Scientific American)

James Webb, a career civil servant whose time at the Department of State under Truman included advancing the development of psychological warfare as a Cold War tool, was later the NASA administrator who oversaw the Apollo program. When he arrived at NASA in 1961, his leadership role meant he was in part responsible for implementing what was by then federal policy: the purge of LGBT individuals from the workforce. When he was at State, this policy was being carried out by men who worked under Webb. As early as 1950, he was aware of this policy, and there is clear evidence to suggest that he was involved in supporting Senate discussions that ultimately kicked off what is known today as the Lavender Scare.
As a person in a management position, Webb was ultimately responsible for the policies enacted under his leadership, including homophobic policies that were in place when he later became NASA administrator. Some argue that if Webb was complicit, so was everyone working in the administration at the time. We agree. Thankfully, NASA is not launching a telescope named after the entire administration, and individually its members would be poor choices for the honor for some of the same reasons that Webb is.

He worked for the federal government as a civil servant at a time when the federal government (and society at large) was very much anti-gay. The "clear evidence to suggest" seems to be a 1950 memo that says he briefed a senator on the matter at the request of the senator. Exactly what he said is unclear.

Personally, this sort of thing rubs me the wrong way. I'm not like a huge fan of James Webb or anything. I'm not sure that I would even recognize his name if it hadn't been attached to this space telescope. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't. When I hear "James Webb" I think of a space telescope, not the person it is named after. But it's just part of a larger trend to cancel or rename things named after people who lived in a different era when most people didn't have the most modern progressive sensibilities that the wokest people in 2021 have.
 
Will James Webb be the next victim of cancellation?

NASA Needs to Rename the James Webb Space Telescope (Op-Ed in Scientific American)



He worked for the federal government as a civil servant at a time when the federal government (and society at large) was very much anti-gay. The "clear evidence to suggest" seems to be a 1950 memo that says he briefed a senator on the matter at the request of the senator. Exactly what he said is unclear.

Personally, this sort of thing rubs me the wrong way. I'm not like a huge fan of James Webb or anything. I'm not sure that I would even recognize his name if it hadn't been attached to this space telescope. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't. When I hear "James Webb" I think of a space telescope, not the person it is named after. But it's just part of a larger trend to cancel or rename things named after people who lived in a different era when most people didn't have the most modern progressive sensibilities that the wokest people in 2021 have.

On the bright side, maybe Samson might be able to get his March after all.
 
Personally, this sort of thing rubs me the wrong way. I'm not like a huge fan of James Webb or anything. I'm not sure that I would even recognize his name if it hadn't been attached to this space telescope. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't. When I hear "James Webb" I think of a space telescope, not the person it is named after. But it's just part of a larger trend to cancel or rename things named after people who lived in a different era when most people didn't have the most modern progressive sensibilities that the wokest people in 2021 have.

Milkshake duck is racist.
 
Will James Webb be the next victim of cancellation?

NASA Needs to Rename the James Webb Space Telescope (Op-Ed in Scientific American)



He worked for the federal government as a civil servant at a time when the federal government (and society at large) was very much anti-gay. The "clear evidence to suggest" seems to be a 1950 memo that says he briefed a senator on the matter at the request of the senator. Exactly what he said is unclear.

Personally, this sort of thing rubs me the wrong way. I'm not like a huge fan of James Webb or anything. I'm not sure that I would even recognize his name if it hadn't been attached to this space telescope. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't. When I hear "James Webb" I think of a space telescope, not the person it is named after. But it's just part of a larger trend to cancel or rename things named after people who lived in a different era when most people didn't have the most modern progressive sensibilities that the wokest people in 2021 have.


Y'know, I think I side with the "cancelers" on this one.

If we found out that Hubble cheated on his wife or something, I'd say there's no reason to rename the Hubble Telescope, because the name honors his contributions to the relevant science which are unaffected by his failings elsewhere. The same would apply if someone were being honored for heroic actions or even for being rich AF and donating the funding to make the eponymous project happen. The latter might be a horrible person but their checks cleared.

But for the type of well-paid administrators who are constantly getting their names on bridges and civic buildings and highways because of their influence and vanity, the only thing we can even pretend they're being honored for is the supposedly superior quality of their administrating. We must presume that few if any of the vast pool of available bureaucrats would have done as well in their stead. So if it turns out they weren't as "dedicated" and "visionary" and "innovative" and "fair-minded" as the after-dinner speeches claimed, even if that just means they were making the same political compromises as everyone else at the time, **** 'em. What did they do to deserve it in the first place?
 
Y'know, I think I side with the "cancelers" on this one.

I'm not. The time to evaluate his merits was when the telescope was being named. Maybe they should have picked a different name. But they didn't.

Changing the name now gives in to and encourages a pathological obsession with past sins. It's not healthy. And there is no limiting principle to this drive to erase the past. No name is safe.
 
Changing the name now gives in to and encourages a pathological obsession with past sins. It's not healthy. And there is no limiting principle to this drive to erase the past. No name is safe.

The obsession isn't with the sins but with relegating them to the past.

I haven't looked in to each name in that article but I think I would agree that San Francisco has fallen off the slippery slope. But that doesn't mean that changing old names is not a good idea some times. My standard would be if that person stood out in their own time as being out of place on the issue.

I'm not persuaded to rename JWST based on the Sci Am op-ed. It makes it sound like Webb was just a cog in the wheel. Unless he was clearly outspoken about the policy, I can't see this.

I have to say I questioned the name when it was first applied, he appeared to be a person who was simply in the right place at the right time.
 
Well since the name is literally written on it and it's being packed for launch means that you can rename it, but when the future encounters it, they will revert to the original name (should roman characters mean anything by then.)
 
Well since the name is literally written on it and it's being packed for launch means that you can rename it, but when the future encounters it, they will revert to the original name (should roman characters mean anything by then.)


What, NASA doesn't have the budget for a can of spray paint?
 
Well since the name is literally written on it and it's being packed for launch means that you can rename it, but when the future encounters it, they will revert to the original name (should roman characters mean anything by then.)

It's good to see you again Ben
 
What, NASA doesn't have the budget for a can of spray paint?

Probably not the kind of paint you want to spray on a ten billion dollar, precision engineered, one of a kind complex device, that has to work right the first time, all the time, without any further maintenance or repairs

Just changing the thermal profile of the surface in question by a tiny amount probably risks the entire mission. What's your priority, at this point? Making the mission as successful as possible? Or making it as politically correct as possible?
 
Probably not the kind of paint you want to spray on a ten billion dollar, precision engineered, one of a kind complex device, that has to work right the first time, all the time, without any further maintenance or repairs

Just changing the thermal profile of the surface in question by a tiny amount probably risks the entire mission. What's your priority, at this point? Making the mission as successful as possible? Or making it as politically correct as possible?


Any unnecessary change at this point is a risk. Think of all the things with JWST on it after all these years. Hundreds of thousands of documents (millions?), including contracts and other MOA's. All sorts of signage and media. What an enormous distraction. (and expensive too!)

You could add a nickname bur the acronym JWST would need to stay.

Maybe the Jump Wayback Space Telescope?
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._Webb

James Edwin Webb (October 7, 1906 – March 27, 1992) was an American government official who served as the second appointed administrator of NASA from February 14, 1961, to October 7, 1968. Webb oversaw NASA from the beginning of the Kennedy administration through the end of the Johnson administration, thus overseeing all the critical first manned launches in the Mercury through Gemini programs, until just before the first crewed Apollo flight. He also dealt with the Apollo 1 fire.

In 2002, the Next Generation Space Telescope (NGST) was renamed the James Webb Space Telescope as a tribute to Webb.

I suppose that if they had just stuck with the original name, which was a descriptive name, there wouldn't be any controversy.
 
But that was an awful name. What would the next space telescope be called? The Next Next Generation Space Telescope? The Generation After the Next Generation Space Telescope?

Deep Space (9) Telescope
 


Will it finally launch this year? And more importantly, will it work as hoped for?

If it does, we should get some amazing pictures.

Seems like the naming controversy has died down.

This thing is such an intricate apparatus and every single part has to work correctly. There won't be any possibility of sending a space shuttle out to repair it this time. That's what worries me.
 


Will it finally launch this year? And more importantly, will it work as hoped for?

If it does, we should get some amazing pictures.

Seems like the naming controversy has died down.

This thing is such an intricate apparatus and every single part has to work correctly. There won't be any possibility of sending a space shuttle out to repair it this time. That's what worries me.
I wonder if building 2 of these things might have been a good idea.
 
This thing is such an intricate apparatus and every single part has to work correctly. There won't be any possibility of sending a space shuttle out to repair it this time. That's what worries me.

I worry about the celebration of the testing. :eye-poppi

So, it's super cool the precision mirrors passed all the cryo days and unfurled for the last time, after years and years of careful testing.
But WHY does every eye-browed and eye-lash exposed engineer need to be in the room with it to take a photo?

37988427785_68f6f0dcc1_o-crop-1c526cb.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom