Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

James Webb is fully deployed

nasa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 522 posts

Re: James Webb is fully deployed

#381

Post by MichaelMoser123 »

abadger9 wrote: post #380
MichaelMoser123 wrote: post #375

I wonder if there are some aliens looking at this, and wondering if another advanced civilization has put this together (just like we were wondering with ʻOumuamua). To me James Webb looks definitely like alien technology, if it manages to pass 50 deployment stages, depending on 178 deployment mechanisms... The team working on this did an incredible job! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUAvXYW5bmI&t=195s

i'm sure they might when the light reaches them, given the context of planets in our neighborhood, probably in a few hundred/thousand years?

not if they know how to bend it ;-) I was told that even the speed of light is hackable!

Re: James Webb is fully deployed

#382

Post by [deleted] »

JohnBooty wrote: post #349
dev_tty01 wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I get all of that, but they still missed an excellent PR opportunity. NASA really could have built some engagement showing images of the deployment process, even if the images wouldn't have direct scientific benefit. Good PR leads to improved funding which leads to more science.

I just want to make sure I understand. Your position is that they should have added significant complexity to a maneuver that was already the most complex of its kind. A maneuver with $10 billion and two decades of work on the line. In order to make the first 30 days of a 10+ year mission marginally more entertaining. You propose this while fully aware that the "entertainment" in question consists of things unfolding…

[deleted]

Re: James Webb is fully deployed

#383

Post by caconym_ »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #321
caconym_ wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not quite the same thing, but as an analogy: should we have built two CERNs (edit: LHCs, not CERNs) to "find" the Higgs boson faster? Or was it better just to build one, expecting that it had a good chance of finding the particle and other new physics, and then put future funding toward different/more advanced and capable instruments that will give us a window into even higher energies/entirely new observation s…

It's not quite the same thing, but as an analogy: should we have built two LHCs to "find" the Higgs boson faster? Depends. Is experimental time at the LHC anywhere near as competitively-rationed as it is for a space telescope like Hubble or Webb?

I don't think Hubble or the JWST have much to do with the question of whether we should have built another LHC to collect data twice as fast, except as an imperfect analogy to help frame the question in casual consideration—i.e. the reverse of the analogy I made in my comment.

In fact, answering that question should come down to whether we expect the LHC to realize the majority of important observations "in range" of its instruments within its projected lifetime, and also in time to make useful contributions to the selection and design of future experiments.

To answer your question directly: yes, AFAIK the LHC is fully utilized; when it's not running, it's down for maintenance or upgrades, and its observations are (or have been, in its active periods) in high demand. But it's far from clear that building another one would yield a good return on investment, especially given the opportunity cost of diverting funding from future experiments.

Re: James Webb is fully deployed

#384

Post by WalterBright »

BurningFrog wrote: post #265
simonh wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a list of specific questions JWST was built to answer. * What were the first stars and galaxies like? * How do stars come to form deep within a dusty nebula? * What are the atmospheres of Earth-sized worlds like, and do they contain signatures of life? * How far away do we need to look to see the pristine, pre-stellar Universe? * How did the early stars and galaxies assemble to give rise to what we have toda…

I know NASA has a reputation for bureaucracy, but I don't think it will be forbidden to use JWST for other purposes than those 5 questions? It is capable of being aimed at any point of the sky and show us things we've never seen before, is it not?

Reminds me of when Seattle finished boring a transit line with their zillion dollar tunnel boring machine, they cut it up and sold it for scrap. Never mind that the machine could have just kept right on boring, extending the line.

Re: James Webb is fully deployed

#385

Post by SCAQTony »

dkural wrote: post #371
galacticaactual wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a condescending reply. That 10 billion was funded by taxpayers, and the assertion that at the very least there should have been a possibility of those taxpayers seeing the fruits of their money through pictures instead of some intractable telemetry is a fair one.

Quoted post unavailable.

What if the public funded it and tolerated the cost overruns, and the numerous delays because they wanted the "circus aspect" photography? Looking at you Juno and thanks for the swirling ocean photos on Jupiter. I bet the majority of the public did! YMMV

Re: James Webb is fully deployed

#386

Post by Ahwleung »

phire wrote: post #356
weaksauce wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was under the impression that they were planning on making a drone that would refuel it in 10 years or so? Is that not correct?

They have given it a 10 year lifespan. They have said that fuel is a major limiting factor and talked about a refuelling drone to extend life. But I don't think that means it only has 10 years of fuel, and I don't think they have ever said explicitly said that. I suspect it's more like 15 years in the best case. The fact that they aren't already planning a refuelling mission implies that it's not a critical limiting…

Would I be wrong to assume that technological advances in the next 15 years would justify sending a second satellite? As in, instead of a refueling mission we'd be more likely to send a version 2 of the satellite with even better sensors/apparatus/whatnot?

Re: James Webb is fully deployed

#387

Post by Laremere »

dtgriscom wrote: post #328
terramex wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reason Kepler ran out of fuel when it did was that it was expending more maneuvering fuel for attitude control because two of its four reaction wheels failed. Hubble and the ISS also had similar failures. And to calm down anyone afraid of JWST sharing the same fate - construction of reaction wheels have been changed some time ago to make them significantly more reliable. The source of issues on Hubble, Kepler,…

Great info: citation? More details?

Scott Manley video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KibT-PEMHUU

Re: James Webb is fully deployed

#388

Post by bigiain »

dmead wrote: post #354
JohnBooty wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just want to make sure I understand. Your position is that they should have added significant complexity to a maneuver that was already the most complex of its kind. A maneuver with $10 billion and two decades of work on the line. In order to make the first 30 days of a 10+ year mission marginally more entertaining. You propose this while fully aware that the "entertainment" in question consists of things unfolding…

Literally every other nasa mission is filmed like this now. 10 billion and we can't even get visual confirmation it's doing well. And yes. Hubble being deployed was a big deal.

How much electrical power do you want to devote to this feel-good PR selfie camera?

According to the mission director SmarterEveryDay interviewed on his YouTube channel recently, the James Webb Space Telescope is so sensitive it could detect the heat signature of a bumblebee at the distance of the moon.

I’m pretty sure if you asked the astronomers if you could put a 5 Watt webcam on the dark side of their sun shield for the social media clicks, they’d tell you to fuck right off to L3…

Re: James Webb is fully deployed

#389

Post by messe »

mr_toad wrote: post #295
jsharpe wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that close. The moon is 384,400km away, and JWST will be 1.5 million km away (i.e., around 4x as far as the moon). It would be a pretty serious undertaking to get to it and get back.

Distance isn’t the best proxy for difficulty of a space mission. The delta-v to get to low lunar orbit is higher than the delta-v to get to L2. The delta-v required for lunar landing is considerably higher. And all of these manoeuvres are much less than the delta-v required to get to LEO.

That depends. If we're talking a manned service mission, then distance is a factor as it would mean a several month trip using current vehicles.

That being said, and I haven't done the math, but I think a Falcon Heavy and Dragon could do it at least in terms of delta V; although there are numerous problems with that like the fact that the dragon doesn't have a proper airlock for starters.

Re: James Webb is fully deployed

#390

Post by WalterBright »

sailingparrot wrote: post #284
BurningFrog wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to argue against something I didn't say. I understand it observes a different frequency range than Hubble, but it can still "observe anything in the sky, and get the most detailed pictures ever seen of them".

> but it can still "observe anything in the sky, and get the most detailed pictures ever seen of them". That's my point: it cannot! Not all objects are visible at all wavelengths. Some extremely old and far-away objects are not emitting anything in the shortest wavelengths because of red-shifting, and you need infrared capabilities to see them (hence JWST). Dust clouds are also blocking certain frequencies of light f…

Are you seriously suggesting there is no other value in infrared light images? That there's only one thing worth looking at in infrared? That nothing else one points it at could possibly yield a surprise?

I'm astonished. I don't think we remotely know enough about the universe to draw such conclusions.

Post reply on HN