[HN Gopher] James Webb Space Telescope launch [video]
___________________________________________________________________
James Webb Space Telescope launch [video]
Author : marcodiego
Score : 444 points
Date : 2021-12-25 09:00 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.youtube.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.youtube.com)
| TheWoodsy wrote:
| Seems I cant get a stable stream in AU from this link. (youtube
| stream) Twitch works though https://www.twitch.tv/nasa
| [deleted]
| authed wrote:
| 3...2...1.. :
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nT7JGZMbtM&t=1h22m08s
| fnord77 wrote:
| decollage !
| capableweb wrote:
| Anyone know why there seem to have been some sort of politician
| reading from seemingly the bible (or similar religious textbook)
| and how that's relevant to a space mission? Seems wildly out of
| place from the usually grounded NASA and ESA.
|
| Edit: The person in question seems to have been Bill Nelson,
| former United States senator but now NASA administrator, the
| highest ranked official in NASA. Which makes this whole thing
| even more weird, should that person strictly be a person of
| science, not religion?
|
| Edit2: Seems stream is over now, here is the exact timestamp for
| the speech/reading: https://youtu.be/7nT7JGZMbtM?t=7222
| 1_player wrote:
| He's a 80 year old American politician. It's the demographic of
| people that see religion and God everywhere, even when talking
| about an international, deeply scientific endeavour. It's a
| cultural quirk I guess.
| darknavi wrote:
| I don't agree with much Trump did as president but damn if I
| didn't respect Jim Bridenstine so much more than this guy.
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| I liked Bridenstine too but Bill Nelson has been an ardent
| space supporter longer than Bridenstine has been alive. And
| Nelson has actually flown in space.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nelson
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| I don't know if his stunt is something that should be
| applauded. The original payload specialist was an
| engineer who had worked on the actual payload at Hughes.
| After the second time being bumped from a mission to be
| replaced by a politician, he was reassigned to the
| Challenger where he died.
| garaetjjte wrote:
| Politician-turned-astronaut seems more like space tourism
| though.
| bell-cot wrote:
| It's a giga-budget space telescope, mostly paid for by U.S.
| taxpayers. Most of whom are not nearly so interested in science
| geekery than the average HN'er. If it can be sold (as worth
| funding) to a bunch of the more-religious taxpayers as "a
| pilgrimage to discover and admire the handwork of God", or
| something similar, that's a plus in my book. The country is
| already suffering far too much "science vs. religion"
| divisiveness.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| I don't think tricking people into funding things they don't
| want is a good social contract.
| Grakel wrote:
| They've already been tricked, and they donate every Sunday.
| They may as well also donate to what's really going on in
| the sky.
| yostrovs wrote:
| It's not, especially when you're funding things that are
| fascinating, but are inherently not useful. I love
| astronomy and physics, but much of it is now being spent on
| pure knowledge. The discovery of the Higgs boson hasn't
| improved any lives or led to new technology, but it did eat
| untold amounts of money that could have been spent on other
| things in science.
| drivebycomment wrote:
| I recommend this book https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/3319
| 155237?psc=1&ref=ppx_pop_... . It makes a clear case why
| trying to aim certain objective, when it comes to
| innovation, doesn't necessarily work and we still need
| "aimless wandering" and the pursuit of pure knowledge is
| a good guidance when it comes to that.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| It is not a trick, just a matter of perspective. Finding an
| atheist universe beautiful is not in conflict with finding
| beauty in a universe which is created by a deity.
| [deleted]
| JaimeThompson wrote:
| Until China starts launching large scale space telescopes
| perhaps such readings are required to keep the more
| conservative politicians voting for science funding.
| jdiez17 wrote:
| No idea. It did seem extremely out of place though.
| rahen wrote:
| Not only out of place but it even felt downright offensive
| for some of us European folks. No different than quoting the
| Quran and praising Allah for the JWST.
|
| How about praising NASA, CSA, ESA and CNES for this brilliant
| endeavor?
| capableweb wrote:
| Yeah, not sure how I'd feel if I worked on the project for
| years and then someone starts ranting about "the glory of
| god", "handiwork of god", "god bless planet Earth" and
| similar stuff.
| jorgesborges wrote:
| Science doesn't need to be scared to acknowledge religion. It's
| a humble, enduring relic of our past, a part of our shared
| history, and it helps to punctuate the magnitude of our growth
| and accomplishments as a species.
| tosser0001 wrote:
| > seemingly the bible (or similar religious textbook)
|
| You seem to be going out of your way to demonstrate your
| atheistic bonafides by expressing an affected ignorance of some
| of the most important texts in human history. Understand that
| these can be read as metaphors and many people find pleasure in
| the words and sentiments even if they don't accept their
| literal truth.
| croes wrote:
| Important doesn't mean good.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| Because the books within the ketuvim/Hagiographa are
| basically a mishmash of stuff that doesn't fit within the
| Torah or Prophets, I think a bit of confusion is
| understandable and not inherently dismissive. I've read a
| good chunk of the bible (as a kid my parents made me skip
| some parts that they felt espoused immoral sexual behaviors)
| and still needed to look up the taxonomy of the 5 books
| within the Book of Psalms
| [deleted]
| Symbiote wrote:
| It was Bill Nelson, head of NASA:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nelson
|
| I assumed it was intended for the American audience.
| mulmen wrote:
| As an American I find any religious expression by government
| officials in the course of their duties to be offensive and
| harmful to our nation.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| I feel the same but it's futile to be resentful.
| syshum wrote:
| Ironically, the 1st amendment of the US Constitution will
| protect his speech. As Americans we have the RIGHT to
| express religion free from government intrusion, that
| includes officials of the government contrary to what the
| Freedom from religion crowd believes.
|
| I do wonder, do you feel the same about members of congress
| from the Islam religion wearing religious clothing, and
| symbols while conducting Official US Business? How about
| Jewish members?
|
| Or do you reserve your offense only for Christians?
| mulmen wrote:
| He can say what he wants on his own time. When he speaks
| in an official capacity he needs to leave religion out of
| it. Unless he wants to also thank Satan, The Flying
| Spaghetti Monster, and Sauron.
| syshum wrote:
| So why would those 3 fictional characters be ok, but the
| fictional character of God not be OK?
|
| It is also telling you refusing the answer the question
| about other religion so I will go ahead and assume your
| like most and save your ire for only Christians making
| you a hypocrite in 2 ways.
|
| So at the end of the day you are just bigoted against
| Christians, and are using secular desires as a cover for
| this bigotry, it is not religion that bothers you, but
| Christianity
| Symbiote wrote:
| I think mulmen is wisely ignoring your ridiculous and
| baseless claim. They wrote "any religious expression".
| Symbiote wrote:
| Understood, but it's still there, and is obvious to
| foreigners and visitors. We see "In God We Trust" printed
| prominently on the money, senior politicians emphasizing
| their religious credentials, and _much_ more visible
| religion in daily life.
|
| See, for example, the chart at [1], for the number of
| people who pray daily.
|
| https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
| tank/2018/07/31/americans-a...
| el_nahual wrote:
| "In God We Trust" was added to currency in the mid 1950s
| as part of the "Red Scare" and anticommunist sentiment.
|
| Before 1957 the national motto was E PLURIBUS UNUM - One
| From Many. Too commie!
|
| This was the same time that "under god" was added to the
| pledge of allegiance, which before just read "... One
| nation, indivisible"
| mulmen wrote:
| It turns out Barry Goldwater was right about the
| preachers.
| mulmen wrote:
| Ok? So we agree? I have seen American money. I find it
| particularly distasteful that we also carved "In God we
| trust" into the halls of Congress. I'm missing your point
| though.
| mulmen wrote:
| I believe that is Bill Nelson, the director of NASA. Definitely
| an embarrassing moment. I turned it off.
| dalrympm wrote:
| That was NASA administrator Bill Nelson trying to recreate the
| awe of the Apollo 8 Genesis reading. A bit out of touch...
| mulmen wrote:
| Even Apollo 8 was inappropriate and NASA has very
| deliberately avoided those kinds of embarrassments since.
| robwwilliams wrote:
| Agreed. It was pompously Abrahamic, evidently as much for
| political show as a heart-felt expression of wonder. We all
| do feel the wonder, but let's avoid the Christmas kitsch
| and the tacit "God, the father" image he evoked.
| [deleted]
| no_identd wrote:
| For further reference, here's the only part in the entire New
| Testament referencing the old testament's Psalms 19 (which
| NASA's Bill Nelson referenced here), more specifically Psalms
| 19:4. And that part is Roman's 10 (more specifically 10:16 to
| 10:21), given here in the Modern Literal Translation, which
| (mostly, not always) avoids fucking up the Ancient Greek:
|
| http://www.modernliteralversion.org/bibles/MLV/Romans10.htm
| MarcScott wrote:
| Yeah, it was odd. Then again, people can believe what they want
| and make links that don't make sense to everyone. He seems like
| a fairly progressive guy and an actual astronaut -
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nelson
| tosser0001 wrote:
| Buzz Aldrin took communion on the Moon. Not everything is
| Either/Or
| parsimo2010 wrote:
| The NASA administrator is a political appointee, so they will
| be as religious as the president wants (or allows) them to be.
| Positions like these are sometimes given as reward for loyal
| party members who supported the president's election campaign
| rather than the most qualified candidate.
|
| However, Bill Nelson is an astronaut so he probably is the most
| qualified (politician) for the job. I'm sure he works hard to
| get NASA the funding it needs regardless of his personal
| beliefs (and it would be illegal to make atheism a job
| requirement). Aside from awkward speech giving I think most
| people are optimistic about how he'll do as administrator.
| reportingsjr wrote:
| Calling Bill Nelson qualified since he is an astronaut is
| hilarious to read.
|
| Consider that the other, legitimately qualified people on
| that mission gave him the nickname "ballast" and it is widely
| regarded that the only reason he went up is by strong arming
| his way in since he had a powerful congressional position.
|
| He is not considered a great NASA admin and it was pretty
| disappointing when he was chosen.
| Game_Ender wrote:
| It's referring to the Christmas Eve broadcast of Apollo 8, the
| first manned mission in orbit around the moon, another large
| milestone in spaceflight and for humanity overall [0]. The
| American space program likes to refer to its past
| accomplishments and this is the biggest and most complex space
| telescope ever launched. It's also tradition to use "big" and
| inspiring language, so calling back to that era makes for a
| more compelling message.
|
| 0 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_8
| capableweb wrote:
| That broadcast seems to even have it's own Wikipedia page:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_8_Genesis_reading
|
| > On Christmas Eve, December 24, 1968, the crew of Apollo 8
| read from the Book of Genesis as they orbited the Moon
|
| Seems no one was happy with what they came up with, so they
| ended up going with Genesis part from the bible instead. Not
| everyone was happy with that though:
|
| > Madalyn Murray O'Hair, founder of American Atheists,
| responded by suing the United States government, alleging
| violations of the First Amendment
|
| Ended up being dismissed by all the courts though.
|
| But still, I cannot believe that people who are supposedly
| scientists start quoting the bible when they are themselves
| involved in maybe one of the greatest scientific achievements
| of our time. How does that resolve?
| HideousKojima wrote:
| >But still, I cannot believe that people who are supposedly
| scientists start quoting the bible when they are themselves
| involved in maybe one of the greatest scientific
| achievements of our time. How does that resolve?
|
| "A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism; but
| depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to
| religion." - Francis Bacon
|
| And for a clearcut example of this, Isaac Newton figured
| out calculus and classical mechanics, but also spent an
| inordinate amount of time trying to find secret messages
| hidden in the Bible.
| rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote:
| From my understanding, Newton eventually decided he'd
| figured out everything there was to figure out (which was
| kind of true), then he got bored, so he started to dabble
| in alchemy and bible things.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| Oppenheimer quoted the Baghavad Ghita in his first
| statement after the Trinity test. Scientists are humans
| too.
| avar wrote:
| That famous Oppenheimer quote is from 1965, not 1945.
|
| After the Trinity test he went on to work for the US
| government for some years on nuclear weapons, which goes
| against the usual "what have we done?" sentiment that
| quote is meant to convey.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| Funnily, that is probably the only religious text that is
| not religious.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| The local knee jerk reactionary downvoting is hilarious
| and expected given the faux intellectualism that is now
| rampant here. Since I can't edit my original comment,
| here you go.
|
| There is a ton of wisdom in the Gita.
|
| https://michaeldevfay.medium.com/the-bhagavad-gita-for-
| athei...
| HideousKojima wrote:
| I've read the Bhagavad Gita and it spends a significant
| amount of time talking about karma and reincarnation. Not
| sure how you could see it as non-religious unless you did
| to it what Thomas Jefferson did to the Bible.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| There is a lot of non religious content in there.
|
| https://michaeldevfay.medium.com/the-bhagavad-gita-for-
| athei...
|
| The point of Gita's message is to NOT worry about karma
| and reincarnation.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| And there's plenty of non-religious content in the Bible,
| but no one in their right mind would call it a non-
| religious text.
| TedShiller wrote:
| It would be hard to be a scientist without being human
| TedShiller wrote:
| Being a scientist and being religious are not mutually
| exclusive.
| Intermernet wrote:
| True, but the intersection of the Venn diagram has only
| shrunk throughout history.
| kortex wrote:
| I don't believe in an Abrahamic creator-God but I think the
| reading of Genesis on Apollo 8 is extremely moving. I don't
| interpret it as being particularly religious or Abrahamic.
| "Let there be light" is, IMHO, a universal notion of our
| strange existence in the cosmos. Maybe it means creation to
| some, the big bang to others. It's 3-4000 year old poetry
| (likely long predating the old testament in oral
| tradition).
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > But still, I cannot believe that people who are
| supposedly scientists start quoting the bible when they are
| themselves involved in maybe one of the greatest scientific
| achievements of our time. How does that resolve?
|
| It may be confusing because of the attitude toward
| empirical science of some prominent strains of American
| fundamentalism (and the way the media often reduces that to
| a narrative of a fundamental religion vs. science
| conflict), but having religious belief about the
| metaphysical nature of reality and pursuing scientific
| understanding of its physical nature have often been things
| that go together. I mean, consider Georges Lemaitre.
| kuschku wrote:
| > But still, I cannot believe that people who are
| supposedly scientists start quoting the bible when they are
| themselves involved in maybe one of the greatest scientific
| achievements of our time. How does that resolve?
|
| As atheist: even if you don't believe in christianity, the
| bible is still a book with some stories that have made a
| massive impact and which can evoke deep emotion in many
| readers/listeners. Especially in such an emotional context
| as venturing out into space.
| Grismar wrote:
| The same would be true for the Torah, Quran or any other
| major religious text (including non-Abrahamitic ones) -
| would you have brought the same defense, if only one of
| those had been quoted, if you are perfectly honest?
| atonse wrote:
| I'm a pretty strong atheist. It's odd to me too. However
| I'm answering why the Bible over other religious texts.
| That one at least feels obvious.
|
| The people reading it were likely Christian. The majority
| of the people listening would've been Christian. The
| majority of the people that footed the bill would've been
| Christian.
|
| Like others have said, you don't have to believe in the
| existence of a diety to feel moved by words from some
| religious texts.
| jbay808 wrote:
| The Book of Genesis is from the Torah though, isn't it?
| NikolaeVarius wrote:
| I'm an Atheist. At some point you will have to realize that
| religious people exist, and many astronauts are devout
| Catholic.
| sschueller wrote:
| Also seems quite nationalistic after what was broadcast before
| that. As a European quite unappealing.
| mabbo wrote:
| The reality is the Americans footed most of the bill. That
| gives them certain authority.
|
| Even as a member of a highly involved country (Canada) I can
| acknowledge that on this road trip, they're the driver of the
| vehicle and they get to decide what's on the radio.
|
| It would be nice if the Americans were more considerate, but
| that's a general problem and not specific to this. (I kid, I
| kid).
| mulmen wrote:
| If it's worth anything I am American and also find it
| unappealing.
| keewee7 wrote:
| mulmen wrote:
| syshum wrote:
| I am American taxpayer, NOT a Christian or any other
| popular religion, I would appreciate people allowing
| others to express their religion as they see fit, That is
| American...
|
| The fact this guy is being blasted because of his
| religion is not American at all.
|
| The freedom from religion atheists are more annoying
| these days than the evangelicals
| mulmen wrote:
| Wrong. keewee7 assumed _all_ Americans are Christian.
| This is absolutely not true. Freedom of religion has
| nothing to do with it. Believe whatever you want, just
| don't drag my name through the mud.
| syshum wrote:
| Wrong. keewee7 stated the Christian Americans Taxpayers
| paid for 80% of the program, turns out keewee7 is only
| slightly off, and as Christian American Taxpayers only
| paid for about 63%
| mulmen wrote:
| The 80% number is based on US taxpayer funding. For that
| to be true _all_ Americans would have to be Christian,
| which they aren't. This was my objection.
|
| The difference between _all_ Americans being Christian
| and _some_ or even _most_ of them being Christian is not
| "slight".
|
| 80% and 63% are not close by any measure.
|
| Qualifying the original statement with religious
| affiliation still ignores the fact that tax dollars are
| not paid with religious affiliation in mind and JWST has
| no (official) religious meaning. Further calling out
| _American_ Christians but ignoring the Canadian and
| European Christians further distorts the 63% number.
|
| This entire thread has been a textbook example of lying
| with statistics.
|
| Even if you manage to get them right the numbers don't
| justify the message.
| geenew wrote:
| Well, at some point in the past Denmark was changeable and
| was changed, so there is no reason to think that at present
| other places are changeable and will be changed in a
| similar way.
|
| Merry grav-mass!
| dwaltrip wrote:
| I think it's down to around 50%, according to the latest
| surveys.
| keewee7 wrote:
| These numbers are from Wikipedia. I don't know how
| reliable they are: NASA: 8,800m
| ESA : 850m CSA : 200m ------------
| All : 9,850m
| mulmen wrote:
| syshum wrote:
| 70% of Americans identify as some kind of Christian, so
| 8800m * .7 == 6160m or about 63% of all the funding for
| JWT
| mulmen wrote:
| I still disagree with the argument that the religious
| affiliation of those taxpayers deserves a specific
| callout rather than any other characteristic.
|
| I also disagree with the initial characterization that
| _all_ Americans are Christian. Or that Christian
| messaging is somehow "American". It isn't. It is a
| harmful stereotype.
|
| JWST is _not_ about religion. Defending the directors
| poor choice of message with religious statistics reduces
| both American Christians and Americans in general to
| oversimplified caricatures.
|
| Christianity and the JWST have nothing to do with each
| other. To claim otherwise is insulting to both Americans
| and any contributors to the JWST, including the
| international community.
|
| Saying JWST is funded 63% by Christians is false anyway,
| the other contributors also have some amount of Christian
| affiliation. Further, why choose the religious angle? Why
| not say it was half funded by women? Or by some
| ethnicity? Any way you apply these statistics is going to
| be insulting because they are _irrelevant_. This is why
| the directors messaging is problematic.
| syshum wrote:
| >>It isn't. It is a harmful stereotype.
|
| I dont see it has either a stereotype, nor harmful to
| acknowledge Christians in our society, or their
| contribution. In fact pretending they do not exist is IMO
| more harmful
|
| >JWST is not about religion
|
| I dont believe anyone claimed it was, nor did the NASA
| director. What you are attempting to do however is
| exclude any mentions of religion from the topic, I would
| not want to make JWST about religion, but I also have no
| desire to pretend religion does not exist, nor am I so
| fragile in my beliefs that someone else expressing theirs
| causes me consternation or an identity crisis like it
| seems to have done with you.
|
| I recognize that it likely people of all religions have
| worked on some part of the JWST, I recognize that the
| current director of NASA is a christian, I can separate
| these thing in my mind, and believe that the director of
| NASA acknowledging his own religion in public does not
| paint either NASA nor the JWST program as "christian"
|
| >>Christianity and the JWST have nothing to do with each
| other.
|
| and this is where I believe you are wrong to a limited
| extent, in that religion is a part of the people that
| worked on JWST, all religions. As such all religions are
| a part of JWST just as people that do not believe in
| religion are a part of JWST. Denying this is to deny
| reality
|
| >>Saying JWST is funded 63% by Christians is false
| anyway, the other contributors also have some amount of
| Christian affiliation.
|
| Now you have moved the goal posts, I suspect because you
| know the foundation of our argumentation is sand that is
| quickly disappearing out from under you
|
| The statement was limited to American's for which you
| took offense to what you believed was a statement
| implying all Americans where Christian, I then clarified
| the % of funding that could be attributed to American
| Christians, now you want to move the goal posts to talk
| about world wide christian contributions. I could do the
| math if you would like? not sure why that matters but...
|
| >> Further, why choose the religious angle?
|
| I did not choose it, I simply interjected facts into the
| conversation. I also interjected an opposing Agnostic
| position to that of Freedom From Religion Atheists that I
| have grown tired of over the years, something that has
| caused me to reject the label of "atheist" to describe
| myself because people that use this label themselves tend
| to be the most arrogant, toxic people proclaiming some
| level of moral and intellectual superiority over others.
| I would rather have a Jehovah Witness at my door telling
| me that I am going to Hell, than sit in a room with a
| Freedom From Religion Atheist complaining about some old
| guy saying "god Bless"
|
| >>This is why the directors messaging is problematic.
|
| Ohh Please, what is problematic is that fact that we have
| soo strayed away from the idea of Pluralism that people
| are sooo sensitive, that "political correctness" is soo
| run amok that we have to make a big deal about some one
| saying "God Bless" something... Jesus (and yes I did that
| intentionally) what a farce we have become.
|
| Hell that is not even Christian, the vast vast vast
| majority of people on this planet believe in a god...
| Saying "God Bless" should not be "problematic" or
| offensive. Come On Now
| mulmen wrote:
| > Christians in our society, or their contribution.
|
| This is not a contribution by _Christians_ the
| contributions are by _taxpayers_. Their religious
| affiliation is irrelevant. In a secular nation like the
| United States it is inappropriate to conflate the two.
| dwaltrip wrote:
| According to a survey from Pew, the number identifying as
| Christian is 63%. In 2007, the number was 78%.
|
| For some reason it though it was closer to 50. Although,
| 63% is slightly closer to 50% than 80%, which was the
| number in the comment above I replied to.
|
| https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2021/12/14/Pew-poll-
| religion...
| gameswithgo wrote:
| Because we have a representative government and most of our
| population still thinks this is a reasonable way to view the
| universe
| chernevik wrote:
| Ask Isaac Newton whether a religious person can do science
| yamrzou wrote:
| Thanks. For the curious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religi
| ous_views_of_Isaac_Newto...
| belter wrote:
| I wonder what he would say about the missing of any mention
| to Dinosaurs in the Bible...
| yamrzou wrote:
| Using Set terminology, religious knowledge and scientific
| knowledge are just intersecting sets. It's not necessary
| that one of them contains the other. As such, it's not
| surprising that there is no mention to Dinosauirs in
| religious textbooks.
| belter wrote:
| Not really. If the Deity dictated a book, telling how the
| world come to be, and to guide all aspects of the life of
| their disciples...So much the participants of the
| religious group believe it comes directly from their
| creator...Would have been nice to mention this major
| change of mind, after letting these creatures roam free
| for 200 million years..And some mention of the real earth
| position and structure of the solar system would have
| been nice.
| Mesisio wrote:
| I was weirded out by this as well.
| willis936 wrote:
| He ended his speech with "God bless Planet Earth".
|
| I view this as quite progressive for a bureaucratic
| representative of the fed and an encouraging sign of the times.
| davidwritesbugs wrote:
| "God bless Amer...er, the Earth"
| sydthrowaway wrote:
| Why are Europeans controlling this?
| sofetch wrote:
| It's their launch facility.
| raldi wrote:
| They needed something on the equator, right?
| sofetch wrote:
| AS much as anyone, yes. Your total energy expenditure is
| reduced lose to the equator. And having un-
| inhabited/-developed area below the dangerous early stages
| of launch is a bonus.
| Nicksil wrote:
| Why not?
| sydthrowaway wrote:
| I thought it's a NASA project.
| 323 wrote:
| NASA, like most US companies, outsourced flying things to
| space to other entities, since flying things to space it's
| not it's core competency anymore.
| Nicksil wrote:
| International
|
| https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/webb/about/index.html
| khuey wrote:
| One of the European contributions to the mission is the
| launch vehicle.
| m4rtink wrote:
| IIRC also at one point the project was in a big trouble
| due to cost overruns. Europe joining the effort by
| providing the launcher, one of the instruments and part
| of the project team saved the whole project from
| cancelation.
| mavhc wrote:
| ESA have the best rocket that can fit it in
| inglor_cz wrote:
| You are being downvoted, possibly for sounding vaguely
| nationalistic, but this is actually a good opportunity to
| ponder the timescale of the entire program.
|
| The idea of JWST was conceived around 1990, when Hubble was
| freshly flown into space and people started thinking about its
| successor. Development in earnest started in 1996 and JWST
| should have been ready to launch in 2007. This date was pushed
| back many, many times. (Much like with construction of nuclear
| power plants - megaengineering projects tend to suffer from
| this kind of slip-ups, cost overruns and delays.)
|
| This means that the definite launch arrangements were done
| before SpaceX was the giant it is today. Space Shuttle was
| discontinued, so the most reliable rocket of that time simply
| won. This is no ordinary payload and you really do not want to
| lose it to launcher failure.
| thebigman433 wrote:
| Even if they were going to pick a launcher today, the Ariane
| 5 would still probably be the choice. F9 cant get JWST to
| where it needs to go, and Falcon Heavy is still new and
| relatively unproven with only 3 launches. There really arent
| any other good choices for it
| midasuni wrote:
| Ariane 5 was the best rocket for the job
| dustintrex wrote:
| Naive Q: what makes Ariane 5 better than Falcon 9/Heavy here?
| gameswithgo wrote:
| 80 something flawless launches in a row
| WJW wrote:
| Falcon 9 does not have enough capacity; the JWST is too
| heavy for it to launch all the way to L2. So F9 is out.
|
| Falcon Heavy does have enough capacity, but:
|
| 1. It was not really available for bookings when the JWST
| mission was planned and
|
| 2. even if NASA could choose again today, Ariane 5 has a
| track record of 106 successes out of 111 launches (107 out
| of 112 now I guess) and Falcon Heavy is still relatively
| untested with only 3 launches (all of which were
| successful, but still only 3). For something super critical
| you might want to go with old but dependable technology
| over the newest hotness.
| [deleted]
| jorge-d wrote:
| Its track record is almost perfect
| Symbiote wrote:
| It existed and was already a reliable launch vehicle when
| the project was being designed and constructed.
| robin_reala wrote:
| Falcon didn't exist when the choice was made, which makes
| Ariane automatically better.
| Tuna-Fish wrote:
| When they made the choice of rocket, Ariane 5 was the most
| reliable rocket in the world that was capable of lifting it.
| Given the sticker price, they decided that cutting risk was
| more important than purchasing domestic.
| 1_player wrote:
| "The [Ariane 5] launch vehicle had a streak of 82 consecutive
| successful launches between 9 April 2003 and 12 December
| 2017."
|
| Then one partial failure on 25 January 2018, and another
| consecutive stretch of successful launches, including today.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_5
| perihelions wrote:
| It was far from the "most reliable" when this decision was
| made!
|
| > _" Faced with a grim record of 4 failures from just 14
| Ariane 5 launches, some observers were starting to ask if
| Europe's 25-year-old rocket programme is more trouble than
| it's worth._"
|
| > _" Although developed primarily for the commercial market,
| a new class of heavy-lifter rockets will also be used to
| launch the next generation of deep-space research probes,
| such as the planned James Webb space telescope, Southwood
| says."_
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/420723a ( _" ESA weighs up
| future after Ariane explosion"_) [2002]
| 1_player wrote:
| 4 failures in the first 6 years of operation, and only 1 in
| the following 20 years is a good track record. How were the
| other launch vehicles faring in 2002?
| cletus wrote:
| I got up this morning to watch the launch. I'm used to seeing the
| pageantry and showmanship of a SpaceX launch and I was left...
| underwhelmed.
|
| Don't get me wrong: this is a mold-boggling complex device and
| launch. It's an amazing technical feat.
|
| But YouTube had a 720p stream. There was pretty limited video.
| After a few seconds it was above the clouds and lost to view so
| we were just watching animations.
|
| Compare this to the first Falcon Heavy Launch. Synchronized
| booster landings. video from the Launch vehicle and of course
| Starman in the Tesla.
|
| Say what you will about Elon, he can put on a show.
|
| Anyway, I really hope the JWST well. There is still a ton to do
| and a ton that can go wrong in the coming months. The Launch is a
| massive milestone. Fingers crossed.
| enriquto wrote:
| > I was left... underwhelmed
|
| What the hell are you talking about. I have seen the launch
| with my kids and it's been the most awesome thing of the last
| few years!
| mortehu wrote:
| If people are awed, I doubt this is caused by the production
| value of the video stream though.
| enriquto wrote:
| It is likely that "production value" is negatively
| correlated with actual value.
| khuey wrote:
| SpaceX launch broadcasts have much higher production quality
| and have video from on-board the rocket after ground tracking
| loses sight of it which is what the grandparent is referring
| to.
| mongol wrote:
| > Don't get me wrong: this is a mold-boggling complex device
| and launch. It's an amazing technical feat.
|
| > But YouTube had a 720p stream ..
|
| This is ridiculous. This telescope is not a show, it is made
| for science, and they have made the right priorities by not
| spending on entertainment value.
| chrsig wrote:
| I appreciate the sentiment here. If I may offer a different
| perspective: the public has paid a _lot_ of money for this
| thing, and getting a good stream of the launch set up (seems
| like it should be) a drop in the bucket. I don't think it'd
| be a wasted effort -- getting and keeping people interested
| and engaged with space science is a worthy endeavor
| 1_player wrote:
| They used taxpayers money to build the thing, which means
| they've left aside just enough for a barebones show, and
| hopefully every last dime has been invested in the project,
| and that is exactly how it should be.
|
| If you spend more on marketing, you spend less on science.
| It's called a "budget".
| chrsig wrote:
| By keeping taxpayers engaged, they'll hopefully be more
| willing to provide a bigger budget in the future.
|
| >If you spend more on marketing, you spend less on
| science. It's called a "budget".
|
| The snark isn't appreciated. Happy holidays!
| ProAm wrote:
| >I'm used to seeing the pageantry and showmanship of a SpaceX
| launch and I was left... underwhelmed
|
| The SpaceX launches broadcasts are made for largely uneducated
| lay people. No one should be entertained by that. They all feel
| like infomercials.
| sydthrowaway wrote:
| Looks like GDSCC will receive the all important imagery.
| Symbiote wrote:
| The launch is in half an hour, at 12:20 UTC.
|
| There are some alternative links (YouTube, French, Spanish) on
| https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Webb/W...
| incompatible wrote:
| Also on NASA TV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21X5lGlDOfg
| cycomanic wrote:
| Watching the NASA stream I find it amazing that they as a
| science organisation are still using non scientific units. All
| this talk about miles, miles per hour etc.
| smcleod wrote:
| Yeah that was pretty surprising. Also at the end of the
| launch the head of NASA came on quoted the Christian bible
| and then talked about how the telescope is going to look back
| into (his) gods creation! I was really taken back by that and
| a little offended that his religion was brought into such an
| important scientific event.
| midasuni wrote:
| They rely on funding from the US tax payer, they have to
| speak in US customary units otherwise they get complaints and
| then pressure in congress and reduced funding.
| oliveshell wrote:
| I'd imagine that's for the benefit of the viewing audience
| more than anything.
| alkonaut wrote:
| The _paying_ viewers, possibly. The vast majority of
| viewers are surely metric?
| qwertox wrote:
| Which has a smaller delay than ESA's stream (~31 seconds).
|
| There's also Arianespace's stream which is 6 seconds more
| current than Nasa's stream.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J70xqApTUow
| [deleted]
| cycomanic wrote:
| Congrats to launch team, Webb has just separated from Ariane 5.
| Perfect ride!
| miohtama wrote:
| How many single points of failure left after getting Webb on
| its way to L2? :)
| mkmk wrote:
| Here are most of the big ones, with timing:
| https://planet4589.org/space/misc/webb/time.html
| ilyagr wrote:
| This is very helpful. Looking at the table, my guess is
| that the scariest moments will be over by "launch +10
| days". The sunshield is unfurled by "launch +8 days".
| JshWright wrote:
| Several hundred (mostly related to unfolding stuff)
| jacquesm wrote:
| And cooling stuff.
| geenew wrote:
| Serious question, if the sun shield does fail for some
| reason, would the telescope still operate but just at
| reduced sensitivity? Asking to the infrared astronomers
| out there...
| beerandt wrote:
| Think of it as the body of a camera cracking. Some amount
| of light will leak in and expose the film/sensors. Just
| depends on how much.
| jacquesm wrote:
| That analogy only works for a small part, the light would
| not do damage if it didn't fall on the film or sensors
| directly or through reflection, whereas with IR it
| doesn't really matter where it falls on the telescope it
| will cause the whole thing to warm up and the rejection
| mechanisms can only cope with so much of it.
| terramex wrote:
| Not an IR astronomer, but enthusiast astrophotographer.
| As I understand it there is a bit of leeway in the
| sunshield. They added strips of "duct tape" going across
| layers to prevent potential tears from spreading and
| telescope can still achieve full science power with few
| tears in the sunshield, depending on their location and
| sizes. With bigger tears it might be possible to still
| carry out observations in visible spectrum and near-IR
| but not in mid-IR as thermal radiation would crush the
| signal. Mission would still be considered failure in that
| case.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Not an IR astronomer, but this is a 'no'. The delta
| between the 'hot' and the 'cold' side of the telescope is
| very impressive if the sunshield is working, without that
| the mission would be a failure because the IR sensors
| need to be that cold to work. You might still get some
| visible light work done but the IR part of the mission
| would be over because the sensors would effectively be
| blind.
|
| For reference:
|
| https://www.inverse.com/article/42894-sunshield-rips-
| keep-ja...
| daedalus_f wrote:
| A lot less than there was 40 minutes ago ;)
| izacus wrote:
| Also a lot less explosive fuels, shaking and G stress as
| well :)
| [deleted]
| smarx007 wrote:
| Thanks to this I realized Youtube website is purposefully
| breaking the picture-in-picture playback on a phone.
| jpindar wrote:
| Yeah, that's annoying. But there's another app, YouTube Vanced,
| that works.
| [deleted]
| m3kw9 wrote:
| I'm confused as to how they are still able to see back 13 billion
| years. I thought all the light from the original Big Bang has
| already passed us.
| layer8 wrote:
| The big bang didn't happen at any particular location. It
| happened everywhere all at once. Thus light from the big bang
| (or rather, what's currently the cosmic microwave background)
| will continue passing us for all eternity. (That is, until the
| EM waves become stretched too long due to cosmological
| redshift.)
| baq wrote:
| Space is expanding faster than the speed of light. This means
| we'll be able to see the same time in the past, just from
| further and further away.
| ziotom78 wrote:
| This is true regardless of expansion, the important thing is
| that the space be infinite.
| layer8 wrote:
| If space is finite (i.e. is a four-dimensional sphere), the
| same light will continue passing us again and again (just
| fainter and fainter).
| mjsweet wrote:
| My wife is an astrophysicist here in Australia and had been
| looking forward to this launch for over a decade. She plans on
| using James Webb and gravitational lensing to observe galaxies at
| extremely high redshifts. Basically one looks behind single or
| clusters of closer galaxies for very young galaxies in the early
| stages of forming, not long after the Big Bang. The gravity well
| of the closer cluster acts as a giant lense, acting as an
| additional optical element to the telescope propelling us even
| further into the distant past.
|
| As we watched the launch I asked her what James Web means to
| astronomy. Her answer? "It will fundamentally change what we know
| about the universe".
| savant_penguin wrote:
| This is amazingly exciting
|
| Would she know about any list of projects that intend to use
| the new measurements?
| Bayart wrote:
| Tout est nominal ! See you at Lagrange point L2 !
| antod wrote:
| This one snuck up on me. After being long aware of this project
| and how massively ambitious/difficult/cool it was and how much
| trouble it was having due to that ambition, subconsciously I
| must've parked it away as "not going to happen for a while".
|
| Time has passed while not paying attention, and it has actually
| launched. Well done to everyone involved!
| makeworld wrote:
| Main NASA stream is here:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nT7JGZMbtM
| r721 wrote:
| Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29682051
| nabla9 wrote:
| 29 days until it reaches L2.
|
| 180 days (6 months) until it starts working
| rnoorda wrote:
| It's always inspiring to see what can be accomplished by large
| groups of people working for years and years to create things
| that have never been made before. And then the elation of
| success, after years and years of work, delays, and more work.
|
| Watching the launch made me feel the wonder of spaceflight I felt
| as a child- and the holiday timing felt even more perfect.
| melling wrote:
| Yes, it has been in the works for a long time.
|
| "Development began in 1996 for a launch that was initially
| planned for 2007"
|
| "Construction was completed in late 2016, after which an
| extensive testing phase began"
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope
|
| While it's great that it's finally up, we should re-evaluate
| why it takes such a long time to develop these projects.
|
| The pace of innovation appears to have slowed greatly in recent
| decades.
| el_nahual wrote:
| The skillset required to do Difficult a Thing, Fast is
| independent to the skillset required for being a smart
| scientist.
|
| Moving quickly requires very specific managerial skills &
| risk appetites.
|
| Legacy scientific institutions (like NASA, or most
| universities) have basically succumbed to extreme Peter
| Principle: everyone has been promoted to their level of
| incompetence. Excellent thinkerw can make catastrophic
| managers.
|
| This is a known issue in startup land, and mitigations have a
| been learned. Examples: independent, deep career paths for
| mangers and contributors. A funding model that is milestones
| based with minimal barriers to entry.
|
| SpaceX of course being some sort of proof in this regard.
|
| It's not just NASA of course. Look at ITER--a fusion project
| started in 2007 with an _expected_ completion date of 2025.
| Or the Second Avenue Subway, or any number of infrastructure
| projects.
|
| If you wrote a company manual designed to maximize the odds
| of failure, you'd end up with something pretty close to the
| way academic and govt projects are run.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| The problem with this comparison is that most people don't
| know enough to understand how much more difficult a project
| like ITER or the James Webb telescope is than what startups
| try to do.
| adhesive_wombat wrote:
| It's quite amazing that a few hundred ksloc of Javascript
| gluing together a bunch of npm packages can be valued on
| the same order of magnitude (in the billions) as a multi-
| decade scientific/heavy engineering undertaking.
| bostik wrote:
| With an online business you're not placing the value on
| the software created, but on the potential to create
| lasting addiction.
|
| The same way when you see news of large drug busts, the
| numbers floated around are based on how much the
| confiscated load could fetch on the street (iow. end of
| the chain, with addicts paying through the nose) - not on
| how much it cost to manufacture.
| JaimeThompson wrote:
| Doing things the first time is always more expensive then
| doing them the 10000th time even if the 10000th is slightly
| different than the 9999 before it.
|
| Project like Webb and ITER are doing things that simply
| haven't been done before which makes it much more
| difficult. They are also beholden to politicians for
| funding.
| bostonsre wrote:
| It's a ridiculously complicated machine built to peer into
| the beginnings of the universe and sniff out indications of
| life across our galaxy. I think people could cut them a
| little slack. I'm sure they had amazingly complex issues and
| obstacles to overcome.
| nyolfen wrote:
| it took 3x+ longer than the apollo program took to put
| somebody on the moon
| kortex wrote:
| Apollo also cost $280B inflation adjusted, so like 25x.
| And Apollo was a mad dash, with many risks taken. JWST is
| slow and steady. Like I'm a space buff and even I was
| pretty surprised when I learned how cowboy the moon
| decent in particular was. They had one shot, and had to
| fly the lander by hand, without any actual experience
| (they had to rely on a super cool craft which offset the
| weight to act like 1/6g).
|
| Like... Apollo was utterly bonkers, bordering on full-
| Kerbal, in so many ways. It cost lives (5 training flight
| accidents, 3 in Apollo 1 fire), almost lost another 3 in
| Apollo 13.
|
| JWST is proving out tons of new science and technology,
| but at a much more pedestrian peace.
| nkrisc wrote:
| So what? Was the Apollo program more complicated than the
| instruments on JWST? They are two very, very different
| missions with different requirements. In many ways, each
| mission is unique in its own ways and I don't see much
| value in comparing them on such basic metrics. Why is the
| time it takes important?
| ardit33 wrote:
| Absolutely yes. The apollo's feat, of landing a lander in
| a different body, with people in it, and making sure that
| lander lifted off the moon, and got back home safe was
| astonishing accomplishment.
|
| Especially with the rudimentary computers and
| calculations of the time. The James Web Telescope, is a
| great feat, but not in the same league as the moon
| landings.
| mendigou wrote:
| Apollo was amazing and the feat in guidance and
| navigation computers was astonishing. No one will dispute
| that. But let's not glorify it and discount all present
| missions.
|
| Building an observatory is VERY difficult. Nevermind the
| "avionics" for an L2 mission, the manufacturing of the
| sensors, mirrors, and all the other mechanical parts are
| one-of-a-kind.
|
| Webb is without a doubt an amazing feat of engineering
| and the engineering teams had to confront problems that
| were not even thought of for Apollo. Massive respect to
| them.
| nyolfen wrote:
| once again, not a moral claim or even disputing that
| apollo was exceptional -- but that does not change the
| fact that this reflects a slower rate of innovation
| 1_player wrote:
| Given that Apollo landed on the Moon during the Cold War
| and the space race with Russia, it's incredible what
| injecting a percentage of the US defense budget into NASA
| can accomplish.
| nyolfen wrote:
| it supports the OP's statement that the rate of
| innovation is slowing down, it's not a moral claim
| kibwen wrote:
| No, the rate of funding is slowing down, and unlike
| Apollo there's no political urgency to the JWST. With 5x
| the funding you could afford to have less stringent
| manufacturing and verification (resulting in less cost-
| per-telescope and build time) and just accept that even
| if one of the telescopes fails, you can just build and
| send up another (or another five).
| nine_k wrote:
| I suppose Apollo spent significantly more money, measured
| as a part of the US GDP. It was done in a lot of hurry.
| kibwen wrote:
| _> It was done in a lot of hurry._
|
| Indeed, we must keep in mind that the tolerance for
| failure was higher even as the cost of failure was
| higher. Do not forget the astronauts taken by Soyuz and
| Apollo.
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| Let's be honest the James Webb space telescope was not a
| priority like the Manhattan project or Apollo program was.
|
| Innovation happens when there is a threat to civilization or
| national prestige.
| tibyat wrote:
| marcyb5st wrote:
| We are slow because we need to send stuff in orbit and so
| they need to survive launch and fit into the launcher. That
| adds 99% of the complexity.
|
| If, instead, we would build stuff in orbit it would be much
| cheaper and faster as you don't need origami like folding,
| high Gs resistance, and a malfunctioning piece can be
| replaced easily.
| sobkas wrote:
| > If, instead, we would build stuff in orbit it would be
| much cheaper and faster as you don't need origami like
| folding, high Gs resistance, and a malfunctioning piece can
| be replaced easily.
|
| Are you sure it would be cheaper? Building orbital build
| facility would be so expensive. Housing staff to build in
| the orbit or investing in robotics isn't cheap (or
| possible) either. So it's cheaper to include hardening
| against high-G launches than build orbital facility for the
| amount of launches that need this kind of preparations.
| yardie wrote:
| There is building stuff in orbit and there is learning to
| build stuff in orbit. We're still figuring out the later.
| Microgravity factories and construction have many benefits.
| We just haven't figured out the how just yet.
| simion314 wrote:
| >If, instead, we would build stuff in orbit it would be
| much cheaper and faster as you don't need origami like
| folding, high Gs resistance, and a malfunctioning piece can
| be replaced easily.
|
| I am expecting still is much more cheaper to create bigger
| rockets then move the factories,the workers and everything
| they need in orbit.
| m4rtink wrote:
| Near term - yes, long term you want to use those rockets
| to put the people, factories and general infra in place
| to build the really massive telescopes, in the hundred
| meter to kilometer size categories.
|
| Not to mention crazy long range VLBI radio setups or
| telescopes at the edge of the solar system using the
| gravity lensing of the Sun to observe things.
| melling wrote:
| The construction was finished in 2016.
|
| It's not just this project, NASA, for example, hasn't had
| the capability to put humans in space since the Shuttle
| retired.
|
| Anyway, we are all aware of the Manhattan Project, Space
| Race, SR71 development, ...
|
| Someone mentioned this book yesterday, maybe it has some of
| the answers
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Where-Flying-Car-Storrs-
| Hall/dp/19539...
| m4rtink wrote:
| Well, the capability is back now with Crew Dragon and
| maybe even Starliner eventually.
| barkingcat wrote:
| some things are worth taking their time.
| ridgeguy wrote:
| Important goals can take long efforts to achieve. For
| something as novel and complex as JWST, I don't find its
| quarter-century development time surprising or odious.
|
| Cathedral Notre Dame was begun in 1163, took 182 years to
| complete. We moderns recognize it as a thing of beauty (pre-
| blaze), but I'm sure it was a tour de force for technology of
| the times, with many unexpected problems that delayed the
| project.
|
| I'm glad each project's sponsors saw them through to
| completion. I hope humanity continues to sign up for hard
| goals that take time to reach.
| marcodiego wrote:
| Targets get constantly closer to physical limits, that makes
| pace of innovation always decelerate. I can only see 2
| situations where pace of innovation accelerates: a new
| discovery like was the transistor or a new area of research
| like was with the radio.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| There are innovations which feed back on themselves,
| usually involving greater precision or density.
| Microprocessors are the cononical case, where reducing the
| size of transistors reduces distances, energy requirements,
| heat management, and increases (to the square) component
| density enabling more capacity in the same volume.
|
| The picture becomes rapidly less impressive when we look at
| _where that processing goes_ , in many cases much of it is
| consumed with processing that's not directly related to
| useful output, though one area that _has_ benefitted
| greatly has been usability: a computer user used to be a
| very highly skilled and trained position, now infants and
| those with severe cognitive or other impairments can make
| productive use of computers --- a lot of processing power
| goes into simply expanding the potential user-base.
|
| (This isn't a slight or dig at who computer users are at
| present, though I admit some frustrations with how this
| transforms mass-market platforms, devices, and software
| away from power-user capabilities and interests.)
|
| Network-dynamics systems (which microprocessors arguably
| are) can also see similar types of dynamics, at least over
| a range of scale.
|
| In many other domains though, the engineering possibility
| frontier is one of sharply diminishing returns, after even
| only a fairly trivially small amount of initial progress.
| Occasionally there are bursts of progress, often as two
| separte areas of technological develoopment are integrated
| together, but even that often provides only a brief period
| of high returns.
|
| What I see lacking is even a rudimentary model of what
| domains within technology do and do not afford for
| accelerating returns to scale, or what the bounds and
| limits of the exceptions might be, or what the actual
| _delivered net benefit_ of such accelerating returns might
| be.
| krallja wrote:
| Machining (specifically, lathing) is an even earlier
| example of improving precision feedback loops. See
| "Machine Thinking" on Youtube, very well produced and
| entertaining.
| scrozart wrote:
| I am still surprised when people underestimate the absurd
| complexity of this project.
|
| This is a novel masterpiece of science and engineering, not a
| jet fighter or rocket destined for mass production and
| deployment. There will only ever be one, so there's literally
| zero room for error. Better to measure twice and cut once, so
| to speak.
|
| These projects are subject to incredibly rigorous post-mortem
| investigations, and each cost and time overrun is _already_
| documented thoroughly and publicly. Congress doesn't give
| this money away lightly. We know exactly why, and when,
| things took longer than expected, and those lessons learned
| are already being applied to subsequent observatories like
| Roman.
| cletus wrote:
| A better lesson to take here is second system syndrome [1].
|
| JWST took so long because it was so ambitious. Hubble has a
| 2.4m mirror. JWST has a 6.5m mirror. No rocket can launch
| that fully assembled so you've automatically added a bunch of
| complexity to unfurl and assemble that in space.
|
| There's a whole bunch of other new things that simply have
| never been done before. Any one of these is a challenge.
| Doing them all at once with almost no margin for error and no
| possibility of intervention and repair drastically increases
| the complexity and cost.
|
| Another example: the instruments are so sensitive that after
| fairing release it has to be rotated to keep them away from
| direct sunlight. That'll continue on the journey to its final
| orbit.
|
| Also the sunshields are tennis court sized.
|
| It is mind-bogglingly complex.
|
| Arguably what they should've done is launch something
| slightly less ambitious sooner.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-system_effect
| beefield wrote:
| > The pace of innovation appears to have slowed greatly in
| recent decades.
|
| Nope. We as a society have just re-evaluated what is the
| innovation we want. In the old days it was moon programs and
| nuclear technology (for good and bad). Later we deemed
| circumventing financial regulation and getting people click
| ads more important.
| gameswithgo wrote:
| The pace of innovation should slow, as innovations become
| increasingly more difficult. The low hanging fruit naturally
| is discovered/built first.
|
| Fusion power harder than Fission, Webb harder than Hubble,
| bigger particle smashers harder than smaller. Sometimes
| earlier innovations allow you to accelerate the next
| innovation but eventually you get diminishing returns.
|
| We older tech and science nerds need to be careful not to
| fall in the "kids these days" traps. The kids are allright,
| the innovations of the past were full of chaos irrationally
| and mistakes as well.
| aidos wrote:
| In our house it was like; they're launching the Webb! Do you
| think they're gutted about working Christmas? No, I think they're
| enjoying the best Christmas present ever.
|
| Congratulations to all involved.
| 1_player wrote:
| Where is Webb? dashboard:
| https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html
| Grismar wrote:
| Thanks for the link. No temperature data, that's ominous?
| shoghicp wrote:
| > NOTE: temperature data will begin updating 1-2 days after
| launch. Displays will read "---" until that point.
| yuppiepuppie wrote:
| Nope. It says it'll start reporting temp data 1-2 days after
| launch.
| fexelein wrote:
| Cool link thanks
| 0xFFFE wrote:
| Also Japanese Hayabusa2 mission's dashboard. I so admire the
| elegant design. http://haya2now.jp/en.html
| belter wrote:
| Elegant I agree, but a failure in readability.
|
| - Nova+Mono is the wrong font for a display like this.
|
| - Those characters in very light gray make incredibly
| difficult to read and contrast specially at the bottom part
| of the display were they just fade into the dark the blue
| background.
|
| Notice the difference and much better result, with the color
| choice for characters in the James Webb pages posted above.
| 0xFFFE wrote:
| Yes, I agree that readability could have been better.
| mendigou wrote:
| This is very obviously designed with some
| nostalgic/artistic intention. Spacecraft operations
| displays use fonts similar to those and they are perfectly
| readable (they do use different colors though).
|
| It also seems to me that the faded out section at the
| bottom is like that because none of the stations are online
| with the spacecraft.
| sizzzzlerz wrote:
| Congratulations to STSI and all the dedicated men and women
| who've worked so hard and long to make this happen! Through all
| the setbacks and difficulties, they've overcome them all. Now,
| let's get some great science!
| mabbo wrote:
| Hard part is done- now for the really scary part.
|
| Hundreds of deployment steps will follow. Each one has to go
| perfectly. If it doesn't, the JWST fails and tens of billions of
| dollars and 30 years wasted (by some definition of 'waste').
|
| But for every single one of those steps, an incredible amount of
| work has been done to ensure that it cannot fail.
|
| But if any step fails, there's no repair mission possible for at
| least a decade or more.
| C19is20 wrote:
| I said it on a different thread...why not build two (while
| they're at it)?
| Grismar wrote:
| Either it works and that would be a waste of additional
| billions, or it doesn't and there would be no guarantee the
| second wouldn't have the same critical mistake. This is not
| about rolling the dice, it's about putting every bit of
| effort and attention you can muster into one attempt -
| splitting that, even a little, reduces the odds of the main
| attempt working.
|
| If it does end up failing, and let's pray to Bill's god and
| others it doesn't, we're better off trying something else in
| a few decades, or something simpler and more focused sooner.
| garaetjjte wrote:
| >there's no repair mission possible for at least a decade or
| more.
|
| There's no repair mission possible, period. It only has enough
| fuel to keep orbiting L2 for around 10 years.
| sixQuarks wrote:
| You don't think SpaceX would formulate an attempt to fix it?
| 1_player wrote:
| Why is there this obsession for a private company to be the
| champion of public science? Am I the only one that hasn't
| bought SpaceX shares?
|
| AFAIK there is the goal for NASA to work on a robotic
| refueling system, I don't know how official is that, but
| they have 10 years to come up with something.
| drexlspivey wrote:
| SpaceX is not a public company so almost nobody is able
| to buy shares
| sixQuarks wrote:
| Ummm Maybe it's because SpaceX is able to innovate faster
| than any government entity?
| thebigman433 wrote:
| They can, but why does anyone think that they actually
| would, without an absolutely massive contract from NASA?
| It would be a total departure from what they are
| currently working on, and would basically be a one off
| mission. There is no reason to think they would want to
| do this.
| timmytokyo wrote:
| Just watched "Don't Look Up" on Netflix last night. It's
| about a space mission designed to save the planet from a
| comet. It did a nice job of satirizing the misplaced
| faith so many Americans have in eccentric billionaires.
| tzfld wrote:
| Yes, somewhat stressful: "JWST has 344 single-point failures,
| 80% of which are in deployment systems"
| curiousgal wrote:
| I have a question seeing how this project has been decades in the
| making. Wouldn't newer technologies have been discovered in the
| meantime? Do they still send whatever devices they built years
| ago? How exactly does it work?
| 1_player wrote:
| 20 year old technology has had 20 years of testing and
| improvements, something that a piece of tech invented today
| doesn't have.
|
| The cost of failure is so high you want to succeed at all costs
| rather than have the most advanced tech money can buy.
| YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo wrote:
| The technology standard is something in between the absolute
| high tech of the development start which is way ahead of the
| general consumer parts.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-25 23:01 UTC)