/sci/ - Science & Math

somewhere in the range of 1488 to 9001

>>12310339
Based Space-Based Interferometry Swarms.
Can't wait to read alien license plates.

>>12310275
About 10. The first would be 1 m across, the last would be 1 km across.

>>12310990
Scrum wasn't a meme after all.

>>12310999
I think the solar night side mirror would be a very Muskuesque project.

>>12310275
JWST resulted in a jot of technological inovations, thats why it took so long.

>>12311113
>solar night side mirror
What is the point of such a thing? Aren't you just making the day darker and the night brighter?

>>12311150
The point is to turn night into bright twilight. Bottom far right is an annular mirror extending just beyond Earth's shadow and reflect light back. This ring would be a bright circle and surround the moon during full moon.
The dark blue in bottom far left is a sun shade to reduce incoming IR light to reduce global warming while maintaining bright visible light.

>>12311496
>This ring would be a bright circle and surround the moon during full moon.
Sorry, that was an embarrassing mistake. Of course the lunar orbital plane does not coincide with the ecliptic, this moon in circle can only happen during the eclipse of the moon.

>>12311113
Finn in the annulus with a 12,000 km mirror pointing outward. That could resolve planets around stars.

Depends on size, weight and extras.

>>12311141
30 years of development time? In 30 years, Cold War ended, China became 2nd largest economy, Russia lost its status, world economy had 3 different recessions, multiple wars, advent of phones, smartphones, laptops, etc.

The world moved on. JWST is stuck in the 90s.

>>12310275
pic related will soon make it obsolete

>>12312295

>>12312346
you are right. a true wonder how astronomers may make millions disappear without showing up anything for years and decades and yet keep their cool, their jobs and social prestige.
at least their analogues in the military industry have a bad reputation.

>>12312509
true wonder on right

>>12312509
>you are right. a true wonder how astronomers may make millions disappear without showing up anything for years
German super science.

>>12312509
Hate to break it to you but astronomers are not the ones charged with building JWST. That would be NASA Goddard, HQ and their long list of military contractors.

>>12314427
astronomers are the pr of the space-military complex. we are more than ready to white wash all the filthy infinite expenses with all the muh wonder universe and stuff, but the first to shift blame when someone notices 'its the incompetent greedy military'
honesty at its best

>>12310275
0. he is a hack

>>12310275
>>12314703
this. he's a fucking retard.

>>12314703
/thread

>>12314685
If you weren't completely retarded you would understand that astronomers are the one who have suffered the most from the JWST fiasco. 10 billion is nothing to the federal government, and NASA AST would probably still have that money even if JWST was on budget. The real problem is the opportunity lost, and that impacts astronomers.

>>12310275
Zero. Space is hard and space telescopes are even harder.

>>12314703 >>12314782 >>12314804 >>12314861
The JWST dudes sure are out in force today, desperate as always. How is the launch going, guys? Or did you confuse "launch" with "lunch"?

>>12315214
what the fuck are you even babbling about you retarded schizo

>>12315266
Hahahaha

>>12315214
Pointing out that Musk has no experience in producing science missions is not in any way defending JWST.

>>12315376
He has expertise in making sats for commercial communications. He's getting expertise in making sats for military spy sats. You think you can't get expertise in making space telescope? He's worked with cameras/sensors/lasers people throughout his multiple companies.

>>12310275

>>12310275
>$15 billion
Tech: $0.5B
Overhead: $14.5B

>>12315419
>You think you can't get expertise in making space telescope?
Did I say that? No. The current reality is that they have no experience. SpaceX has shown no interest in bidding on scientific missions, so that doesn't look like it's going to change anytime soon.

>>12315376
This argument is roughly what the car industry grunted out as Tesla hit the market. Meanwhile the traditional industry innovated new ways of defeating emission tests.

>>12315499
It's not an argument, it's a fact.
Musk also doesn't produce avocados. That statement is not an endorsement of big avocado.
I don't know why this is so upsetting for you.

>>12315519
In 1961 nobody had the experience in putting a man on the moon. In 1969 they did. According to your logic they should never have done it. And that is the point of the Musk: he is willing to do things while leaving the expert to let the satellite sit on the ground for twenty five years!

I am not upset, mainly because I am not a US tax payer. I am just astonished about your acceptance of the way things are.

I met people who worked on the space race, they were a different breed.

>>12315573
>According to your logic they should never have done it.
Oh look, you're making shit up again. I already pointed out that you didn't read what I wrote, and here you go with the same bullshit.
>I am just astonished about your acceptance of the way things are.
See: >>12315376

>>12310275
You need microwave trancievers there, not telescopes, you want to find alien life, not take pictrues,

>>12314829
astronomers have not suffered in their fucking very comfy lives for fucking nothing.
they just throw press releases like there is no tomorrow when someone has to cover some absurd budget and expect every body look at them in awe. they are like priests for hire. and the hiring is pretty expensive.
and then they have the bollocks to say they are the ones that have been 'impacted'. they should, certainly. but they will keep their positions, grants, and projects whatever fucking happens. they may (might, perhaps) be impacted in their egos, if some else get more attention for whatever reason (astro departments are really *really* seething since the covid because now nobody cares and only listen to fucking virologists and epidemiologists)

>>12315603
You move the goal posts at super lumnal velocities now. The entire premise, also for this very thread, is how much Elon Musk could have achieved.

>>12315498
There's no money to be made in astronomy other than from government grants. SpaceX will be interested in astronomical missions when there is a financial benefit to do so. They might end up interested in other types of scientific missions if the research has potential to have financial rewards. For now, the government could make it worth the effort of SpaceX to build and deploy space telescopes if the government was filling to fund the program. But with the JWST still in the pipeline, no one wants to get dunked on by Musk.

Put a bunch of telescopes on the Moon.

>>12315850
Lots of whining, zero actual logic. Not once did you mention who has been worse affected by it.
> but they will keep their positions, grants, and projects whatever fucking happens.
You have literally no idea of how things work. Not everyone has a permanent position. There will be students who spend their entire PhDs preparing for JWST and will have to leave the field before it launches. And no you don't still get the grants. The grants through STSci don't happen without a telescope. 99% of grants are fixed in length anyway, if the telescope is delayed you don't get more money, you're just screwed.

>>12315952
There are no goalposts, this was never a debate. I made a factual statement and then you misread it twice in a row.

>>12316023
The moon is a terrible place for most observatories. Levitating dust, huge temperature swings and reduced sky access. The only significant benefits are for very long wavelength radio, but that's quite niche.

>>12316054
The moon is not very seismically active so you could benefit from the hard vacuum by setting up gravitational wave observatories there, across huge craters.

>>12316501
You could make bigger ones in space, like ESA's LISA.

All of them

>>12316533
Sure, but a lunar system will not need to spend fuel for station keeping.

>>12316559
It would take shit loads of fuel to land it on the surface.

>>12316595
yes, but how many decades? judging by the patterns we're seeing, the first space telescope took just about 1/8th of a century to completely, the second one is more than a 1/4th of a century, so the next one is likely to take substantially longer than a quarter century.

>>12316054
>The only significant benefits are for very long wavelength radio,
How can this be true? With the reduced gravity and lack of wind you can make radio dishes 10x or even 100x the size possible on earth. place these on the limb of the moon and combine with radio telescopes on earth you can get truly enormous baselines.
>but that's quite niche.
has that even been investigated?

>>12317027
>the first space telescope took just about 1/8th of a century to completely, the second one is more than a 1/4th of a century
What? There are lots of space telescopes. HST was not the first and JWST is nowhere near the second.

Also if you count JWST's history all the way back to the first studies (i.e. 25 years ago), then HST took much longer than 12 years. A more fair comparison would be 25 years, as serious studies began for LST (now HST) in the mid 60's. So no, things aren't getting longer.

>>12317842
>With the reduced gravity and lack of wind you can make radio dishes
There's even less gravity in space. Also huge dishes cannot be pointed far from zenith, so you end up with a very limited system.
>place these on the limb of the moon and combine with radio telescopes on earth you can get truly enormous baselines.
Don't need the Moon for long baselines. Also the Moon is bad for covering the UV plane, which is essential for getting good interferometric imaging. You don't just want one really long baseline, you want a good range. You can do that with eccentric orbits.
>has that even been investigated?
Yes, for small observatories. The lowest cost studies have just been of lunar satellites with radio instrumentation.

>>12312295
Good luck observing far-infrared wavelengths with a ground based telescope

>>12317907
JWST doesn't actually reach the far infrared. There is currently no far infrared space telescope, and there won't be one for at least 20 years.

Currently the best data comes from ALMA on the ground, which can observe high redshift galaxies in the rest-frame far infrared.

>>12317876
>>With the reduced gravity and lack of wind you can make radio dishes
>There's even less gravity in space.
Station keeping is costly. Also with the lunar base we are practically promised since 1969 it will be easier to maintain/upgrade a lunar system.
>Also huge dishes cannot be pointed far from zenith, so you end up with a very limited system.
You can still cover a lot of interesting areas.
>>place these on the limb of the moon and combine with radio telescopes on earth you can get truly enormous baselines.
>Don't need the Moon for long baselines.
What other ways to achieve >400,000 km baselines do you propose?
>Also the Moon is bad for covering the UV plane, which is essential for getting good interferometric imaging. You don't just want one really long baseline, you want a good range. You can do that with eccentric orbits.
We are talking about radio astronomy, how does UV come into radio astronomical baselines?
>>has that even been investigated?
>Yes, for small observatories. The lowest cost studies have just been of lunar satellites with radio instrumentation.
What wavelengths? The antenna scales with wavelength so multi km wavelengths require a pretty large satellite if you want to keep it in space.

>>12317960
>Station keeping is costly.
So is landing on the Moon, but not all orbits require significant station keeping.
>Also with the lunar base we are practically promised since
Any decade now. The astrophysics division are unlikely to commit to any mission if it depends heavily on human space flight, which is very politically unstable.
>You can still cover a lot of interesting areas.
Some, and it's bad for interferometry.
>What other ways to achieve >400,000 km baselines do you propose?
Can be done in Earth or solar orbit. But in any case the requirements are driven by the science, not the other way round. Extremely long baselines face the problem of resolving out flux. You can't just make an enormous interferometer without a science case because it won't be sensitive to objects which are much bigger than the resolution (most of them).
>We are talking about radio astronomy, how does UV come into radio astronomical baselines?
UV does not mean ultraviolet in this context. U and V are the names given to the directions in Fourier space. To get good interferometry you need a range of baselines and angles, this is called filling the UV plane. Each pair of baselines at a single moment only measures one spatial frequency in one direction. A pair of baselines measures a point in the UV plane.
>What wavelengths? The antenna scales with wavelength so multi km wavelengths require a pretty large satellite if you want to keep it in space.
>What wavelengths?
20-140 MHz usually, it's where the strongest science case is.

>>12317869
JWST was first studied long long before 25 years ago, 25 years ago was when NASA announced that the project was being started with a proposed budget of $500 and a proposed launch date in 2007. Dr. Jill Bechtold of the University of Arizona was already leading the way on what was then called NGST (Next Generation Space Telescope) as early as the late 1980s.

>>12317842
The big benefit would come from placing it in the side of the Moon that faces away from Earth. There's a huge amount of annoying RF coming from Earth that a space based radio telescopes have to deal with. On the other side of the Moon, for all practical purposes it is all blocked.

>>12316008
Imagine the massive REEEEEEEEEEEEEEing if all those cushy affirmative action government jobs at NASA with the infinite pensions, promotions, pay raises and no job performance requirements (such as the ability to construct a space telescope) were replaced by competitive private sector engineering jobs which were only accessible to people who had demonstrated that they have the necessary technical abilities to complete the task.
>you can't fire all those incompetent academics!! how will they feed themselves on only a teacher's salary!?!?

>>12318158
>JWST was first studied long long before 25 years ago
And HST was studied much further back that the 60's. It can be traced back to a report by Spitzer from 1946. You can always look further back but you have to compare like-for-like. For Hubble the serious studies started in the mid 60's, for JWST that was the mid 90's.

>NASA announced that the project was being started with a proposed budget of $500 and a proposed launch date in 2007.
That's not really true. NGST wasn't really approved until the 2000 decadal survey, by which point the budget had grown significantly. Before then it was just a concept. NASA funds a lot of concepts which never move forward.

>Dr. Jill Bechtold of the University of Arizona was already leading the way on what was then called NGST (Next Generation Space Telescope) as early as the late 1980s.
Nope. John Mather was the PI of NGST (and now JWST).

>>12318158
>a proposed budget of $500
Now THAT is what I call a shoestring budget.

>>12318159
You only need to be on the lib to get rid of those problems. Mare Orientalis and Mare Muscovensis look like good choices.

If you accelerate your space telescope to near relativistic velocities then you get to take advantage of relativistic beaming and see further into the universe that way. Thats where I think the money is at, they should just attach massive boosters to HST and send it for a high speed round trip somewhere. HST is already up there and functioning.

>>12319100
Look up "light cone".

>>12319100
Relativistic beaming actually shrinks the apparent size of objects in front, lowering the effective resolution. In the other direction objects appear bigger but they are also more redshifted and dimmer, thus harder to detect.

Also it's negligible at the velocities achieved by current spacecraft.

>>12319303

>>12318167
lol

>>12310275
don't give that dork any more money!

>>12321407
you seem upset

>>12321747
He might be a tax payer, you know.

>>12321754
lmao whatta cuck

>>12310275
>How many space telescopes do you think Elon Musk could put in space if he were given a 25 year deadline and a $15 billion budget?
None, he's just a human.
On the other hand his engineers could do this.

>>12323003
NASA's sure can't LMAOOOOOO

How does he do it bros ?

>>12323700
He hires the best and isn't afraid to let people go if they don't perform their job well. Now compare that to your average government agency ad you begin to see the difference.

>>12323716
where does he find the best

>>12323739
Probably not at NASA.

>>12323819

>>12310339
absolutely based and redpilled
btw I appreciate Elon's obsession for the number 420

>>12317907
this

>>12317932
>JWST doesn't actually reach the far infrared.
true but it doesn't need to for now. water absorbs in the near and mid-infrared so JWST is already 1000 times more powerful than any ground based telescope.

>>12317907
NIR and middle infrared are enough for now, still crappy to observe from the ground

>>12325845
> JWST is already 1000 times more powerful than any ground based telescope.
Only at longer wavelengths beyond 2 microns. At shorter wavelengths the gap isn't nearly that large, and the ELTs will exceed JWST's spectroscopic sensitivity at short wavelengths.