/sci/ - Science & Math

Just posted this in one of your other shitty threads so I'll do it for you too. Keep it up, Roscosmos Internet Defense Force.

>Do people think scientists put $10 billion instruments onto what is essentially a giant bottle rocket without considering it may be a worthless endeavor?

>>14678824
>Happily, in this case the overall effect on Webb was small.

sounds like it's not too bad as long as this is not happening all the time..

deflector shields when?

>>14678829
NASA
>No tube to protect the JWST primary mirror from glancing blows from micrometeorites
>No protective retractable cover directly in front of JWST to keep the mirror safe when not in use
>Shortchange meteorite collisions
>Not designing JWST to be serviceable by astronauts that could have taken care of the above mentioned problems

And why are you chewing me out and not NASA?!?

Its funny that the entire world was like JWT wow muh engineering and here we are, the engineering "marvel" crushed by a small space rock lol

>>14678824
Pic related. It's part of telescope.

>>14678848
>Not designing JWST to be serviceable by astronauts that could have taken care of the above mentioned problems
?

>>14678824
Anything regarding astronomy is never a waste of money. We should take all the money in third world charities and give it to NASA.

>>14678848
lol

>>14678824
They waste 10 billion per day sending it to Ukraine to further their NWO project. I wouldn't worry about how much jwst cost anon. It pales in comparison to shit like the war in Afghanistan or the covid hoax

>>14678829
He's not even being paid for this. He's just some mongoloid who is pissy at astronomers specifically. Most likely over objections to satellite constellations.
He has been spamming this shit for years, he's not going to stop just because JWST is a success.

>>14678848
>No protective retractable cover directly in front of JWST to keep the mirror safe when not in use
>when not in use
Convince me you know nothing in one sentence.

More are coming.
>For now, engineers are keeping an eye on potential future dust-generating events such as in 2023 and 2024, when Webb is expected to fly through particles left behind by Halley's Comet.
Was the path Halley's Comet took during its last pass through this part of the solar system not available before now?

>>14678866
maybe not put it way the fuck out there. inb4 that wouldnt work. just design it to be in a regular orbit and put a shitload more IR shielding on it

>>14679066
NASA when its time to ask for money:
>hey goy, earth might be destroyed by space rocks, you gotta give us all your money for space rock protection
NASA when its time to do work planning space missions:
>space rocks never hit anything, lets not even take known sources of space rocks into consideration when planning the orbit of our flagship $14.88 billion telescope

sounds like Linda Ham's work

>>14679076
you should design jwst2

>>14678941
Yeah and even more feeding africans.

JWSTed

>>14679106
White women were a mistake.

>>14679109
you should never think that you are intelligent or funny

>>14678848
>shield it
>make it serviceable
Neither of these were possible for NASA or the JWST.
1. It's in L2, NASA is incapable of sending astronauts to L2, and no servicing robotic probe suitable for the mission exists. So it simply cannot be serviced even if the satellite itself were designed to be serviced. You can't service a serviceable machine if you can't get the service men to the machine.
2. Shielding; it's a telescope, so the front of it will be unshielded whenever it's operational, which is basically meant to be the entire time. And even if they had the mass budget for Whipple shields around the rest of it, the big stuff would still get through and wreck havoc.

If they had undertaken better micrometeorite impact studies, NASA would have been forced to cancel the project completely. Obviously NASA wanted that outcome least of all, so they decided to turn a blind eye to the problem.

>>14679076
>just design it to be in a regular orbit and put a shitload more IR shielding on it
It would end up being a completely different telescope. Addressing this problem would have meant the complete cancellation of JWST.

>>14678946
Fuck starlink, and fuck you. Faggot.

>>14678848

Because you haven't designed a superior satellite. If micro-impacts were so important it'd have been made fundamental to the design. The JWST continues with it's mission and it's been proceeding well demonstrating it as a good use of taxpayer money.

The only argument against the JWST is building an even bigger space telescope in pieces but NASA is doing this anyway.

>>14679106

>>NASA when its time to ask for money:
>>hey goy, earth might be destroyed by space rocks, you gotta give us all your money for space rock protection

This doesn't happen because NASA has it's money taken away regardless. This is why SLS is such a shitshow and why NASA's own experiments with SSTOs didn't pan out to anything. You're clearly not American, because here in the US Congress has systematically agreed to defund NASA and not properly finance NASA projects for the past three decades. This was mostly because of budget hawk Republicans ie Gringrich who decided to oppose science because Bush lost in '92.

It really makes me wonder how you people even come up with this crap. These people are still alive (except Bush) and you can google it and see the original primary source articles concerning NASA having their money taken away.

>>14679076
You make it sound like its as easy as dragging a part with better stats onto the thing and clicking launch. Real life is not KSP.

>>14678824
nigga, go one step further and link the nasa paper
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2207/2207.05632.pdf

>>14679300
>addressing a problem that can lead to mission failure would've meant scrapping the mission
sounds like the plan is retarded then?
a plan that can't accommodate necessary features

>>14679436
NASA is a terrible steward of the money they're given. They sound like an inner city school blaming poor performance on not having enough cash. When NASA stops burning the money they're given, then they can expect to get more.

>>14679300
Just think what other projects could have been funded with that ten billion.

>>14679550
>Just think what other projects could have been funded with that ten billion.

>>14679545

NASA has never not burned money they are given, as a scientific research institution it's their job to burn money. Which is the point, NASA does risky expensive research that industry can't afford. Nobody else would put such a huge telescope in orbit because there's no money in it, but there is money in an increased understanding of physics due to images the JWST takes.

The JWST is out there in space right now taking pictures as we speak. NASA built it, sent it out there and has done what it was supposed to do. As far as I'm concerned that's money well spent.

>>14678848
The heat signature of the telescope needs to be as close to 0 as possible if they're gonna max the infrared scopes, that means minimizing anything that'll keep the heat in, like a tube or a shield.
C'mon man, you know the folding mirror was a breath stopper as is, now you want retractable covers that'll suck up the battery? Do we even have ways of predicting precise paths of passing meteors and debris out there so you'd know when to deploy and retract? Or is your whole idea here relegated to the power point junk pile because it's based on a universe of pretty pink ponies and rainbow farts where everything works magically with the power of believing in yourself

>>14679550
Afghani gender studies? Dude fuck off, James Webb is one of the few cool successes humans have had lately. Pour a drink and learn to appreciate the little things. If you wanna complain for the sake of complaining than you've found the perfect medium, but that doesn't make you immune from people telling you you're a worthless little bitch who can't come up with a better idea, much less organize, design and fund it.

1/10 b8 for making us reply

>>14678824
Why do smooth brains think $10b is a lot of money for such a project?

>>14679584
>but there is money in an increased understanding of physics due to images the JWST takes.
there isn't, HST produced absolutely nothing that was relevant or beneficial to life on earth or valuable in any way.

>>14679763
>successes
in 1995 NASA announced they were going to build an 8 meter space telescope and launch it by 2007 while spending "only" $500 million.
they ended up missing their launch date by over a decade, they spend dozens of times more money than they said they would need to and the telescope is only half as big as it was supposed to be.

>>14679797
It produced inspiration and mental stimulation and national pride which correlated with increased enrollment in STEM and higher budgets for all science

>>14679797

JWST is able to take better measurements of the background radiation, which therefore gives us a better picture of the universe and a better understanding of the big bang. On a macro level it lets us improve our big bang simulation models, on a practical level it allows us to build better antennae for satellites which means faster telecommunications.

>>14678829
>RUSSIA BAD
Go back

>>14679898

Russia is in fact bad especially when Roscosmos failed to build their own space telescope in the same period, despite it being a relatively easy project and something readily launchable on Soyuz.

At any point, Russia could decide it wants to build a telescope twice as big as the JWST. If it were to, it'd have a clear lead in astrophysics and cosmology. Just as the USSR did when the USSR's Tokamak design was selected over American designs for ITER in the 70s.

>>14679767
because big number

>>14679161
JWST FWCK MY SHIT WP

>>14679109
He just did.
And he put more work into it than nasa did for jwst1.

>>14679767
>just get every taxpayer to pay $70 bro it's nothing
now that I just wrote that I see your point

>>14679893
The most important thing it provides is inspiration.

>>14680548
>Assuming $10 billion cost
>Over 24 years
>Spread across 330,000,000 people
>$1.26 per year

>>14679594
The question is for how long? I read it was supposed to last around 20 years. I sense it will barely make it past a decade

>>14680548
>just get every taxpayer to pay $70 bro it's nothing
You have a problem with the concept of taxes and public projects?

>>14681118
The original expected lifetime of the JWST was 5-10 years to be considered a success.
The 20 year meme came from the launch and orbit manoeuvres using less fuel than expected, therefore potentially extending its life.

>>14680972
>Spread across 330,000,000 people
I'm smrarter then u because I used the number of taxpayers. Dividing by a number of people who don't all pay taxes doesn't mean much. In the end it still adds up to ~$70 per taxpayer total for a telescope. I honestly can't decide if it's a bargain or too much. Given what Americans are made to do with their money it's not what should keep them awake at night though.

>>14681264
The USA gets 500 billions in foreign tribute a year. The telescope was paid by South Korea, Saudi Arabia, The Netherlands and Germany. And likely US taxpayers also shared some cost

>>14679545
Feynman said NASA is a fundamentally poorly designed institution in the 80s but no one gave a shit.

>>14679424
Continues in a degraded state very early into its mission. You can ignore reality all you want but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.

>>14679767
Are you calling the people are NASA who said it would cost $800 million a bunch of smooth brains?

>>14681477
>Are you calling the people are NASA who

>>14678824
how long do you think it stays operational before it get's pelleted into oblivion ?

they say the micro meteorite that damage it occurred in may

hubble can be repaired due to it's proximity to earth this thing is too far

>>14681521
another 15 years or so.

>>14681521
the official mission lifetime is 5.5 years, the first half year being dedicated to commissioning, year 1 started a few weeks ago.

"I'm forming a hypothesis about the ongoing future of something based off of a single event" the thread.

>>14678954
>assuming JWST is being used 24/7 and not having down time

>>14679741
>The heat signature of the telescope needs to be as close to 0 as possible if they're gonna max the infrared scopes, that means minimizing anything that'll keep the heat in, like a tube or a shield.

So long as the tube/shield is kept shaded, it would eventually reach operational temperature...and provide some protection from micrometeorites.

>>14681484

>>14678824
>Micrometeorites have never been a problem for Hubbles
>It is apparently a problem now with Webb

Yeah, the difference is the herd of anti-science had no voice and was not taken seriously by the media and the politicians.

>>14679767
The cost of JWST has to be weighed with the amount of money available and what would missions would have to be shelved for it vs. the benefits of a infrared telescope that will be render useless by impacts in a few years. If James Webb cost $20 billion but we got 15-20 years of JWST providing good data it would be worth it, but if the impacts are going to render it useless in five years, I'm not so sure.

>>14681751
Hubble was close enough to the Earth that it was shielded by 50% of the micrometeorites just by the fact that the Earth was in the way, but JWST is not only too far away for the Earth to provide shielding, but also the JWST mirror is completely exposed as opposed to Hubble with has a tube structure that would stop some of the micrometeorites.

Yes, they are both exposed to micrometeorites but Hubble had far more protection from them than James Webb.

>>14681763
Random points in space dont have that much micrometeros zipping past all the time. They specifically put it in l2 where rocks collect because of space magic

>>14681751
>"Defend science by resorting to name-calling rather than actual arguments

>>14678848
https://esahubble.org/images/opo9820a/
>See the Lockheed Martin NGST design

>>14681763
Micrometeorites are irrelevant in LEO because almost all the impacts are debris from launches and satellites. The debris situation is far, far worse in LEO.

If you think the back looks like this and the mirror just happened to avoid never being hit then you don't understand statistics. The only reason people aren't crying about it is because HST has no wavefront sensing like JWST so it can't see damage.

>>14681913
L2 is dynamically unstable retard. Spacecraft need fuel to stay there.

>>14681736
It won't have downtime. Neither does Hubble. It's either slewing, setting up, making calibrations or exposing.

>>14681741
Operational temperature still equals fuckloads of mid infrared emission. It's not just the temperature that's important, it's also the emissivity. If you give it tons of extra emitting areas the background gets worse and the sensitivity drops.

>>14679904
But space telescopes aren't megayachts

>>14679797
HST was also built around spare spysat components (e.g. the Keyhole lense), it's a poor example of NASA bUrNiNg MoNeY

>>14682355
It was not. HST was much longer in focal length than any of the NRO satellites. The mirror was the same diameter so it could use the same tooling and ground equipment, but they weren't the same. And it's a reflecting telescope, mirrors not a lens. You're thinking of Roman, which won't launch for years.

>already getting smashed this early in the mission

>>14682727
JWST SMASHED AND SLAMMED! INBRED TOADSCOPE AT ITS BEST!!

>every scientist working on it going crazy over how amazing it is and how everything works better than expected
>some sub 100 IQ morons on the internet keep screaming how it's shit and doomed

>>14679550
Like toilets for mentally ill and universities for drug dealers

>>14682809
We're just a /pol/ colony as of late thanks to COVID.

>>14678824
>biggest waste of money
money is printed, the time and energy spent on this is 1000x more valuable than the budged for all those shitty HR departments

>>14682809
Why would the sóyence wagies bite the hand that feeds them?

>>14679873
>higher budgets
increased waste

seethe

>>14678824
we paid HOW MUCH for this shit?

>>14684879
Less than 1/5th of being in Afghanistan in the year 2019

>>14684879
This 700x350 thumbnail really demonstrates the image quality in both images

>>14678824
>assume they wouldn't be a problem
source?

>now, we'll have a busted telescope shot up with holes
source?

>>14684964
>assume they wouldn't be a problem
>source?
I mean, they kinda didn't bother shielding the telescope at all, unlike, say, Hubble and the Roman which are both in a big tin cans.

>>14684970
the damage is caused by direct impacts to the reflector surface. the instrumentation in roman, and hubble, are similarly exposed, because they have to be. otherwise you're reducing the sensitivity of measurements which can be taken. even if you shield the instruments, they will still get fucked up by meteorites.
it's like getting a scratch on your screen protector on a phone. yeah the screen itself isn't scratched, but there's still a scratch on the protector. it's not like you can ship someone out to put a new protector on it.

>>14678824
how can it be the biggest waste of money when other wastes of money are thousands of times more costly

>>14684996
i think he means in terms of volume per dollar, it is the biggest waste of money.

dyson spheres when?