F

[Anonymous No.11185383]

[Anonymous No.11185385]

>>11185383
care to explain?

[Anonymous No.11185413]

>>11185385
it looks like the sunshield that ripped, which caused it's delay to 2021 (It will never launch)

[Anonymous No.11185437]

>>11185413
Source? The 2021 delay happened well before they tested sunshield deployment.

[Anonymous No.11185438]

That poor thing is being sabotaged to death because it would be able to directly monitor the regular visitation of our planet.

[Anonymous No.11185443]

>>11185438
Anon, JWST isn't even going to look in the direction of our planet.

[Anonymous No.11185511]

>>11185383
>over $10 billion and counting
G-guys, when the government massively overspends on a project, that just means the money's going t-to a secret awesome future-tech black project. R-right?

[Anonymous No.11185537]

It will fail to unfold.

[Anonymous No.11185557]

>spending a million dollars on aluminum foil
god i wish i still was doing government contract work...

[Anonymous No.11185581]

At this point it doesn't even matter if JWST is cancelled or not the ELT is orders of magnitudes more powerful and will be ready by 2025.

So even if JWST launches in 2021 it will be made redundant in just 4 years time.

JWST is powerful enough to detect H2O, CO2 and methane in the atmospheres of exoplanets in a sphere 500 light years around the solar system.

ELT is powerful enough to scan the entire spectrometry of exoplanets up to 30,000 light years away. Which is about 20-30% of the entire milky way galaxy.

ELT will most likely be the first telescope that will detect clear signs of life on another planet (if there is life) and if it doesn't it means that the 30% of the galaxy it has scanned is without life which would most likely mean we are alone in this galaxy.

JWST barely matters anymore but I still hope it launches in 2021 without problems because it can prepare the public mindset to the great search for life the ELT is going to start in 2025.

[Anonymous No.11185602]

>>11185581
>30% of the galaxy it has scanned is without life
>most likely mean we are alone in this galaxy.
I would like to play you in poker

[Anonymous No.11185612]

>>11185581

There's no need for fancy telescopes to know that we are alone in this galaxy. Evidence of them would be overwhelming across the sky and they would even be here already.

Amusingly, UFOs and aliens and other conspiracy theories that says that we don't find aliens because they are actively sabotaging us from seeing them are more plausible than many Fermi Paradox "Solutions".

[Anonymous No.11185621]

Imagine if all the funding was put into BFR/Starship instead.

We would be able to launch telescopes of much greater quality and much lower complexity than the JWST every day of the week for a fraction of the cost

[Anonymous No.11185631]

>>11185621
>throwing money at something produces proportionally larger or better outcomes
Counterexample: JWST

[Anonymous No.11185652]

>>11185631

[Anonymous No.11185783]

>>11185612
he said "life", not "advanced space civilizations"

[Anonymous No.11185795]

>>11185581
>entire spectrometry
False. Large bands of IR, especially the light of early-universe objects, cannot penetrate our atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.11185799]

>>11185511
Imagine thinking missing government money goes into black projects instead of being lost due to incompetence and fraud

[Anonymous No.11185948]

>>11185602
30% (tens of billions of planets) not having life on it is a large enough sample set to extrapolate over the entire galaxy. Especially as the 30% cone where we scan things will contain all types of stars and exoplanets. It is a large enough sample set to make generalizations about the rest of the galaxy (and most likely the universe)

[Anonymous No.11186094]

>>11185948
it will still be scanning a very biased set of planets due to the scanning methods, it's perfectly plausible that some of those same biases coincide with factors that lower the probability of abiogenesis

[Anonymous No.11186126]

>>11186094
The only bias I can think of is the plane having transits from our point of view. That shouldn't affect abiogenesis. What other biases could there be?

[Anonymous No.11186156]

>>11186126
the first one i can think of that could affect it is that we are detecting proportionately many more quickly orbiting worlds in comparison to ones with orbits farther out, both because of the quicker period and because of the angle window lining up far more easily for such worlds

also the entire premise of detecting life through spectroscopy of the atmosphere leaves me thinking there are many ways life could form on a planet without us detecting such a thing from just the chemical composition of its atmosphere for various reasons, or on the inverse that we could be getting many false positives because we can't really confirm what we are seeing in any way and have to depend on basically almost-speculation using a single type of model we've thought up

[Anonymous No.11186558]

>>11185581
>>11185581
If this is true then why the fuck didn't they take those 10 billion from the JWST and make the original proposed Overwhelmingly Large Telescope instead?

[Anonymous No.11186565]

NASA should just be rolled into NOAA, it's clear they're too bloated/managerial infested/excuse for pork barrelling to get anything done anymore.

[Anonymous No.11186581]

>>11185581
>and if it doesn't it means that the 30% of the galaxy it has scanned is without life which would most likely mean we are alone in this galaxy.
We always have proof of one occurrence of life arising in the galaxy.

What does everyone think would be better, some life, no life, lots of life etc? I hope we're alone except for that planet of cute cat girls.

[Anonymous No.11186590]

I hope were alone in the universe, and the randomness of evolutionary pressure makes life more complex than a bacteria extremely rare

[Anonymous No.11186595]

>>11185413
u wot m8?
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/nasa-s-james-webb-space-telescope-clears-critical-sunshield-deployment-testing

[Anonymous No.11186648]

>>11186590
You don't have to hope. That's exactly what's going on.

[Anonymous No.11186659]

>>11186156
>there are many ways life could form on a planet without us detecting such a thing from just the chemical composition of its atmosphere for various reasons
Please give examples.

[Anonymous No.11186661]

>>11185383
fuck, I thought the rocket blew up

[Anonymous No.11186662]

>>11186659
Frozen upper shell/ocean.

[Anonymous No.11186690]

>>11185581
I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF THERE ARE MORE PLANETS IN THE ALPHA CENTAURI SYSTEM

SPECIFICALLY ONES THAT MIGHT EVEN BE HABITABLE BY HUMANS

>>11186581
>What does everyone think would be better, some life, no life, lots of life etc? I hope we're alone except for that planet of cute cat girls.
It'd make life much more interesting, for one. It'd be cool to find carbon-based alien life forms not entirely unlike us, owing to parallel evolution. But also to find aliens that are completely foreign to us. Just as long as they don't want to wipe us out.

[Anonymous No.11186695]

>>11185652
BLEACHED

[Anonymous No.11186711]

>>11185581
>ELT
is gonna get fucked by Starlink. Ground based astronomy's dead.

[Anonymous No.11186714]

>>11186711
Don't be ridiculous. They just subtract the orbiting satellite passes from the data before they use it.

[Anonymous No.11186992]

>>11185948
>30% (tens of billions of planets) not having life on it is a large enough sample set to extrapolate over the entire galaxy.
This is incredibly wrong. You have no idea of the odds of abiogenesis. Hence you cannot extrapolate from simple percentages. Maybe our galaxy is the odd one out and should have many hundreds of planets with life, but it has only 3 planets with life and ooops we chose the wrong 30% to look for it. Or maybe abiogensis is extremely rare and only 1 galaxy in a billion has life, either scenario is still equally plausible from simply excluding 30%... A very simplistic counterexample that shows we cannot extrapolate from "30%"

>Especially as the 30% cone where we scan things will contain all types of stars and exoplanets. It is a large enough sample set to make generalizations about the rest of the galaxy (and most likely the universe)
>all types
You almost made a valid point but fell short. A heterogeneous mixture of things being scanned means nothing in terms of narrowing down possibilities. However, if we only scanned the top 30% of planets/solar systems most-likely to contain life, and the remaining 70% somehow were concluded to be exponentially less likely to have life, then yes you could extrapolate and make valid subjective (not exactly numerical) statements like "it's very unlikely there is other life in our galaxy". But you never said or implied anything of this sort and this hypothetical would be very difficult to verify.

To qualify what I'm saying, nothing you've said would necessitate a less than 1 in 2 chance of other life existing in the galaxy (we didn't even scan 50%), which is far away from your statement of being "most likely" alone in the galaxy. It could be far far far less, but we don't know from merely scanning the 30%, which again is not even half.

[Anonymous No.11187498]

>>11186659
the life is on a moon of another planet

[Anonymous No.11187538]

Just keep sending money we'll get her up and runnin' in no time.

[Anonymous No.11187585]

Initial cost estimate (1996): $500 million
Initial launch date: 2007
Contact awarded to TRW in 2002: $824.8 million

[Anonymous No.11187615]

>>11187585
is that adjusted for inflation

[Anonymous No.11188140]

>>11185383
>Planned launch/cost: 2007 and 500 million $
>Current estimates: 2021(might even shit that date up) and 9,660 million $
Literally how the fuck did this happen?
I remember it being shilled on NatGeo documentaries when I was in middle school in the mid 00s.

[Anonymous No.11188165]

>>11186581
I hope life is somewhat common but it's extremely rare for evolution to favor high intelligence (ie. just us). This way we get to see some funky shit and maybe even silicon based life without having to worry about getting ganked.

[Anonymous No.11188190]

>>11185383
they should have SpaceX build it.
would have been done a decade ago for 10% of what they have ntoto it by now