User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 1:51:51 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kharn: This... Kharn Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kharn: Originally Posted By midcap: Originally Posted By linuxgnar: Lol and they're not even using SpaceX. That Shitty French rocket is gonna yeet the homophobe telescope into the ocean This... Kharn That's also my biggest fear. They'll fuck up and destroy it and we as a species don't bother to build another tool like it again in our lifetimes. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 2:04:55 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By radian23: Dude.. you and I both know he's dead serious. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By radian23: Originally Posted By Alien: Yeah who gives a shit about learning new information about the universe that is impossible to glean otherwise. That's worthless. We should go back to living in mud huts. Then we don't need to worry about learning new things. Life is simpler. I seriously hope this is a troll but it's probably not. I really don't think people that make comments like this even comprehend how ignorant said comments are. Learning about physics and how the universe works and is made isn't curiosity. It leads us down new research paths for technologies. It's really depressing too hear/read people saying let's not ascend to greater heights. Let's not learn more about the universe. Knowledge is not important. I understand the point they are making, that there are cost overruns and mismanagement with tax dollars. No it most likely won't result in a magical and instant improvement in society, but that doesn't make the project not worth undertaking and funding. Long term we as a species will be better for it. I guess I just don't know what else to say to somebody like that who has the opportunity to learn what NOBODY else knows now or before about our world and universe and sees no value in it. There are some things worth spending tax dollars on though, and this is one of them. |
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 4:30:39 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JQ66: Would you prefer it be spent on welfare programs? Feeding a hungry child? I've heard NASA described as welfare for smart people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 7:35:27 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FunYun1983: Its complicated.... If you want to dive deeper https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/55309/james-webb-telescope-limits-to-propellant-lifetime Its schedule lifetime is 10yrs. If everything goes perfectly they will have fuel for a much more than 10yrs, but I have no idea if other parts of the telescope have short lifespans. Like almost every device sent to space, their actual lifespans usually greatly exceed their planned lifespans if there are no failures. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FunYun1983: Originally Posted By midcap: Originally Posted By FunYun1983: Originally Posted By Pneumagger: Aren’t L1 and L2 points somewhat unstable... like you need monthly course corrections to stay there? How long will this telescope be stable? It orbits the L2 point and has fuel for about 10yrs.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=524fcGyki5cHOLE ON....all the money and this fuckin thing is only gonna last 10 years?  Its complicated.... Station Keeping Monte Carlo Simulation for the James Webb Space Telescope there will be a small propulsive station-keeping event every 21 days. Wikipedia says this will consume 2-4 m/s of delta-v per year from a budget of 150 m/s, so the lifetime could conceivably be much longer than 5-10 years, although I believe about [half of that (~67 m/s) will be used in mid-course corrections on it's way out to the Halo orbit... If you want to dive deeper https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/55309/james-webb-telescope-limits-to-propellant-lifetime Its schedule lifetime is 10yrs. If everything goes perfectly they will have fuel for a much more than 10yrs, but I have no idea if other parts of the telescope have short lifespans. Like almost every device sent to space, their actual lifespans usually greatly exceed their planned lifespans if there are no failures. But we've developed ion thrusters since this decades-long boondoggle started... Kharn |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 7:59:51 AM EDT
[#5]
The NRO gave NASA two satellites made in the late 90's more powerful than the Hubble for free 10 years ago and they still haven't put them in use, mostly due to how much budget this satellite has eaten up lol.
I bet the current satellites the NRO is using are more capable than the James Web program they've spent all of this money on. Gov't efficiency at work.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_National_Reconnaissance_Office_space_telescope_donation_to_NASA |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 8:10:29 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By nisa715: 20+ years to develop is pretty damn pathetic. And the taxpayer is on the hook for $9.7 billion, to shoot old tech up into space. Fuck this government 
|
|
|
|
WI, USA
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 8:14:02 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By gaspain: badass. But I fear too fragile. Lol. And what brought you to this conclusion? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 8:16:59 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wheel: How about knowledge? It was Hubble in the early 1920's who figured out that the faint smudges that could be seen in the sky were not distant stars but in fact distant galaxies. The concept was revolutionary and shook the entire world of astronomy. Hence they named a telescope after him. . Wow. And knowing that there are galaxies thousands of light years from us makes our lives better how? Oh yeah nice pictures to look at on the intarwebz now with the 'hubble' spacey-scope. Meanwhile we get fucked in the ass to the tune of $9.7 billion, so we can shoot another telescope into space. In turn we will get look at more pictures on the intarwebz. Yay 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 8:23:17 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 4thbreak: In before blurry images. So, 1970s TV porn quality? 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 8:34:20 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JQ66: Would you prefer it be spent on welfare programs? Feeding a hungry child? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JQ66: Originally Posted By WI_Bill: 9.7 billion and what will be the return, other than curiosity? Would you prefer it be spent on welfare programs? Feeding a hungry child? I remember in the 1960s and particularly as the Apollo program was nearing it's end in the 1970s, there was a lot of clamor from some people about how much money we could spend on feeding and housing the poor if we ended the moon shot program. It didn't really help much, did it? As Jesus said, "You will always have the poor among you..." |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 8:36:22 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wwace: Would you not build a camera that could possibly show us the beginning of the Universe? What difference does it make? TrUsT ThE ScIeNcE ! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 8:44:12 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jmarkma: The NRO gave NASA two satellites made in the late 90's more powerful than the Hubble for free 10 years ago and they still haven't put them in use, mostly due to how much budget this satellite has eaten up lol. I bet the current satellites the NRO is using are more capable than the James Web program they've spent all of this money on. Gov't efficiency at work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_National_Reconnaissance_Office_space_telescope_donation_to_NASA nah  Attached Filebesides, it need to be tuned to the long wavelengths |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 8:48:37 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By somaliskinnypirate: At this point, I'd rather have that entire 3.5 T package go to a telescope where they fucked up the focal point, CCD went bad due to static discharge or simply blew up on a French rocket than having that money spent by Congress to enslave us. That's simply how bad it is now.  I'd rather we get to keep the $3.5 T, and they stop the current enslavement practices |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 8:51:52 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Alien: It's really depressing too hear/read people saying let's not ascend to greater heights. Let's not learn more about the universe. Knowledge is not important. I understand the point they are making, that there are cost overruns and mismanagement with tax dollars. No it most likely won't result in a magical and instant improvement in society, but that doesn't make the project not worth undertaking and funding. Long term we as a species will be better for it. I guess I just don't know what else to say to somebody like that who has the opportunity to learn what NOBODY else knows now or before about our world and universe and sees no value in it. There are some things worth spending tax dollars on though, and this is one of them. Start a GoFundMe account. You guys can contribute all you want. I bet it gets done faster and a hell of a lot cheaper. Then my grandkids, and their descendants won't be on the hook because you have a curiosity |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 8:59:09 AM EDT
[#15]
over-under on distance from launch pad to debris field?
|
|
|
|
MA, USA
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 9:19:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: FunYun1983]
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kharn: But we've developed ion thrusters since this decades-long boondoggle started... Kharn Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kharn: Originally Posted By FunYun1983: Originally Posted By midcap: Originally Posted By FunYun1983: Originally Posted By Pneumagger: Aren’t L1 and L2 points somewhat unstable... like you need monthly course corrections to stay there? How long will this telescope be stable? It orbits the L2 point and has fuel for about 10yrs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=524fcGyki5cHOLE ON....all the money and this fuckin thing is only gonna last 10 years? Its complicated.... Station Keeping Monte Carlo Simulation for the James Webb Space Telescope there will be a small propulsive station-keeping event every 21 days. Wikipedia says this will consume 2-4 m/s of delta-v per year from a budget of 150 m/s, so the lifetime could conceivably be much longer than 5-10 years, although I believe about [half of that (~67 m/s) will be used in mid-course corrections on it's way out to the Halo orbit... If you want to dive deeper https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/55309/james-webb-telescope-limits-to-propellant-lifetime Its schedule lifetime is 10yrs. If everything goes perfectly they will have fuel for a much more than 10yrs, but I have no idea if other parts of the telescope have short lifespans. Like almost every device sent to space, their actual lifespans usually greatly exceed their planned lifespans if there are no failures. But we've developed ion thrusters since this decades-long boondoggle started... Kharn The best ion thruster used achieved ∆v11.5m/s, JWST has ∆v150m/s available. Also, the orbit at L2 appears extremely tricky, an ion thruster may not react strong enough to accomplish this. Another way to look at it, they have basically played with an unlimited budget, if an ion thruster was appropriate, they would have used one. |
|
|
NH, USA
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 9:19:08 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Et2ss: Wow. And knowing that there are galaxies thousands of light years from us makes our lives better how? Oh yeah nice pictures to look at on the intarwebz now with the 'hubble' spacey-scope. Meanwhile we get fucked in the ass to the tune of $9.7 billion, so we can shoot another telescope into space. In turn we will get look at more pictures on the intarwebz. Yay 
|
|
|
MA, USA
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 9:43:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: FunYun1983]
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Et2ss: Start a GoFundMe account. You guys can contribute all you want. I bet it gets done faster and a hell of a lot cheaper. Then my grandkids, and their descendants won't be on the hook because you have a curiosity Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Et2ss: Originally Posted By Alien: It's really depressing too hear/read people saying let's not ascend to greater heights. Let's not learn more about the universe. Knowledge is not important. I understand the point they are making, that there are cost overruns and mismanagement with tax dollars. No it most likely won't result in a magical and instant improvement in society, but that doesn't make the project not worth undertaking and funding. Long term we as a species will be better for it. I guess I just don't know what else to say to somebody like that who has the opportunity to learn what NOBODY else knows now or before about our world and universe and sees no value in it. There are some things worth spending tax dollars on though, and this is one of them. Start a GoFundMe account. You guys can contribute all you want. I bet it gets done faster and a hell of a lot cheaper. Then my grandkids, and their descendants won't be on the hook because you have a curiosity You think a $10bil telescope is going to bankrupt your kids? https://www.cms.gov/About-CMS/Agency-Information/PerformanceBudget/FY2021-CJ-Final.pdf Simply managing Medicare cost $4 billion a year. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 9:46:05 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AT-ST83: And NASA wonders why the American public doesn't give a shit about them any longer, lol. Ole' Musky could have had it built in 18 months and under budget. This |
|
|
|
SC, USA
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 9:46:52 AM EDT
[#20]
That's nice and all but what is most important is how many trannies and people of color were involved in it's development? If the answer is less than 75% then we should scrap it in the name of diversity and inclusion.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 9:55:58 AM EDT
[#21]
My ex-bro in-law was on the team that developed the IR sensors, he said the team lead actually passed away in 2005 so he wont witness it in action but the university of Hilo played a large part on those sensors. NASA couldn't get them to work, and some Hilo boys came through. He even got a award for knocking it out of the park.
|
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 9:59:23 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By nisa715: 20+ years to develop is pretty damn pathetic. I believe it was funding issues that caused the delays. We have Hubble why we need another space telescope. At least, it was not the MRCA project in India. |
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 10:01:01 AM EDT
[#23]
Excited it's finally happening. It's taken too long and too much, but I hope it goes flawlessly and it's worth it.
For anyone saying it's wasted money, I hope you don't use GPS or any other tech that has come from space development. The next few years are just going to get more and more exciting if you care about space travel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 10:03:15 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tct1000: nah https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/271151/we_jpg-2129361.JPG besides, it need to be tuned to the long wavelengths Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tct1000: Originally Posted By jmarkma: The NRO gave NASA two satellites made in the late 90's more powerful than the Hubble for free 10 years ago and they still haven't put them in use, mostly due to how much budget this satellite has eaten up lol. I bet the current satellites the NRO is using are more capable than the James Web program they've spent all of this money on. Gov't efficiency at work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_National_Reconnaissance_Office_space_telescope_donation_to_NASA nah https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/271151/we_jpg-2129361.JPG besides, it need to be tuned to the long wavelengths Why can't we have electromagnetic mirrors the size of six planetary diameters? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 10:04:26 AM EDT
[#25]
The more I think about this, the more I think Elon probably is lucky that he isn't sending it up there.
because if the smallest thing goes wrong, it will, then the politicians that have boeing in their back pocket are going to start talking shit |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 10:06:25 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 4thbreak: In before blurry images. Hopefully they used tool nose radius compensation on this one.... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 10:07:20 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brich2929: I will bet a bronze membership that it doesn't launch in 2021. Who's up for the challenge? If it launches this year, I buy you a membership. If not, you buy me one. That's a tough one. The French. French Guiana. Nasa. South America. Lot of people that can flub things. |
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 10:09:40 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By amannamedjed: I remember in the 1960s and particularly as the Apollo program was nearing it's end in the 1970s, there was a lot of clamor from some people about how much money we could spend on feeding and housing the poor if we ended the moon shot program. It didn't really help much, did it? As Jesus said, "You will always have the poor among you..." Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By amannamedjed: Originally Posted By JQ66: Originally Posted By WI_Bill: 9.7 billion and what will be the return, other than curiosity? Would you prefer it be spent on welfare programs? Feeding a hungry child? I remember in the 1960s and particularly as the Apollo program was nearing it's end in the 1970s, there was a lot of clamor from some people about how much money we could spend on feeding and housing the poor if we ended the moon shot program. It didn't really help much, did it? As Jesus said, "You will always have the poor among you..." Turd Kennedy and Walter Mondale especially Look at how many things the POS swimmer did to reverse the accomplishments of his older brother. As if he held some sort of secret grudge. But those two killed Apollo and Skylab. And probably a manned Mars mission that would’ve happened decades ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 10:10:04 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wheel: Granted, government projects in general are bloated and result in poor quality. However, in this case you have to bear in mind that this is pushing the state of the art technically. Unlike Hubble, this telescope will be parked in a location that is too far out for us to service. So not only is it exceeding complex and bleeding edge, it HAS to be right. I'm sure there are redundant systems on board, but still it's an awfully daunting challenge. I wouldn't want to be the guy who made a stupid mistake that turned it into a boat anchor. For several reasons it's worth noting that Hubble was built using spare surveillance/spy satellites that were at the end of their project life. NSA/CIA/DARPA and many other .gov funding sources were funneled into the programs that developed what would eventually become Hubble. It's a shame they didn't have the lens system right before the original launch. That said it's arguably been helpful that they got it wrong because it emphasized the need to have repair/updating options available and I have no doubt that those little mini shuttles we've seen photos of but are not told what exactly they are doing are now here in response to the Bubble lens problems. Repairing Hubble also helped us develop tools and effective work methods eventually used to get the ISS assembled and keep it maintained. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 10:12:27 AM EDT
[#30]
If that thing blows up during launch, showering French Guiana with 9 Billion Dollars of fancy chunks, it would totally be appropriate, all things considered.
 (I really hope it doesn't) 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 10:14:30 AM EDT
[#31]
I'm excited to see it go up and pray it does.
I understand little about space, but I love looking at the pictures sent back. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 10:22:08 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FunYun1983: The best ion thruster used achieved ∆v11.5m/s, JWST has ∆v150m/s available. Also, the orbit at L2 appears extremely tricky, an ion thruster may not react strong enough to accomplish this. Another way to look at it, they have basically played with an unlimited budget, if an ion thruster was appropriate, they would have used one. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FunYun1983: Originally Posted By Kharn: Originally Posted By FunYun1983: Originally Posted By midcap: Originally Posted By FunYun1983: Originally Posted By Pneumagger: Aren’t L1 and L2 points somewhat unstable... like you need monthly course corrections to stay there? How long will this telescope be stable? It orbits the L2 point and has fuel for about 10yrs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=524fcGyki5cHOLE ON....all the money and this fuckin thing is only gonna last 10 years? Its complicated.... Station Keeping Monte Carlo Simulation for the James Webb Space Telescope there will be a small propulsive station-keeping event every 21 days. Wikipedia says this will consume 2-4 m/s of delta-v per year from a budget of 150 m/s, so the lifetime could conceivably be much longer than 5-10 years, although I believe about [half of that (~67 m/s) will be used in mid-course corrections on it's way out to the Halo orbit... If you want to dive deeper https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/55309/james-webb-telescope-limits-to-propellant-lifetime Its schedule lifetime is 10yrs. If everything goes perfectly they will have fuel for a much more than 10yrs, but I have no idea if other parts of the telescope have short lifespans. Like almost every device sent to space, their actual lifespans usually greatly exceed their planned lifespans if there are no failures. But we've developed ion thrusters since this decades-long boondoggle started... Kharn The best ion thruster used achieved ∆v11.5m/s, JWST has ∆v150m/s available. Also, the orbit at L2 appears extremely tricky, an ion thruster may not react strong enough to accomplish this. Another way to look at it, they have basically played with an unlimited budget, if an ion thruster was appropriate, they would have used one. The point of an ion thruster is it burns continuously instead of short bursts, so the burn may take a week every month instead of five minutes. Delta-v is a measure of the useful amount of fuel onboard the vessel. Include more xenon and you increase the delta-v (with diminishing returns). If you need more acceleration, you include more thrusters. NSTAR and NEXT weren't anywhere near production when the Webb's bus was being designed 25 years ago. Kharn |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 10:23:00 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Et2ss: Start a GoFundMe account. You guys can contribute all you want. I bet it gets done faster and a hell of a lot cheaper. Then my grandkids, and their descendants won't be on the hook because you have a curiosity Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Et2ss: Originally Posted By Alien: It's really depressing too hear/read people saying let's not ascend to greater heights. Let's not learn more about the universe. Knowledge is not important. I understand the point they are making, that there are cost overruns and mismanagement with tax dollars. No it most likely won't result in a magical and instant improvement in society, but that doesn't make the project not worth undertaking and funding. Long term we as a species will be better for it. I guess I just don't know what else to say to somebody like that who has the opportunity to learn what NOBODY else knows now or before about our world and universe and sees no value in it. There are some things worth spending tax dollars on though, and this is one of them. Start a GoFundMe account. You guys can contribute all you want. I bet it gets done faster and a hell of a lot cheaper. Then my grandkids, and their descendants won't be on the hook because you have a curiosity Lol. You're grand kids were enslaved by your grand parents. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 10:45:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Coffin-Nail]
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tct1000: nah https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/271151/we_jpg-2129361.JPG besides, it need to be tuned to the long wavelengths I don't think we'll ever know the capabilities of our current satellites so that will be hard to quantify. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 10:47:46 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jmarkma: I don't think we'll ever know the capabilities of our current satellites so that will be hard to quantify. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jmarkma: Originally Posted By tct1000: nah https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/271151/we_jpg-2129361.JPG besides, it need to be tuned to the long wavelengths I don't think we'll ever know the capabilities of our current satellites so that will be hard to quantify. It's hard and cold physics, optical laws have been known for centuries. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 10:50:19 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By exDefensorMilitas: It's hard and cold physics, optical laws have been known for centuries. Sure, what's the reflector diameter of our current satellites then? |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 11:00:01 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By midcap: da fuq....it's painfully obvious this project has been a giant clusterfuck from the get go...the icing on the cake is that shitty ass French rocket it's gonna be bolted to. At least arianes are launching. It’d be sitting on the pad until 2035 if ULA was launching it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 11:00:34 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JustinHEMI04: I'm excited for this bird to fly but it is a testament to the government's inability to get anything done right. "Originally proposed in 1996, JWST was supposed to launch as early as 2007 for a cost of $1 billion. But the project's timeline has been delayed numerous times, as the budget of the mission has increased to $9.7 billion. On September 8th, NASA set a target launch date for December 18th, 2021, 14 years later than originally planned." Now let 3 countries develop something and the stupid increases exponentially. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 11:12:47 AM EDT
[#39]
The science threads used to be much more fun here.
lots of actual experts contribute, but the occasional retard who comes in here to shit out all the new forms of stupidity signaling “trust the science” and talk about wasting tax dollars just really irritates me. If a subject matter is above your intellect, post less and read more. It was funny when dude questioned MrHiggs credentials, who is an actual physicist. Now it’s just downright annoying. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 12:09:23 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mickdog13: At least arianes are launching. It’d be sitting on the pad until 2035 if ULA was launching it. And it would be Blue Origin's fault... But at least it wouldn't be SLS... Didn't Europa Clipper change off SLS recently? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 12:22:37 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tony-Ri: And it would be Blue Origin's fault... But at least it wouldn't be SLS... Didn't Europa Clipper change off SLS recently? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tony-Ri: Originally Posted By Mickdog13: At least arianes are launching. It’d be sitting on the pad until 2035 if ULA was launching it. And it would be Blue Origin's fault... But at least it wouldn't be SLS... Didn't Europa Clipper change off SLS recently? Where are the engines, are they over there?  Kharn |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 1:17:56 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FunYun1983: You think a $10bil telescope is going to bankrupt your kids? https://www.cms.gov/About-CMS/Agency-Information/PerformanceBudget/FY2021-CJ-Final.pdf Simply managing Medicare cost $4 billion a year. Well shit, lets just add 3.5 trillion then
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 1:20:01 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By exDefensorMilitas: Lol. You're grand kids were enslaved by your grand parents. So lets just add more $$$ to it, right? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 1:21:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Hesperus]
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tony-Ri: And it would be Blue Origin's fault... But at least it wouldn't be SLS... Didn't Europa Clipper change off SLS recently? Yep, Europa Clipper is now slated for launch on a Falcon Heavy.  What a Savings It sure would be amusing if ULA decided to kiss Musk's ring and try to buy Raptors for Vulcan Centaur. In a few more years, they might have no other option... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 2:27:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: exDefensorMilitas]
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jmarkma: Sure, what's the reflector diameter of our current satellites then? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jmarkma: Originally Posted By exDefensorMilitas: It's hard and cold physics, optical laws have been known for centuries. Sure, what's the reflector diameter of our current satellites then? Doesn't really matter, less than the JWT. This is your statement: "I bet the current satellites the NRO is using are more capable than the James Web program they've spent all of this money on. Gov't efficiency at work. " The NRO has some cool shit in orbit, but between basic optical laws and the fact that anything approaching the size of the JWT would have stuck out like a sore thumb based on the vehicle size needed to launch the thing. Additionally, WFIRST while being based on updated mirror and optics from the NRO and about 100x more capable than Hubble and the last gen of spy sat, it's still under the capabilities of JWT. Not to mention that photo of the failed Iranian launch that provided an updated minimum boundary on the capabilities. It's very unlikely that the NRO doesn't have a sat or several that is using the same folded array of hexagonal mirror tech that is used in the JWT, it's just not the same size. ETA: All of that to say, you're not going to be able to simply turn around an NRO sat, face it away from Earth and take the same or better pictures, performing the same operations as JWT. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 3:04:50 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By exDefensorMilitas: Doesn't really matter, less than the JWT. This is your statement: "I bet the current satellites the NRO is using are more capable than the James Web program they've spent all of this money on. Gov't efficiency at work. " The NRO has some cool shit in orbit, but between basic optical laws and the fact that anything approaching the size of the JWT would have stuck out like a sore thumb based on the vehicle size needed to launch the thing. Additionally, WFIRST while being based on updated mirror and optics from the NRO and about 100x more capable than Hubble and the last gen of spy sat, it's still under the capabilities of JWT. Not to mention that photo of the failed Iranian launch that provided an updated minimum boundary on the capabilities. It's very unlikely that the NRO doesn't have a sat or several that is using the same folded array of hexagonal mirror tech that is used in the JWT, it's just not the same size. ETA: All of that to say, you're not going to be able to simply turn around an NRO sat, face it away from Earth and take the same or better pictures, performing the same operations as JWT. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By exDefensorMilitas: Originally Posted By jmarkma: Originally Posted By exDefensorMilitas: It's hard and cold physics, optical laws have been known for centuries. Sure, what's the reflector diameter of our current satellites then? Doesn't really matter, less than the JWT. This is your statement: "I bet the current satellites the NRO is using are more capable than the James Web program they've spent all of this money on. Gov't efficiency at work. " The NRO has some cool shit in orbit, but between basic optical laws and the fact that anything approaching the size of the JWT would have stuck out like a sore thumb based on the vehicle size needed to launch the thing. Additionally, WFIRST while being based on updated mirror and optics from the NRO and about 100x more capable than Hubble and the last gen of spy sat, it's still under the capabilities of JWT. Not to mention that photo of the failed Iranian launch that provided an updated minimum boundary on the capabilities. It's very unlikely that the NRO doesn't have a sat or several that is using the same folded array of hexagonal mirror tech that is used in the JWT, it's just not the same size. ETA: All of that to say, you're not going to be able to simply turn around an NRO sat, face it away from Earth and take the same or better pictures, performing the same operations as JWT. Not to mention, almost all of the NRO sats are going to be tuned for visible light, like Hubble, and not deep infrared. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 3:51:30 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kanati: Not to mention, almost all of the NRO sats are going to be tuned for visible light, like Hubble, and not deep infrared. And atmospheric distortions. Never mind the fact that stuff is SUPER classified. While I imagine there are a few people at the NRO who would like to do this sort of work they would get in big trouble if they did so. Still, I suppose that's a job waiting for them when they leave. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 8:21:57 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By exDefensorMilitas: Doesn't really matter, less than the JWT. This is your statement: "I bet the current satellites the NRO is using are more capable than the James Web program they've spent all of this money on. Gov't efficiency at work. " The NRO has some cool shit in orbit, but between basic optical laws and the fact that anything approaching the size of the JWT would have stuck out like a sore thumb based on the vehicle size needed to launch the thing. Additionally, WFIRST while being based on updated mirror and optics from the NRO and about 100x more capable than Hubble and the last gen of spy sat, it's still under the capabilities of JWT. Not to mention that photo of the failed Iranian launch that provided an updated minimum boundary on the capabilities. It's very unlikely that the NRO doesn't have a sat or several that is using the same folded array of hexagonal mirror tech that is used in the JWT, it's just not the same size. ETA: All of that to say, you're not going to be able to simply turn around an NRO sat, face it away from Earth and take the same or better pictures, performing the same operations as JWT. You're right, I was more speculating how they could have something that was an improvement over the Hubble at a fraction of the price. Also a bit tongue in cheek about how good the NRO stuff must be now. Hopefully this will actually yield the results it promises. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 9:57:19 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Et2ss: Wow. And knowing that there are galaxies thousands of light years from us makes our lives better how? Oh yeah nice pictures to look at on the intarwebz now with the 'hubble' spacey-scope. Meanwhile we get fucked in the ass to the tune of $9.7 billion, so we can shoot another telescope into space. In turn we will get look at more pictures on the intarwebz. Yay Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Et2ss: Originally Posted By wheel: How about knowledge? It was Hubble in the early 1920's who figured out that the faint smudges that could be seen in the sky were not distant stars but in fact distant galaxies. The concept was revolutionary and shook the entire world of astronomy. Hence they named a telescope after him. . Wow. And knowing that there are galaxies thousands of light years from us makes our lives better how? Oh yeah nice pictures to look at on the intarwebz now with the 'hubble' spacey-scope. Meanwhile we get fucked in the ass to the tune of $9.7 billion, so we can shoot another telescope into space. In turn we will get look at more pictures on the intarwebz. Yay  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 10:01:09 PM EDT
[#50]
@brich2929
By Jan 2022, 2 to 1 odds. And you got a deal. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
