25 ms·
The $11B Webb telescope aims to probe the early universe
- sahil50 5y agoI expect we'll see more mature galaxies in the distant universe. This is a glaring problem for the standard model (big bang LCDM) right now. XMM-2599, SPT0418-47, MRG-M2129, all mature galaxies, far away
- arcastroe 5y agoThat seems like an interesting test for the big circus model. If the JWST largely sees galaxies in early formation at those distances, would you consider the big circus model refuted?
- metalliqaz 5y agosomething tells me he wouldn't
- teslaberry 5y agoi still cannot understand why they wouldn't create a backup plan for fixing the craft while it is either in orbit around earth or even at it's mission destination ( farther away and problematic ) for the budget spent on this, you'd think we'd have innovated a little mini robot that could be flown quickly to this telescope and be used to fix it if necessary.
- chasil 5y agoQuick! Take it back to the lab and put one of these on it! https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/colour-changing-magnifying-glass-gives-clear-view-of-infrared-light https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/colour-changing-magnifyi...
- malfist 5y agoI now you're probably being factious, but the mirror on the telescope is already specifically designed for seeing long wavelength to near infrared spectrum.
- chana_masala 5y ago$11B is actually not very much for what this is. Good deal!
- credit_guy 5y agoWhy is that? If the pricetag was, for example $25 BN, would you say that would have been too expensive? Where do you draw the line? Or no price is too high for this telescope?
- pradn 5y agoWhen US gov expenditures are like $4 trillion yearly, $11 billion for an era-defining, cutting-edge space telescope built over 10-15 years does not seem much at all.
- smachiz 5y ago1996 cutting edge
- guerrilla 5y agoIs there something better in production going into space right now? No, because this is literally cutting the edge right now.
- podgaj 5y agoYet we can't house the homeless.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- systemvoltage 5y agoIt’s astounding that for a $5 Trillion dollar neighborhood (Bay Area), we are incapable of having a first world infrastructure and solve homelessness. The will of the people is weak.
- gadnuk 5y agoThe deployment sequence that takes approx 30 days is terrifying but also probably one of the most complex things we would ever achieve if successful. Have been waiting for this since I was a teenager. Can't believe we are almost there (launch on Dec 22). Here's a short 2 min video of that deployment sequence if anyone wants to be fascinated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzGLKQ7_KZQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzGLKQ7_KZQ Also a short interview with Dr. John Mather (could listen to him all day) if anyone wants to know how the telescope works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P8fKd0IVOs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P8fKd0IVOs
- peter303 5y agoThey should deploy in Earth orbit near the ISS, then move to L2. Would give option for repair. The shuttle was decommissioned after the primary Webb design was done. What would have known the launch options at the time it was ready?
- steve_taylor 5y agoIt’s probably too risky given all the debris in orbit.
- idontwantthis 5y agoYou can't just put things in space wherever you want them and then move them whenever you want to or to wherever you want to.
- sophacles 5y ago
- whiteboardr 5y agoHere’s hoping that “incident” a couple weeks ago will be the only one and everything will work out just fine. This launch and perspective for science has me anxious and excited since its inception - and it’s been a while. I will open a bottle of champagne when the first data will be sent from L2 with something along the “fully operational” lines. Godspeed.
- AustinDev 5y agoI have an acquaintance that's been working on the team for this telescope for as long as I've known him ~10 years. He's had so many disappointments with the continued delays and issues. I hope for his sanity and his research this launch goes flawlessly.
- dxxvi 5y agoWhy does anybody want to spend $11B on a telescope while it can solve world hunger for almost 2 years?
- selectodude 5y agoThe cost of food is a small fraction of the cost of distribution of said food. If you think we can solve world hunger for $11bn/yr I have a bridge to sell you.
- TedDoesntTalk 5y agoThey are not mutually exclusive.
- pwned1 5y agoI'm assuming this is snark.
- dang 5y ago"Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- m3kw9 5y agoThere will be annoying people saying - we have world hunger now, and you are spending 11b to looking at the universe 10b years ago???
- podgaj 5y agoThat would be me. If it is annoying to care about the suffering of those less fortunate so be it. https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness-2021/ https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homeless... In January 2020, there were 580,466 people experiencing homelessness in America. Most were individuals (70 percent), and the rest were people living in families with children. They lived in every state and territory, and they reflected the diversity of our country. That $11B would give about $18000 to all of those people. At $1000 a monthly rent that would house them for nearly two years and would most likely help them to stabilize their lives. Plus it would pump more money into the economy. You will never find the end of the universe, or know why it began. And if you do find out, what is the purpose? Will it help you love another human being more? No, you will invent something else you need to discover.
- kortex 5y agoWe're not yeeting $11B USD into a Lagrange halo orbit. It's funding STEM jobs. Yes we should have UBI but like, that doesn't meant we can't do science at the same time. Maybe look to the MIC to cut first.
- podgaj 5y agoWho gets STEM jobs? The already wealthy kids of wealthy parents. Yes, cut the MIC budget, but this is part of that budget, kind of, since "Northrop Grumman Fully Assembles NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope" https://militarycouncil.ca.gov/2019/09/19/northrop-grumman-fully-assembles-nasas-james-webb-space-telescope/ https://militarycouncil.ca.gov/2019/09/19/northrop-grumman-f...
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
- cheschire 5y agoIf someone ever wanted to understand what a space force might provide, consider what happens when someone wants to use one of the lagrange points for their own purpose, and it's currently occupied by someone they don't like. There's more to what any military force brings, obviously, both positive and negative. It's just sometimes when discussing the purpose of a military with others, the concept seems a little too fuzzy because most resources seem broadly available enough that they could easily be shared from a laypersons perspective. Lagrange points are very finite. edit: apparently the area contained within a lagrange point is larger than I expected. Negates my point.
- pohl 5y agoHow would a space force take possession of a lagrage point, though, without creating a permanent field of dangerous debris?
- xyzzyz 5y agoRendezvous, attach booster, and deorbit, or just fly away?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- simcop2387 5y agoOnly reasonable way at the moment would be some kind of satellite capture system that nobody has publicly demonstrated.
- cgriswald 5y agoNone of the ideas in the sibling comments (to my post) will work, because they ignore the fact that enemies will employ counter-measures which may cause debris to be formed. In the extreme case, a nation's military may decide to deny the area to anyone rather than lose their own access, intentionally creating such a debris field.
- ericbarrett 5y ago
- podgaj 5y agoI wonder how many cheap studio apartments they could build for $11B to house the homeless? People need to probe their hearts instead of probing the universe. Sorry if I spoiled your fun.
- CuriousCosmic 5y agoTo be entirely honest the answer is probably 0. It is cheap to build housing but there is absolutely no political interest in it. No amount of money fixes this issue because NIMBYs will do everything in their power to block any efforts to meaningfully improve housing.
- podgaj 5y agoNo need to build cheap or new housing, plenty of places to rent for $600 - $1000 a month. That $11B could house all the homeless in the US for two years.
- jungturk 5y agoWithout coming off as too obtuse, is your argument that the best return we can expect is from investing in basic needs? Or that for any investment to be moral we must have satisfied more primal basic needs? What if it were the case that investment in basic research today alleviates a greater amount of suffering over a longer time horizon? What would the moral investment be?
- podgaj 5y ago> Without coming off as too obtuse, is your argument that the best return we can expect is from investing in basic needs? If the ROI is not letting mentally ill people die in the street is that enough? >Or that for any investment to be moral we must have satisfied more primal basic needs? Yes. Why not? Why not make this a metric? >What if it were the case that investment in basic research today alleviates a greater amount of suffering over a longer time horizon? What would the moral investment be? We can fix these issues now by redirecting this $11B to the $2.5B HUD budget for homeless grants. What research is needed to end homelessness and hunger? It is not a hard problem, only hard because of the greed endemic in the culture. All these people who think this is a good idea to spend money on are only interested in themselves and they use these grand notion of it somehow helping people in the future to make themselves feel better.
- samstave 5y agoPhil Mosby, the guy who did the Webb inspired piece that Nasa bought and hung in their library is from Tahoe and good friends with my brother... we have one of his pieces hanging in our living room, but whats REALLY cool is his astro-calendar (a calendar with a whole bunch of space facts and beautiful pics.. Highly recommend... https://i.imgur.com/B7aA3Xw.jpg https://i.imgur.com/B7aA3Xw.jpg
- TrainedMonkey 5y agoI wonder how much of the vehicle's final cost is directly attributable to the complexity of deployment. I.E. how much easier would this be if we had a launch vehicle with a fairing capable of fitting fully deployed configuration.
- bregma 5y agoYou would probably make up for the cost savings by building something strong enough to withstand the forces of achieving Earth escape velocity in a fully deployed configuration, not to mention all the increased mass that would be required. Since it's impossible to do maintenance on this observatory while it's in solar orbit, and since launches have strong vibrations and forces, it's important that the delicate and sensitive equipment be stowed in a way to minimize the effects of launch forces and minimizate the requirements for after-launch maintenance.
- pirate787 5y agoThis is exactly the promise of SpaceX Starship.
- jltsiren 5y agoThe Starship is way too small to carry the fully deployed James Webb telescope. The sunshield is roughly 20 m x 14 m, while the diameter of the Starship is only 9 m.
- m4rtink 5y agoStill the segments could be biggearand or heavier, possibly reducing complexity.
- kortex 5y agoFolding in half is still better than crazy origami robot yoga (that's my new band name). Also I could readily envision a supersize fairing built on the Starship/heavy booster platform. More lift capacity also means less weight optimization and more emphasis on robustness, reliability, redundancy, and power.
- gvv 5y agoFor those complaining about the spending: some countries spent TRILLIONS on war and and nation building. It's developments like these we should be focusing our energy and intelect.
- cogman10 5y ago$11 billion for a 10 year mission is peanuts in modern government operating expenses. It's not even $11 billion for 10 years, but already spent money over something like 15 years. So, roughly $11 billion over 25 years. Something that many nations could afford.
- throwoutway 5y agoWell not 25 years of use though
- wmeredith 5y agoFor perspective, the United States was spending $11 billion dollars every 90 days fighting the Afghan war from ~2001-2020.
- bregma 5y agoBut I'm sure this project will have many technological spinoffs that could, with only a little additional funding, be used either to kill a lot of people or to generate personal wealth for at least a few select individuals (and those are not mutually exclusive). It's a bargain at twice the price.
- justajot 5y agoJust for reference, the total U.S. Department of Defense budget for 2021 was $705 billion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_...
- systemvoltage 5y agoThis is a poor argument and poor reasoning. This way, instead of improving, we continue to regress (“Look there! They’re doing it too!” argument). We should be halving expense on all fronts while demanding the same output - whether it’s military or space spending. Look at ISRO’s budget, high efficiency is key. Just because DoD budget is $750b, doesn’t mean that we should have a free pass to waste money. I’d like to see DoD spending cut in half while holding vendors accountable. Same with space industry. Another way to think about this if it helps is for $11b, we should have gotten more done. Imagine James Webb Telescope + 5 more projects for the same $11b. Wouldn’t that be awesome?
- yboris 5y agoWith $11B why can't we funnel all that money into _fusion_ research? Feels like a bigger payoff than anything this could bring :/
- cogman10 5y agoGood news, since the JWST started the US alone has pushed in $7.087 billion dollars into fusion research [1] By the time it finishes it's mission we're likely to have exceeded that $11 billion budget in fusion research. Unfortunately, I don't think fusion is something simply solved by more money. [1] http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2021/ph241/margraf1/ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2021/ph241/margraf1/
- afroboy 5y agoShouldn't you say that about the US military budget that goes over 7OO billion dollar each year?
- pixelpoet 5y agoAside: those alphabetical O's you used instead of zeros are super jarring!
- panick21_ 5y agoI simply fail to understand people obsession with fusion. We have failed to take advantage of fission. Fusion really does nothing remotely practical that Fusion doesn't do just as well and actually far better. Fission does it with 60-70 technology. Fusion takes incredibly expensive future technology. Fusion has no practical application other then some super advanced spaceflight situations maybe. Fission is 10^12 more dense then oil, Fusion gets that to 10^15. If we are not willing to make the effort for 12 orders of magnitude, why would anybody care about a couple more?
- sadfev 5y agoIt’s not going up. ESA’s incompetence makes sure that this telescope doesn’t see the light of space.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- sadfev 5y agoThis is a perpetually failed project waste tax payer money on incompetent scientists and engineers. #NotAScienceEquipment #wontlaunch
- marricks 5y agoI'd much rather my tax dollars be spent on 11B failed telescopes than failed trillion dollar fighter jets. Or really most other defense project to be honest.
- digitcatphd 5y agoSplendid It is destined for a point in space 1.5 million kilometres from Earth — too far away for astronauts to visit and fix the telescope if something goes wrong. Hubble required an after-launch repair in 1993, when astronauts used the space shuttle to get to the Earth-orbiting observatory and install corrective optics for its primary mirror, which had been improperly ground.
- gadnuk 5y agoThe whole Hubble mirror fiasco was fascinating. The before and after images of the galaxy M100 in the following link outlines the extent of the error: https://www.nasa.gov/content/hubbles-mirror-flaw https://www.nasa.gov/content/hubbles-mirror-flaw One may assume that maybe the error was simply too big and that's why the aberration. Here's the root cause and the magnitude of the error would be dismissed as nothing by most people on this planet but ultimately turned out to be huge! "Ultimately the problem was traced to miscalibrated equipment during the mirror's manufacture. The result was a mirror with an aberration one-50th the thickness of a human hair, in the grinding of the mirror."
- a9h74j 5y agoThat's huge. Everyday profile accuracy can be spoken of in "quarter wavelength"-like terms.
- cryptoz 5y agoI have started to wonder, will it ever be possible to 'see' the big bang? How close can we get to measuring that far back? From what I've seen JWST will be able to peer back to just a few hundred million years after the big bang. What are the limit to seeing even further back? Is it a matter of telescope size, will an even larger telescope by definition be able to see even further back? What is the limit?
- gadnuk 5y agoUnfortunately, we cannot, or will not be able to see the Big Bang. The simple reason is, it's just beyond our reach. For the first few hundred thousand years, the universe was opaque. This link goes into a good amount of detail about the first light in the universe: https://phys.org/news/2016-11-universe.html https://phys.org/news/2016-11-universe.html We might be able to see a bit closer to the events after the Big Bang with a more powerful telescope in the future, but I don't think we can ever be able to actually "see" the Big Bang.
- cryptoz 5y agoFantastic link, thanks for that. Got me even more excited for JWST!
- __MatrixMan__ 5y agoThe CMB shows the universe at the point where its density became low enough that photons could move around freely. That's the furthest point that we can "see" if you required "seeing" to have to do with electromagnetic radiation. But there are other types of radiation that penetrate dense matter better: neutrinos and gravity waves. Right now it's "holy shit I saw one" for both kinds, so we're a long way off from doing any kind of imaging in those media. But if we ever manage detectors large enough and sensitive enough, we should be able to take "pictures" of the universe when it was even younger than when the CMB was released. Dense enough matter will stop neutrinos, so that signal will be further back, but not the bang itself. So far as we know, nothing stops gravity--so that signal ought to be... interesting. (Or at least, that's what Lee Smolin says in his book: Time Reborn)
- josho 5y agoWhat exactly are we hoping to learn from the telescope? I understand that it will allow us to see farther than ever before, and that is exciting. But, there must be a list of hypotheses that astronomers are planning to test. None of the videos/articles I've found actually speak to the specific discoveries we are hoping to make. Is it simply that the science is so advanced that it's out of reach for a layman?
- doctoboggan 5y agoWhat I am most excited for is the experiments using this scope to analyse the atmospheres of exoplanets. The goal is to look for signs of like like high quantities of methane.
- josho 5y agoI think the article touched on that, but your second sentence gave the context of why looking at the atmosphere is interesting. Thank you. And yeh, that is exciting!
- doctoboggan 5y agoI've been waiting for JWST for years ever since I heard what it will be capable of. I believe detecting bio-signatures on a planet around another star will be one of the most profound perspective shifts humans will experience. (Even more than Copernicus putting the sun in its place.) And I do believe there is a high probability of detecting those bio-signatures.
- wefarrell 5y agoWebb has four mission science goals: - Search for the first galaxies or luminous objects that formed after the Big Bang. - Determine how galaxies evolved from their formation until the present. - Observe the formation of stars from the first stages to the formation of planetary systems. - Measure the physical and chemical properties of planetary systems and investigate the potential for life in those systems. https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/about/faqs/faq.html#goals https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/about/faqs/faq.html#goals
- aaaaaaaaaaab 5y agoIt will be the most expensive fireworks if it explodes on the launchpad.
- FiberBundle 5y agoGiven that this will be at a distance of more than a million miles from earth, I would assume that missions to repair the telescope are likely not an option. So how long is jwst expected to live? Is it extremely unlikely to collide with any objects at such a distance from earth?
- gadnuk 5y agoNASA did add docking capability to JWST for future servicing: https://www.space.com/3833-nasa-adds-docking-capability-space-observatory.html https://www.space.com/3833-nasa-adds-docking-capability-spac... That article is from 2007 but it still had the docking ring as of 2013. Can't find any recent ones that confirm if it will still have the docking ring at launch. But I don't think we have the capability as of now to actually service it in case something goes wrong. But given how technology is advancing, maybe we can when JWST reaches EOL in 10 years.
- nend 5y ago>So how long is jwst expected to live? I was surprised to find out, 5-10 years. I was expecting longer.
- qwertyuiop_ 5y agoDidn’t they just drop it ?
- jordanpg 5y agoWill JWST send back pictures comparable (presumably better?) to the ones Hubble takes? Those famous Hubble pictures are the defining images of a generation of scientists and dreamers. Are we about to get an update of those? Or is this mission about the data?
- gadnuk 5y agoYes, JWST will send back pictures. But since JWST operates in infrared as compared to Hubble (mostly optical and ultraviolet wavelengths), the pictures would look different. Here is a comparison of what pics look like in visible vs infrared (both taken by Hubble, since it has some infrared capability): https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/about/comparisonWebbVsHubble.html https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/about/comparisonWebbVsHubb... https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/james-webb-space-telescope-vs-hubble-space-telescope https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/james-webb-space-telesc...
- s0ulphire 5y agoJohn Mather goes into detail on this in the "Making data beautiful" podcast episode, check it out here https://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/blueshift/index.php/2009/06/18/podcast-making-data-beautiful/ https://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/blueshift/index.php/2009/06/18/pod...
- dtgriscom 5y agoI'm a big fan of prediction markets, where people wager their own money on clear yes/no propositions, and you get a payoff if you buy shares on the winning side. It's a great way to tap the "wisdom of the crowd," even if you don't put up your own money. Which brings me to the JWST. I'd love to know how likely it is that this amazing (and amazingly complex) tool actually succeeds in its goals. There's no way I could figure it out myself; I'd have to take someone else's word for it. Unless... there is a prediction market somewhere betting on whether the JWST will succeed, so I can piggyback on others' research and self-interest. I haven't been able to find one though. (Perhaps people think betting "against" success is too macabre.) Anyone want to throw out a likelihood of success? (My WAG: 70%.)
- Uehreka 5y agoI don’t find prediction markets too convincing, especially after my experience betting on the US election last year. One month after the election there were still markets with greater than 10% odds on Trump winning states that had already certified Biden. It was great for me, I made some good money, but it definitely downgraded prediction markets in my mind from “uncannily accurate” to “good but not perfect”. They’re not going to predict Black Swans or other odd things in a way you can rely on.
- 1970-01-01 5y agoIrony: JWST has been estimated to be 800% - 2000% over budget. James Webb was also director for the Office of Management and Budget, 1946 – 1949.
- mwattsun 5y agoShout out to the good folks of Delta, Utah, some of whom work in the Beryllium mines nearby. My car broke down there once and I learned that Beryllium is a vital component in the JWST because it doesn't expand or contract as the sun warms it. Digging Beryllium for James Webb https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/148574/digging-beryllium-for-james-webb https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/148574/digging-bery... I also learned that I actually broke down inside another telescope: The Telescope Array project is a collaboration between universities and institutions in the United States, Japan, Korea, Russia, and Belgium. The experiment is designed to observe air showers induced by cosmic rays with extremely high energy. It does this using a combination of ground array and air-fluorescence techniques...The Telescope Array observes cosmic rays with energies greater than 1018eV. The surface array samples events over 300 square miles of desert. http://www.telescopearray.org/ http://www.telescopearray.org/
- ItsBob 5y agoI've honestly not been as excited (in astronomy-terms I mean :D) about science as I am about the James Webb telescope. I can't wait to see what it shows
- novaRom 5y agoI hope if Webb will be successfully operating, we'll get significant progress in the question of the life origin. Abiogenesis is predetermined and common.