6 ms·

It also may just be technologically obsolete in 20 years.

by khuey 5y ago

Sebb767 5y ago
This is helped a lot by the fact that's it's quite hard [EDIT: = expensive] to place an upgraded telescope somewhere. Hubble is still used despite it's tech being a few decades old.
- wolfram74 5y ago
  I'm trying to parse those sentences, are you saying there are space constraints with hubble? it's orbit isn't at a particularly special elevation or inclination, I'm pretty sure we could have several telescopes in the same exact orbit but half an hour behind with no discernible consequences. Even out at the lagrange points, you don't have to be /exactly/ there, many cubic kilometers of space have roughly the same properties that make it appealing for JWST.
  - Sebb767 5y ago
    It's really expensive to get telescopes up in space. We have a lot of astronomers that could use some time on a space telescope, but launching enough to supply all of them is not economically viable in any way. Sure, the stuff hubble is currently used for is not as groundbreaking as when it was launch, but we still have use for it. My point it is, we have so few space telescopes that even having time on an "outdated" one is still pretty valuable. EDIT: Maybe a better example, it's not much use for a first-world person to use a ten year old smartphone, since current smartphones are much more capable and they're comparatively cheap. Planes, on the other hand, are used for decades, since simply buying a new one is very expensive. This is despite it's tech being far superior.
- defaultname 5y ago
  Putting a device into space is relatively cheap for a project like this, and is only dropping with each year. Say $100M - $200M, on a $10B project, puts the launch at just 1-2% of the price tag. I believe the Hubble total project cost is pushing past $16B in adjusted dollars. It's the massive capital expenditure on the telescope and its infrastructure that is the significant limiting factor on the pace of putting newer and better telescopes in place.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Apparently for the cost of all the Shuttle trips to Hubble, they could have just put up another Hubble without its problems. Same thing in this case: instead of visiting Webb, they could build a new Webb without all the origami, and assemble it by hand in orbit for a tiny fraction of the cost, and end up with two of them. Then, maybe put different instruments on the second one.
alangibson 5y ago
That's not the right way to look at it. A telescope that can see back to the beginning of the universe is never obsolete to astronomers. The Hubble is 'obsolete', but there are plenty of astronomers that would step over their own mothers to get time on it.
- savingsPossible 5y ago
  Sorry for the total digression that follows > but there are plenty of astronomers that would step over their own mothers to get time on it. May I suggest "there are plenty of astronomers who would cut their left hands to get time on it". Similarly florid, but does not propagate the meme "people will often be evil for the right price" -- that meme is self reinforcing, the more we believe in it, the more true it becomes, and the worst the world becomes as a result
  - luke0016 5y ago
    > the worst the world becomes as a result I believe the world becomes even worse when people are unable to speak candidly, frankly, and in their own way. Being able to extract and recognize the meaning behind someone's words, in spite of any perceived flaw in word choice or phrasing, is one of the hallmarks of a mature and intelligent individual. This belief that controlling how people speak will somehow make the world a better place seems somewhat quixotic.
    - savingsPossible 5y ago
      > This belief that controlling how people speak will somehow make the world a better place seems somewhat quixotic. 100% agree. The way we talk, I think, matters. The stories we tell ourselves help shape us. But so does it matter how we try to change it. Forcing/controlling the way people speak is a remedy worse than the malady 97% of the time, and certainly in the present case. (Also, it is reasonable that you would interpret my suggestion as an attempt to control, given some elements of the current political climate) Another example of a poorly told story that worries me: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-of-the-flies-what-happened-when-six-boys-were-shipwrecked-for-15-months https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-...
namlem 5y ago
Having more telescope capacity is always nice. An outdated telescope is better than no telescope.
baq 5y ago
it can only be obsolete if there's a replacement deployed. given the cost, it is unlikely to have one as long as the one that is working keeps working. best case you have two working mid-IR telescopes in space instead of one. i don't hear any astronomers complaining about that scenario!

It also may just be technologically obsolete in 20 years.

by khuey 5y ago

It also may just be technologically obsolete in 20 years.

This is helped a lot by the fact that's it's quite hard [EDIT: = expensive] to place an upgraded telescope somewhere. Hubble is still used despite it's tech being a few decades old.

wolfram74 5y ago
I'm trying to parse those sentences, are you saying there are space constraints with hubble? it's orbit isn't at a particularly special elevation or inclination, I'm pretty sure we could have several telescopes in the same exact orbit but half an hour behind with no discernible consequences. Even out at the lagrange points, you don't have to be /exactly/ there, many cubic kilometers of space have roughly the same properties that make it appealing for JWST.
- Sebb767 5y ago
  It's really expensive to get telescopes up in space. We have a lot of astronomers that could use some time on a space telescope, but launching enough to supply all of them is not economically viable in any way. Sure, the stuff hubble is currently used for is not as groundbreaking as when it was launch, but we still have use for it. My point it is, we have so few space telescopes that even having time on an "outdated" one is still pretty valuable. EDIT: Maybe a better example, it's not much use for a first-world person to use a ten year old smartphone, since current smartphones are much more capable and they're comparatively cheap. Planes, on the other hand, are used for decades, since simply buying a new one is very expensive. This is despite it's tech being far superior.
defaultname 5y ago
Putting a device into space is relatively cheap for a project like this, and is only dropping with each year. Say $100M - $200M, on a $10B project, puts the launch at just 1-2% of the price tag. I believe the Hubble total project cost is pushing past $16B in adjusted dollars. It's the massive capital expenditure on the telescope and its infrastructure that is the significant limiting factor on the pace of putting newer and better telescopes in place.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Apparently for the cost of all the Shuttle trips to Hubble, they could have just put up another Hubble without its problems. Same thing in this case: instead of visiting Webb, they could build a new Webb without all the origami, and assemble it by hand in orbit for a tiny fraction of the cost, and end up with two of them. Then, maybe put different instruments on the second one.

alangibson 5y ago

That's not the right way to look at it. A telescope that can see back to the beginning of the universe is never obsolete to astronomers. The Hubble is 'obsolete', but there are plenty of astronomers that would step over their own mothers to get time on it.

savingsPossible 5y ago
Sorry for the total digression that follows > but there are plenty of astronomers that would step over their own mothers to get time on it. May I suggest "there are plenty of astronomers who would cut their left hands to get time on it". Similarly florid, but does not propagate the meme "people will often be evil for the right price" -- that meme is self reinforcing, the more we believe in it, the more true it becomes, and the worst the world becomes as a result
- luke0016 5y ago
  > the worst the world becomes as a result I believe the world becomes even worse when people are unable to speak candidly, frankly, and in their own way. Being able to extract and recognize the meaning behind someone's words, in spite of any perceived flaw in word choice or phrasing, is one of the hallmarks of a mature and intelligent individual. This belief that controlling how people speak will somehow make the world a better place seems somewhat quixotic.
  - savingsPossible 5y ago
    > This belief that controlling how people speak will somehow make the world a better place seems somewhat quixotic. 100% agree. The way we talk, I think, matters. The stories we tell ourselves help shape us. But so does it matter how we try to change it. Forcing/controlling the way people speak is a remedy worse than the malady 97% of the time, and certainly in the present case. (Also, it is reasonable that you would interpret my suggestion as an attempt to control, given some elements of the current political climate) Another example of a poorly told story that worries me: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-of-the-flies-what-happened-when-six-boys-were-shipwrecked-for-15-months https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-...

namlem 5y ago

Having more telescope capacity is always nice. An outdated telescope is better than no telescope.

baq 5y ago

it can only be obsolete if there's a replacement deployed. given the cost, it is unlikely to have one as long as the one that is working keeps working. best case you have two working mid-IR telescopes in space instead of one. i don't hear any astronomers complaining about that scenario!