4 ms·

Favoring the James webb over the terrestrial planet finder is the biggest funding mistake NASA ever made

jacquesm 4y ago
Maybe. I am curious what Webb will do for science, it's going to be around for a lot longer than originally planned so maybe we'll get lucky and something very interesting will turn up. For sure the instruments are in a class of their own. And who knows, maybe at some point we'll see a revival of the project. Funding wise I think it was mostly Hubble missions that ate up a sizeable chunk of TPF's budget, not so much the JWT, is there something I can read that documents that this was a binary choice? Personally I think that we can't spend enough on projects such as this, the knowledge gained will serve us for as long as mankind manages not to blow itself up.
- SemanticStrengh 4y ago
  For scale: Building hubble costed 1.5 billion. Yes the most revolutionar telescope in the world was very cheap and with 20 years of scientific and process progress one would expect that cost to goe down or the overall abilities to improve. James webb costed 10 billion so ~7 distinct hubbles. You don't need to read further, 20 years of progress and a 7 time higher budget would enable to make a hubble killer (although maybe a downscaled version of the terrestrial planet finder) The hubble total mission cost was 16 billion (without shuttle). Compare this https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q490345#/media/File:N891s.jpg https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q490345#/media/File:N891s.jpg To this https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260366957_A_resolved_analysis_of_cold_dust_and_gas_in_the_nearby_edge-on_spiral_NGC_891/figures?lo=1 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260366957_A_resolve... In my opinion, infrared is pathetic because it reduce the picture colorimetric information to a single float.. A dumb continuum of redshift intensity. I'm not saying it doesn't has its uses, it sure sounds great for capturing small rocks... But come on.. Why do I have to be the only one furious at the optics stagnation since the 90s and to realize the facts that optics are extremely superior both for Art and for scientific discovery, including but not only exoplanets. Of course i agree a world with funding for both would be great vs e.g buying twitter but when we have to choose because of artificial democratically voted scarcity, the hubble 2.0 is the painfully obvious rational choice. The empty promises of better capturing the cosmic background in infrared will quickly fade.. Infrared is noisy, monodimensional, and James webb doesn't cover the relevant spectrum (wtf) unlike herschel. And while herschel was the at the peak, we didn't get any breakthrough art or science discovery out of it. As one should painfully guess, the cosmic background is mostly noise and there's not much to extract from it. The herschel resolution increase didn't reveal any reason to believe a larger scale would make discoveries actionable. If it did, then those should be publicized because I'm not seeing any.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    Important to correct that for when the money was spent though, that makes quite a big difference. Hubble dollars weren't the same dollars as the ones that funded Webb and a good chunk of the Webb cost were born by other countries than the US I believe. And even Hubble had its teething problems, and those ate up quite a bit of money. I'm going to be patient what the JWST turns up, I agree that it may end up being a bit boring but science doesn't necessarily generate just pretty pictures the important details are sometimes just numbers or confirmation of theories. Of course we all want the pretty pictures (see my comment above). A moon based observatory would be a fantastic reason to establish a permanent presence on the moon. That's one that I would love to see in my lifetime.
    - SemanticStrengh 4y ago
      on an optimist note, the ELT is set to be ready for 2027 and capture 250 times more light than Hubble and for a claimed final sharpness increase of X16! It is a ground based next gen segmented telescope and has a very low cost (1.5 billion). Also the tragically overlooked solution is airborne/dirigeable optical astronomy. It already exist for infrared and capture 85% of light (where space is 100%) unfortunately it has been underfunded and the mirror aboard the airplane is only 2 meter. With the Antonov, one could easily and cheaply bring a regular 8.4 meter mirror near space and capture the world for the first time, with a disruptive, god-like accuracy, and indeed being on the ballpark of a ground based 100 meter telescope, according to transposable claims, it would allow for the first time to optically discriminate the chemical compositions of the atmosphere of exoplanets and therefore trivially prove or disprove the presence of extraterrestrial life in an industrial scale manner, by the mere detection of biosignatures, such as e.g. oxygem, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-225_Mriya#/media/File:Antonov_An-225_with_Soviet_space_shuttle_Buran_on_top.jpeg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-225_Mriya#/media/Fi... (space was much cooler before) It's a shame the antonov got destroyed during the ukrainian war. although there are probably other transport solution. The real shame is that no one in command has realized this was the solution the world needs.

Maybe. I am curious what Webb will do for science, it's going to be around for a lot longer than originally planned so maybe we'll get lucky and something very interesting will turn up. For sure the instruments are in a class of their own. And who knows, maybe at some point we'll see a revival of the project. Funding wise I think it was mostly Hubble missions that ate up a sizeable chunk of TPF's budget, not so much the JWT, is there something I can read that documents that this was a binary choice? Personally I think that we can't spend enough on projects such as this, the knowledge gained will serve us for as long as mankind manages not to blow itself up.

SemanticStrengh 4y ago
For scale: Building hubble costed 1.5 billion. Yes the most revolutionar telescope in the world was very cheap and with 20 years of scientific and process progress one would expect that cost to goe down or the overall abilities to improve. James webb costed 10 billion so ~7 distinct hubbles. You don't need to read further, 20 years of progress and a 7 time higher budget would enable to make a hubble killer (although maybe a downscaled version of the terrestrial planet finder) The hubble total mission cost was 16 billion (without shuttle). Compare this https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q490345#/media/File:N891s.jpg https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q490345#/media/File:N891s.jpg To this https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260366957_A_resolved_analysis_of_cold_dust_and_gas_in_the_nearby_edge-on_spiral_NGC_891/figures?lo=1 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260366957_A_resolve... In my opinion, infrared is pathetic because it reduce the picture colorimetric information to a single float.. A dumb continuum of redshift intensity. I'm not saying it doesn't has its uses, it sure sounds great for capturing small rocks... But come on.. Why do I have to be the only one furious at the optics stagnation since the 90s and to realize the facts that optics are extremely superior both for Art and for scientific discovery, including but not only exoplanets. Of course i agree a world with funding for both would be great vs e.g buying twitter but when we have to choose because of artificial democratically voted scarcity, the hubble 2.0 is the painfully obvious rational choice. The empty promises of better capturing the cosmic background in infrared will quickly fade.. Infrared is noisy, monodimensional, and James webb doesn't cover the relevant spectrum (wtf) unlike herschel. And while herschel was the at the peak, we didn't get any breakthrough art or science discovery out of it. As one should painfully guess, the cosmic background is mostly noise and there's not much to extract from it. The herschel resolution increase didn't reveal any reason to believe a larger scale would make discoveries actionable. If it did, then those should be publicized because I'm not seeing any.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  Important to correct that for when the money was spent though, that makes quite a big difference. Hubble dollars weren't the same dollars as the ones that funded Webb and a good chunk of the Webb cost were born by other countries than the US I believe. And even Hubble had its teething problems, and those ate up quite a bit of money. I'm going to be patient what the JWST turns up, I agree that it may end up being a bit boring but science doesn't necessarily generate just pretty pictures the important details are sometimes just numbers or confirmation of theories. Of course we all want the pretty pictures (see my comment above). A moon based observatory would be a fantastic reason to establish a permanent presence on the moon. That's one that I would love to see in my lifetime.
  - SemanticStrengh 4y ago
    on an optimist note, the ELT is set to be ready for 2027 and capture 250 times more light than Hubble and for a claimed final sharpness increase of X16! It is a ground based next gen segmented telescope and has a very low cost (1.5 billion). Also the tragically overlooked solution is airborne/dirigeable optical astronomy. It already exist for infrared and capture 85% of light (where space is 100%) unfortunately it has been underfunded and the mirror aboard the airplane is only 2 meter. With the Antonov, one could easily and cheaply bring a regular 8.4 meter mirror near space and capture the world for the first time, with a disruptive, god-like accuracy, and indeed being on the ballpark of a ground based 100 meter telescope, according to transposable claims, it would allow for the first time to optically discriminate the chemical compositions of the atmosphere of exoplanets and therefore trivially prove or disprove the presence of extraterrestrial life in an industrial scale manner, by the mere detection of biosignatures, such as e.g. oxygem, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-225_Mriya#/media/File:Antonov_An-225_with_Soviet_space_shuttle_Buran_on_top.jpeg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-225_Mriya#/media/Fi... (space was much cooler before) It's a shame the antonov got destroyed during the ukrainian war. although there are probably other transport solution. The real shame is that no one in command has realized this was the solution the world needs.