The James Webb Space Telescope

[Glitch]

That is your opinion.

Care to share a link to anything legal that backs that up? I provided the legislation that created NASA.
I suspect you will not be able to find anything.

It is not my opinion, but that of the Supreme Court. As I already posted in post #56, the Supreme Court held that there is no such thing as a "General Welfare" power. Which is what Congress used to authorize the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958.

Congress has the constitutional authority to levy taxes under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the US Constitution. They were never given unlimited power to do whatever they pleased for the "General Welfare," but only to tax for that purpose.

 

[Glitch]

They weren't prohibited from creating NASA either.

Yes, they were. That is the purpose of the Tenth Amendment. If a power is not specifically granted to the federal government by the US Constitution, then the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from exercising that power. If the US Constitution did not prohibit that specific power to the States, then it becomes an exclusive power of the States.

As I previously mentioned, each individual State has the constitutional authority to establish their own NASA government agency, but the federal government does not.

 

[RAMOSS]

Yes, they were. That is the purpose of the Tenth Amendment. If a power is not specifically granted to the federal government by the US Constitution, then the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from exercising that power. If the US Constitution did not prohibit that specific power to the States, then it becomes an exclusive power of the States.

As I previously mentioned, each individual State has the constitutional authority to establish their own NASA government agency, but the federal government does not.

That's some claim. THat claim does not have support

 

[Glitch]

That's some claim. THat claim does not have support

Not from you perhaps, but it has the Supreme Court's support in US v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936).

 

[mike2810]

It is not my opinion, but that of the Supreme Court. As I already posted in post #56, the Supreme Court held that there is no such thing as a "General Welfare" power. Which is what Congress used to authorize the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958.

Congress has the constitutional authority to levy taxes under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the US Constitution. They were never given unlimited power to do whatever they pleased for the "General Welfare," but only to tax for that purpose.

Did the SC say NASA has to be abolished? Yes or no.

 

[Glitch]

Did the SC say NASA has to be abolished? Yes or no.

The Supreme Court held the justification Congress used to create the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 to be unconstitutional 22 years before Democrats committed their criminal act.

 

[EnigmaO01]

Robotics are great for precision in a predetermined, repeat process like manufacturing, yes. However, they're a lot less adept at dealing with unique, individual issues. Especially issues that are unexpected, or perhaps even not entirely identified. So let's say JWST just stops transmitting data one day. There's a hundred different reasons that could happen. A wire broke loose, a micrometeorite hit the antenna, battery failure, circuit breaker popped and will not reset like its supposed to, a computer controlling the antenna failing, a software error because oops we didn't plan for Y2K22. Building a single machine that is capable of both diagnosing and resolving multiple different scenarios while still being small and light enough to actually propel into space... and be reliable enough to not be itself broken when it gets there? That's quite the piece of machinery and it shows the gulf that still exists between AI and the human brain when it comes to adapting to a new problem.

Also, I'm not sure there's a lot of experience at all for remote space-maintenance. Usually we either have astronauts out there with a space-wrench. It took ages to figure out how to build this thing, having to design a new machine specifically to fix this one could take just as long!



Yeah, it's pretty cool!

You do know we already have given the ability for the latest Martian Rover to solve problems on its own as in Artificial Intelligence?

 

[EnigmaO01]

The devil's in the details, although we needn't dig deep.

The issue is fixturing. The fixtures and platform required to service a telescope like this would be enormous - larger than the telescope itself. The issue isn't so much "robots technology needs to catch up" but rather the size/cost to achieve a capability. Could we service James Webb near L2 with an Apollo-era program that ties up ~4% of the US annual GDP for a decade? Yes. Will we? No.

You're assuming there would have to be a massive platform and fixtures. I don't see that.

 

[mike2810]

The Supreme Court held the justification Congress used to create the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 to be unconstitutional 22 years before Democrats committed their criminal act.

and yet Republican including Trump funded NASA.
Funny how no one has stopped the funding since 1958.

I also do not believe you in your interpretation of the SC case you linked. No way that many years would have passed with continual funding.

 

[LostInSeattle]

The Supreme Court held the justification Congress used to create the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 to be unconstitutional 22 years before Democrats committed their criminal act.

Nope. You're still not willing to read and understand the decision, I see.

 

[LostInSeattle]

Not from you perhaps, but it has the Supreme Court's support in US v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936).

It does not. You completely ignored the text of the decision I posted. Calling someone a liar without substantiation is just grade school stuff. Weak sauce, my man, very weak sauce indeed.

 

[Glitch]

and yet Republican including Trump funded NASA.
Funny how no one has stopped the funding since 1958.

I also do not believe you in your interpretation of the SC case you linked. No way that many years would have passed with continual funding.

First, it is Congress that does the funding, not Presidents.

Second, just because both political parties decide to violate the US Constitution does not make it suddenly constitutional.

Social Security has been around since 1936, and it is equally unconstitutional. As is the Department of Education that was created by Democrats in 1980. There are many things that violate the US Constitution that both parties continue to fund. Once again, both parties violating the law is not justification for continued violations of the law. Unless you enjoy living under a completely corrupt government.

 

[mike2810]

First, it is Congress that does the funding, not Presidents.

Second, just because both political parties decide to violate the US Constitution does not make it suddenly constitutional.

Social Security has been around since 1936, and it is equally unconstitutional. As is the Department of Education that was created by Democrats in 1980. There are many things that violate the US Constitution that both parties continue to fund. Once again, both parties violating the law is not justification for continued violations of the law. Unless you enjoy living under a completely corrupt government.

sigh.
yes Congress passes the spending Bill and the President either signs the Bill or not.

You do realize since 1958 when Congress passed the Bill to create NASA the US has had Republican Presidents and Republican controlled Congress.
To blame NASA on one Party is wrong.

In +60 years, no one has defunded or disbanded NASA. Why has the Republican Party failed to do so in the years they held the majority and the Office of the President.?

Sorry. Your opinion is just that. Opinions.

 

[jpn]

It is not my opinion, but that of the Supreme Court. As I already posted in post #56, the Supreme Court held that there is no such thing as a "General Welfare" power. Which is what Congress used to authorize the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958.
Congress has the constitutional authority to levy taxes under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the US Constitution. They were never given unlimited power to do whatever they pleased for the "General Welfare," but only to tax for that purpose.

You're hopelessly befuddled. It probably comes from just reading what you think you want to read and then stopping.

The case you're hanging your hat on in fact began to expand the interpretation of the "general welfare" clause, which had previously been interpreted more narrowly.

Prior to 1936, the United States Supreme Court had imposed a narrow interpretation on the Clause, as demonstrated by the holding in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.,[23] in which a tax on child labor was an impermissible attempt to regulate commerce beyond that Court's equally narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause. This narrow view was later overturned in United States v. Butler. There, the Court agreed with Associate Justice Joseph Story's construction in Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Story had concluded that the General Welfare Clause was not a general grant of legislative power, but also dismissed Madison's narrow construction requiring its use be dependent upon the other enumerated powers. Consequently, the Supreme Court held the power to tax and spend is an independent power and that the General Welfare Clause gives Congress power it might not derive anywhere else. However, the Court did limit the power to spending for matters affecting only the national welfare.​

Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis,[24] the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, disavowing almost entirely any role for judicial review of Congressional spending policies, thereby conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to Congress's own discretion. Even more recently, in South Dakota v. Dole[25] the Court held Congress possessed power to indirectly influence the states into adopting national standards by withholding, to a limited extent, federal funds. To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law.​

In other words, the Supreme Court has blown your objection totally out of the water.

 

[jpn]

Social Security has been around since 1936, and it is equally unconstitutional.

According to you. Not according to the Supreme Court.

Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that held that Social Security was constitutionally permissible as an exercise of the federal power to spend for the general welfare and so did not contravene the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.​

​

Text of 'Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937) is available from: CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress​

 

[Deuce]

Nobody cares. You don't have a time machine. Glitch, stop shitting up this thread. Go start your own to "debate" whether NASA should exist. This is a thread about a telescope that does exist no matter how much you whine about it.

The rest of you, stop responding to the troll.

 

[mike2810]

Things are going well in the deployment of the new telescope.

Webb Space Telescope Deploys Primary Mirror Without a Hitch

NASA needed just 14 days to fully unfold its $10 billion space telescope.

gizmodo.com

 

[Deuce]

Things are going well in the deployment of the new telescope.

Webb Space Telescope Deploys Primary Mirror Without a Hitch

NASA needed just 14 days to fully unfold its $10 billion space telescope.

gizmodo.com

All deployment stages are complete! It will spend the next week or so aligning and calibrating the various mirror segments.

"One of our scientists calculated we move these mirrors literally slower than grass grows as we're lining them up so incredibly precisely."

Explains why this process takes more than a week. Although it has plenty of time, there's more than two weeks to go before the L2 insertion burn.

 

[EnigmaO01]

All deployment stages are complete! It will spend the next week or so aligning and calibrating the various mirror segments.

"One of our scientists calculated we move these mirrors literally slower than grass grows as we're lining them up so incredibly precisely."

Explains why this process takes more than a week. Although it has plenty of time, there's more than two weeks to go before the L2 insertion burn.

And it's about 3/4's of the way there already!

 

[jpn]

And it's about 3/4's of the way there already!

I really enjoy the "Where is Webb?" webpage. I think it's cool to watch the miles traveled (708,000 miles) increasing while the coasting speed (now just under 800 mph) and the ambient temperature (131 F) both correspondingly drop.

 

[jpn]

You do realize since 1958 when Congress passed the Bill to create NASA the US has had Republican Presidents and Republican controlled Congress.

Bear is all confused. See my posts #114 and 115 above.

Turns out he's not quite the Constitutional scholar he thinks he is.

I know. I'm shocked and disappointed too. Disillusioned. Sad. Feeling let down.

 

[mike2810]

Bear is all confused. See my posts #114 and 115 above.

Turns out he's not quite the Constitutional scholar he thinks he is.

I know. I'm shocked and disappointed too. Disillusioned. Sad. Feeling let down.

I agree. Some also avoid in saying anything about Republicans.

It will be interesting to see what the Webb telescope finds.

 

[LostInSeattle]

Does anyone know in what ways the Webb scope differs from Hubble? I'm talking technologically.

 

[longview]

Does anyone know in what ways the Webb scope differs from Hubble? I'm talking technologically.

Webb vs Hubble
Different wavelength
6.5 meter mirror vs a 2.4 meter mirror.
Better location, ect
Also consider that Hubble was launched in 1990, think about the improvements in digital photography since 1990?

 

[fortune]

It is essentially unserviceable. We do not have a vehicle capable of bringing astronauts out for maintenance, and robotic technology just isn't going to be up to the task of doing it. It's way too precise of a device. If something mission-critical breaks, the JWST is a paperweight.

It was designed with refueling capabilities, though, so if it functions well for it's entire 5-10 year service life, it could theoretically be gassed up again.

you partialy answered what I was going to ask which was, do w have the rocket power to get to JWST and back?