• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The James Webb Space Telescope

LostInSeattle said:
Does anyone know in what ways the Webb scope differs from Hubble? I'm talking technologically.
Click to expand...
It's an infrared telescope - since light from the farthest observable objects in the universe are heavily red-shifted, at some point Hubble becomes blind to them. Between the wavelength and the much greater collecting power, it should see more distant objects than Hubble. There are many, many, many other use cases but that is one of the more significant ones.

I'm personally rather interested in the possibility of pointing JWST at a LIGO event.
 
fortune said:
you partialy answered what I was going to ask which was, do w have the rocket power to get to JWST and back?
Click to expand...
JWST made it out there, so at least some form of payload can obviously get that far out. With astronauts on board? We don't have such a vehicle. We're probably capable of building one, but such a lengthy journey has never been done before so that's not a simple task, and it wont be a short design process.
 
mike2810 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I blame the creators for willfully violating the US Constitution. Which are always Democrats.

mike2810 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Continuously committing a criminal act for multiple decades does not make it any less of a criminal act. Or do you think that if you murder enough people that it eventually becomes acceptable for you to continue to murder people?

I already informed you that it was not my opinion, but that of the Supreme Court. You choose to ignore that fact because you want a criminally corrupt government.
 
Deuce said:
JWST made it out there, so at least some form of payload can obviously get that far out. With astronauts on board? We don't have such a vehicle. We're probably capable of building one, but such a lengthy journey has never been done before so that's not a simple task, and it wont be a short design process.
Click to expand...
The way technology improves, it would likely not be worth refueling in 10 years, just send out the next generation.
 
jpn said:
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​
Click to expand...
Immediately after Bulter FDR began replacing Supreme Court justices. Between 1937 and 1943 FDR replaced all nine Supreme Court justices, whether they wanted to be replaced or not, because that is what fascists do. No Supreme Court decision between 1937 and 1945 (the year of the fascist's death) can be considered valid considering the extreme duress the Supreme Court was under at the time.
 
longview said:
The way technology improves, it would likely not be worth refueling in 10 years, just send out the next generation.
Click to expand...
Except that it took NASA 20+ years to launch the JWST. It will take them at least another generation before they are capable of launching anything similar, if even then.
 
Glitch said:
Except that it took NASA 20+ years to launch the JWST. It will take them at least another generation before they are capable of launching anything similar, if even then.
Click to expand...
True enough, but I would hope we learned something from building the first one.
NASA does not do everything well, but they do seem to build good expert systems.
I live close to JSC, and have lived around and worked with people in that world.
At the end of Apollo, they sent teams of interns around to interview all the guys who really did
put men on the moon. The resulting expert system, is the one that said it was too cold to launch Challenger,
(but was over ridden, because some VIP's had come to watch a launch!!!).
 
Glitch said:
Immediately after Bulter FDR began replacing Supreme Court justices. Between 1937 and 1943 FDR replaced all nine Supreme Court justices, whether they wanted to be replaced or not, because that is what fascists do. No Supreme Court decision between 1937 and 1945 (the year of the fascist's death) can be considered valid considering the extreme duress the Supreme Court was under at the time.
Click to expand...
:ROFLMAO:
 
fortune said:
please splain that gooder
Click to expand...
Sure, the technology that went into Webb is likely almost 10 years old at launch, so in 10 more years it will be 20 years old.
20 years ago I bought my first digital camera, it was 1.2 mega pixels.
10 years ago, I was using a 12 mega pixel camera, and now my phone has a 12 MP camera front and back.
In 10 years, the technology in that telescope will be almost obsolete, (the optics will still be great) and the cost of a better
electronics package on the same physical optics, may be cheaper than sending a repair crew out to refuel an older system.
 
Glitch said:
I blame the creators for willfully violating the US Constitution. Which are always Democrats.


Continuously committing a criminal act for multiple decades does not make it any less of a criminal act. Or do you think that if you murder enough people that it eventually becomes acceptable for you to continue to murder people?

I already informed you that it was not my opinion, but that of the Supreme Court. You choose to ignore that fact because you want a criminally corrupt government.
Click to expand...

and other have shown different SC rulings saying Congress has a wide authority on what it wants to fund.
 
Glitch said:
I blame the creators for willfully violating the US Constitution. Which are always Democrats.


Continuously committing a criminal act for multiple decades does not make it any less of a criminal act. Or do you think that if you murder enough people that it eventually becomes acceptable for you to continue to murder people?

I already informed you that it was not my opinion, but that of the Supreme Court. You choose to ignore that fact because you want a criminally corrupt government.
Click to expand...
And I already informed you, by quoting the text of the decision, that your understanding of the decision is fatally flawed. Show us a single law article that agrees with your backwards interpretation of Butler's view of the General Welfare. I double dare ya.
 
LostInSeattle said:
And I already informed you, by quoting the text of the decision, that your understanding of the decision is fatally flawed. Show us a single law article that agrees with your backwards interpretation of Butler's view of the General Welfare. I double dare ya.
Click to expand...
You wouldn't know a court decision if it bit you in the ass. You cited the government's argument, not the decision of the court, because you lack the education to know any better and you obviously don't know what a decision means. So continuously claiming you quoted the decision is only embarrassing yourself further, since it is very evident from your post that you posted no such thing. Now quickly go whine to your leftist buddies like a petulant child about how I mistreated you yet again.
 
Glitch said:
You wouldn't know a court decision if it bit you in the ass. You cited the government's argument, not the decision of the court, because you lack the education to know any better and you obviously don't know what a decision means. So continuously claiming you quoted the decision is only embarrassing yourself further, since it is very evident from your post that you posted no such thing. Now quickly go whine to your leftist buddies like a petulant child about how I mistreated you yet again.
Click to expand...
And you my friend, would not know civility and reasoned argument if it bitch-slapped you forwards and backwards. All you've got is your misinterpretation and ability not to see what you don't want to see.

Go to the site you posted, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/297/1/.

Click on the case, not the syllabus, and read Page 297 U.S. 63 through Page 297 U.S. 69 of Justice Roberts' opinion, the majority opinion of the court. Both the quote I provided and the quote you provided are in there. Read those sections until you understand them. I can't really help you more than that.

Page 297 U. S. 68
We are not now required to ascertain the scope of the phrase "general welfare of the United States," or to determine whether an appropriation in aid of agriculture falls within it. Wholly apart from that question, another principle embedded in our Constitution prohibits the enforcement of the Agricultural Adjustment Act.
 
longview said:
Sure, the technology that went into Webb is likely almost 10 years old at launch, so in 10 more years it will be 20 years old.
20 years ago I bought my first digital camera, it was 1.2 mega pixels.
10 years ago, I was using a 12 mega pixel camera, and now my phone has a 12 MP camera front and back.
In 10 years, the technology in that telescope will be almost obsolete, (the optics will still be great) and the cost of a better
electronics package on the same physical optics, may be cheaper than sending a repair crew out to refuel an older system.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree, except that a robotic refuelling mission would be cheaper than a manned one.
 
The two most critical manoeuvres have been completed: the unfolding of the sunshield and the unfolding of the main mirror.

Now, demonstrating NASA's unique skills in turning a dramatic show into a sluggish one, they will spend MONTHS adjusting the main mirror. Why they couldn't take some snaps to prove to lay people that it's actually there and working a bit, I dunno. One picture of Earth would have killed them?
 
Spirit of The Millennium said:
The two most critical manoeuvres have been completed: the unfolding of the sunshield and the unfolding of the main mirror.

Now, demonstrating NASA's unique skills in turning a dramatic show into a sluggish one, they will spend MONTHS adjusting the main mirror. Why they couldn't take some snaps to prove to lay people that it's actually there and working a bit, I dunno. One picture of Earth would have killed them?
Click to expand...
They can't point it at Earth, the instruments are far too sensitive to be exposed to the sun that way. The thing doesn't even take photos in the visible light spectrum, because it only covers part of the visible spectrum in the first place. You'd get a weird-ass photo that wasn't even particularly sharp. Well, actually you'd get nothing because you'd have burnt out the sensors. Hubble couldn't take pictures of Earth worth a damn either, its tracking rate wasn't nearly enough to handle that.

The main mirror gets adjusted for several weeks because it's an eeeexxxtrreeeemeeeeelllyyyy precise undertaking. The mirrors move "literally slower than grass grows" according to one of their scientists. Because that degree of precision is necessary.

The instruments also need to cool down to close to absolute zero in order to function properly. They're extraordinarily-sensitive infrared sensors, if they're too warm the image just gets overwhelmed by the instrument's own heat. They need to cool the telescope down gradually, because it's going to be an extremely cold situation and even tiny amounts of warping due to rapid temperature change could cause problems.

They didn't set up a 5 month activation process for fun, you know. It's a $10 billion gamble and they're hedging every bet they can.
 
Deuce said:
They can't point it at Earth, the instruments are far too sensitive to be exposed to the sun that way. The thing doesn't even take photos in the visible light spectrum, because it only covers part of the visible spectrum in the first place. You'd get a weird-ass photo that wasn't even particularly sharp. Well, actually you'd get nothing because you'd have burnt out the sensors. Hubble couldn't take pictures of Earth worth a damn either, its tracking rate wasn't nearly enough to handle that.

The main mirror gets adjusted for several weeks because it's an eeeexxxtrreeeemeeeeelllyyyy precise undertaking. The mirrors move "literally slower than grass grows" according to one of their scientists. Because that degree of precision is necessary.

The instruments also need to cool down to close to absolute zero in order to function properly. They're extraordinarily-sensitive infrared sensors, if they're too warm the image just gets overwhelmed by the instrument's own heat. They need to cool the telescope down gradually, because it's going to be an extremely cold situation and even tiny amounts of warping due to rapid temperature change could cause problems.

They didn't set up a 5 month activation process for fun, you know. It's a $10 billion gamble and they're hedging every bet they can.
Click to expand...


Correct that adjustment is in nanometers! A human hair is 80,000 to 100, 000 nanometers wide! So yeah the only way to achieve that kind of adjustment is very very slow.

I also read they considered cameras to show adjustment of the telescope, but the added weight and placement of the cameras for a telescope that essentially came apart in assembly like a puzzle pieces was deemed not worth the risk.

Any idea how they slowed the telescope down to 0.1771 miles per second (637.56) mph? Obviously there is no air resistance.
 
Last edited:
EnigmaO01 said:
Any idea how they slowed the telescope down to 0.1771 miles per second (637.56) mph? Obviously there is no air resistance.
Click to expand...
Gravity did that. Remember that any velocity measurement is relative, in this case specifically relative to earth. As it moves away from the earth while earth's gravity is still its primary influence, its velocity away from earth will slow. They've aimed juuuust short of a spot where an object can "float" relative to earth, with a velocity close to zero. Maneuvering thrusters will establish an orbit around that spot. Fun fact: they had a bunch of extra fuel because rocket launch trajectories are never perfect, some correction would inevitably be needed enroute to L2 and for establishing the orbit. The plan was a five year mission life with the remaining maneuvering fuel. However, because the booster rocket performed on target so well, there's a bunch of maneuvering fuel they didn't have to expend on adjustments and now they think the fuel reserves will double the mission life to ten years.
 
Last edited:
EnigmaO01 said:
Any idea how they slowed the telescope down to 0.1771 miles per second (637.56) mph? Obviously there is no air resistance.
Click to expand...
They’ll use the gravitational pull of the Sun and Earth to slow it down. Over the next six months or so they’ll be pointing it at the Large Magellanic Cloud for its alignment procedure and then it will be (hopefully) ready for research.
 
Napoleon said:
They’ll use the gravitational pull of the Sun and Earth to slow it down. Over the next six months or so they’ll be pointing it at the Large Magellanic Cloud for its alignment procedure and then it will be (hopefully) ready for research.
Click to expand...
waiting is boring.... jeez
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom