Slashdot Mirror


World's Largest Space Telescope Is Complete, Expected To Launch In 2018 (space.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Space.com: After more than 20 years of construction, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is complete and, following in-depth testing, the largest-ever space telescope is expected to launch within two years, NASA officials announced today (Nov. 2). NASA Administrator Charles Bolden hosted a news conference to announce the milestone this morning at the agency's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, overlooking the 18 large mirrors that will collect infrared light, sheltered behind a tennis-court-size sun shield. JWST is considered the successor to NASA's iconic Hubble Space Telescope. The telescope will be much more powerful than even Hubble for two main reasons, Mather said at the conference. First, it will be the biggest telescope mirror to fly in space. "You can see this beautiful, gold telescope is seven times the collecting area of the Hubble telescope," Mather said. And second, it is designed to collect infrared light, which Hubble is not very sensitive to. Earth's atmosphere glows in the infrared, so such measurements can't be made from the ground. Hubble emits its own heat, which would obscure infrared readings. JWST will run close to absolute zero in temperature and rest at a point in space called the Lagrange Point 2, which is directly behind Earth from the sun's perspective. That way, Earth can shield the telescope from the sun's infrared emission, and the sun shield can protect the telescope from both bodies' heat. The telescope's infrared view will pierce through obscuring cosmic dust to reveal the universe's first galaxies and spy on newly forming planetary systems. It also will be sensitive enough to analyze the atmospheres of exoplanets that pass in front of their stars, perhaps to search for signs of life, Mather said. The telescope would be able to see a bumblebee a moon's distance away, he added -- both in reflected light and in the body heat the bee emitted. Its mirrors are so smooth that if you stretched the array to the size of the U.S., the hills and valleys of irregularity would be only a few inches high, Mather said.

156 comments

  1. Gold you say? by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 3, Funny

    You can see this beautiful, gold telescope is seven times the collecting area of the Hubble telescope

    I guess we need to hope president Trump doesn't decide to melt it down to make a new white house toilet.

    1. Re:Gold you say? by murdocj · · Score: 0

      It will be renamed the Vladimir Putin Mother Russia telescope. And it will be pointed at earth.

    2. Re:Gold you say? by prefec2 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Americans you are ridiculous. Ok I get it you have a two party system and therefore you are not accustomed to have different opinions in politics. It is always there team against ours. The truth is, it is you country. The country of all of you. Conservatives, liberals, socialists, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Atheists, Indians, etc. and you all life there. Unfortunately, for the next president you have two choices. They both have a big ego. And I am not sure if you could trust them, but you have to look at the potential outcome of each presidency. Clinton will not demolish your health care system, even if it sucks compared to European systems, Trump will. She will not start a war, but will continue with the drone program. With Trump, you do not know what he will do. Will he terminate NATO? Then many EU countries will try to build their own nuclear weapons. This is not in the interest of the US. Will he break up with China? This could be a disaster, as China has so much dollars in their pockets, they could just ruin the US. And even if he is not doing all of that. He is not the guy who stays cool and on top of things. He is super emotional. This is dangerous (in case you want to be the only super power, a.k.a. Empire).

    3. Re: Gold you say? by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 0

      China actually holds very little of US debt.

    4. Re: Gold you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    5. Re:Gold you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "China has so much dollars in their pockets, they could just ruin the US" Stop with this BS. The US could ruin China overnight just by denying them access to the US market. China does not supply the US with anything it cannot get elsewhere or create domestically. And the US Treasury holds 94% of the US debt with the remaining 6% divided up amongst every other country on the planet.

      "Will he terminate NATO? Then many EU countries will try to build their own nuclear weapons"
      And why is the US required to spend a fortune on nuclear and conventional deterrence for a bunch of ingrates who incessantly demonize the US every chance they get and then turn around and expect the US protect them. And wouldn't it be up to the EU electorate to determine if their country starts building their own nukes? After all they are suppose to more enlightened than the US knuckle draggers. Or maybe it is easier to consider yourself enlightened after hiding behind the US skirts for 70 years.

      "She will not start a war" Presidents cannot prosecute a war without Congressional approval. While serving as both a Senator and Secretary of State she was one of the key people who worked to redefine what is considered a war to keep Congress sidelined. Sort of like her husband redefining what sex is. Obama backed away from his red lines in Syria when it looked like Congress would have voted against him.

      A US President doesn't really have all that much real power. Any Presidential initiative requires Congressional approval. Executive orders and vetoes can also be quashed by Congress. Presidential initiatives can also be curtailed by Congresses control over the budget. To many people seem to think the US President can rule by fiat and that absolutely false.

    6. Re: Gold you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn autocorrect, now not know :(

    7. Re: Gold you say? by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      Do you mean government debt? I am talking about the US trade deficit which is balanced by the US trade partners by buying dollars. The biggest lender in this context is China, as 40% of the US trade deficit comes from the trade with China (approx $ 29 billion per year). In total the US have around $ 41 billion deficit per year (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade).

    8. Re: Gold you say? by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Wow you're retarded on so many levels... Try reading your source again. China owns 30% of all foreign US debt, however as a total percentage of US debt, China only has about 6.2%. Even if it were 30% (which again, it's not) they couldn't "ruin" the US, because that debt is mostly in the form of bills, notes, and bonds, which means that the US government merely has to follow a set pay schedule and isn't subject to anybody doing anything such as calling in debts. If Trump were elected (which I doubt) he could totally give China the middle finger, and maybe they'd stop buying any bonds in the future, but beyond that the US would simply continue to pay off its debts on schedule and everything would continue as it already has.

      Besides, most of the rest of the stake that people in China have on the US is in real estate, which they mainly purchased in a bubble period, and a burst is right around the corner, so they're going to get fucked the same way Japan did back in the 80's.

    9. Re:Gold you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Will he break up with China? This could be a disaster, as China has so much dollars in their pockets, they could just ruin the US....

      Old caveat about debt:

      When you owe the bank a few thousand dollars and can't pay, YOU have a problem.

      When you owe the bank a few TRILLION dollars and can't pay, THE BANK has a problem.

    10. Re: Gold you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody said they could ruin the US in an instance. But if China stopped investing in US Treasury notes and bills, do you really think that that nobody else wouldn't be having the same thoughts and start unloading their holdings? You cannot simply default on one creditor but not the other ones.

    11. Re: Gold you say? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Interesting

      if China stopped investing in US Treasury notes and bills, do you really think that that nobody else wouldn't be having the same thoughts and start unloading their holdings?

      I don't think so. If China dumped, the price would fall, raising the effective interest rate. So others would see a really good deal, and buy. In fact, the Fed might just buy it all. $1.185 trillion is about the same as one year of QE2 ($80B/month). It would hurt the USA somewhat, but it would hurt China far more. Not only would they lose billions on their investment, but the weakened dollar would depress American imports, putting millions of Chinese into unemployment.

    12. Re: Gold you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US Treasury notes and bills are considered a good deal because the risk of the US gov defaulting on their debt is considered very low. In the event that they did default on the debt many investors would certainly shift their investments to lesser risk. Of course there are investors looking to maximize yield, but that is not the majority of investors of Treasury bills and notes.

    13. Re: Gold you say? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      But if China stopped investing in US Treasury notes and bills, do you really think that that nobody else wouldn't be having the same thoughts and start unloading their holdings?

      China already stopped buying US Treasuries. In fact, they did so more than 5 years ago. Has economic disaster struck yet?

      China was buying US Treasuries to keep the Dollar up versus Yuan. That only works for so long, and China stopped buying when it stopped working. And the fact that virtually no one has noticed kinda indicates the predictions of doom are a wee bit overblown.

      You cannot simply default on one creditor but not the other ones.

      Sure you can. Don't send the interest payments to China via sanctions or a similar mechanism.

      Now, you may not be able to contain the effects of that default to a single creditor - US Treasuries would likely lose some of their "extremely safe" reputation. But we can easily default on a single creditor.

    14. Re: Gold you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US Treasury has never had a problem moving bonds, and likely never will until there is a single country that is a better bet out there.

      Which there isn't.

    15. Re:Gold you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's all on Trump. Who created the Patriot Act? Who then extended and expanded the Patriot Act?

      Yeah, let's keep blaming Trump...

      You've been a good goose stepper.

    16. Re:Gold you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL....awww...you're cute ! Touchingly innocent ;)

      Seriously though, a bad US President is bad for the world (look at Dubya !).

      The US has been living large and way beyond its means for decades.

      It's like the ol' bear with the bad leg...and the wolves are watching.

      Hey, don't feel bad though, you had a half decent run......almost 60-70 years. While that's a bit short as far as empires go, it's not too shabby either.

      You got your time in the sun.

    17. Re:Gold you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure that the actual gold content of the telescope is exceedingly small. Gold would be a terrible material to build a satellite structure completely out of as it is too heavy, malleable, etc. From what I can find the mirrors are actually made of Beryllium and coated with gold/nickle. Beryllium isn't particular cheap though, costing hundreds of dollars per lb but it is a far cry from gold (about $19k per lb). That said I wouldn't expect Trump to understand any of this and if anyone tried to explain it he would probably think they were trying to trick him, I think a lot of his campaign aids have said that trying to get through to him on a particular subject is like trying to teach a teen with an extreme form of ADHD to listen/understand to a lecture on Tax law.

    18. Re: Gold you say? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      In my world, QE2 stands for Queen Elizabeth 2, an ocean liner.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    19. Re: Gold you say? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The US Treasury has been having a great deal of trouble unloading bonds recently. It buys up the surplus by itself. Smoke and mirrors.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    20. Re:Gold you say? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      You apparently haven't heard of the War Powers Resolution (a.k.a. the War Powers Act.) Essentially, the President can run hog wild for 60 days.

      Budget restrictions have little affect on a President (like Obama) who has no intention of following the law. Just recently, he's been shoveling dollars for a program explicitly prohibited by Congress from "surplusses" within the same department.

      Budget control in recent years has been a crude and ineffectual tool. All the President's proposed budgets have been rejected outright, and despite the Constitutional requirement the government has been running on continuing resolutions instead of a true budget. It's a mess.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    21. Re:Gold you say? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Gold is a good infrared reflector. The usual mirror coating for telescopes is aluminum, which is not as good in the IR as gold.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    22. Re: Gold you say? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      No.

      There is no effective market for US treasuries. In every auction, if the price even starts to rise, the federal reserve buys them all.

      That is why stopping 'quantitative easing' isn't easy. They have a target rate, the money required to be printed to maintain that rate is an unknown. If the interest rate goes much higher than the target, the government goes broke before schedule.

      That being said, US treasuries are the _good part_ of chinese bank reserves. The rest is bubble real estate, Shanghai stocks (average PE ratio still in the neighborhood of 50-60 was 100) and non performing loans to central committees members children.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    23. Re: Gold you say? by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      As long as the fed prints money and buys all the leftovers, that will continue to be true.

      If the fed wasn't buying the bonds, we would know the open market rate for US debt. Until then, we know fuckall.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    24. Re:Gold you say? by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      Possible bullshit story (para):

      Jr Engineer at NASA: The beancounters want to know why we want to use a gold surfaced mirror, what should I tell them?

      W. Von Braun: Tell them a solid gold mirror would be too heavy.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    25. Re: Gold you say? by Maxwell'sSilverLART · · Score: 1

      If Trump were elected (which I doubt) he could totally give China the middle finger, and maybe they'd stop buying any bonds in the future, but beyond that the US would simply continue to pay off its debts on schedule and everything would continue as it already has.

      Except that it wouldn't just be China refusing to buy our bonds, but everybody. You don't get to default on that much debt and keep borrowing, and you don't get to stiff a specific bondholder without the others saying "hmmm, I wonder who's next."

      Also, most bond debts are fungible and freely negotiable; if we refuse to pay China, China sells it on the open market and recoups most of its loss...if it can find a buyer (see credibility problem above).

      --
      Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
    26. Re: Gold you say? by willoughby · · Score: 0

      Way off-topic here

      At an island stop on a Caribbean cruise, the QE2 was in port along with my ship & some others. The QE2 sailors were in uniform as they snooped in the shops & strolled the streets. If you engaged them in conversation - no matter what the subject was - they would all manage to wedge in - "She'll do thirty knots!".

    27. Re:Gold you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our blessed Gospodin Putin again saves the Rodina!!!

    28. Re: Gold you say? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      the risk of the US gov defaulting on their debt is considered very low.

      It is sovereign debt, issued by the US government in a currency the government controls. So the USA can just print dollars to monitize the debt. The risk of default is essentially zero. The real risk is that the value of the dollar may fall, but there is no sign of that happening.

      When countries default on their debts, like Argentina and Greece, it is because the debt is denominated in a currency that they do not control, so monetizing the debt is not an option. Argentina's debt was in US dollars, and Greece's debt is in Euros.

    29. Re: Gold you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Each of the 18 mirror segments is made of beryllium, weighs 46 pounds and is coated on the front surface with 1/10 oz of gold.

  2. So... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Did they double-check the mirror this time? And compensate for zero-G?

    The testing is particularly high-stakes, because unlike Hubble, which was repaired and refocused in orbit by astronauts, this telescope is not intended to be repaired by humans.

    Yikes. Isn't that sort of like announcing that your vehicle doesn't have seatbelts, so instead you're going to drive very, very carefully? Well, I guess that's not unusual for rocket science.

    "Our lessons learned from the Hubble [telescope incident] were, if you really care about something, you've got to measure it at least twice," Mather added. "And if you don't get the same answer, you'd better figure out why."

    Maybe they should have talked to a carpenter?

    Ok, kidding aside... I really do hope it fares much better than Hubble's initial deployment. There's certainly a lot that can go wrong during development or deployment. But if all goes well, I'm looking forward to seeing what images are captured from the edge of the visible universe.

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    1. Re:So... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 4, Funny

      I really do hope it fares much better than Hubble's initial deployment. There's certainly a lot that can go wrong during development or deployment. But if all goes well, I'm looking forward to seeing what images are captured from the edge of the visible universe.

      I'm guessing they will see this. (Safe for work.)
      http://i.imgur.com/RrCGkyQ.jpg

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    2. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Ok, kidding aside... I really do hope it fares much better than Hubble's initial deployment."
        One thing that most forget- Hubble, even if initially flawed, was better than anything else then available. It just wasn't the that best it could be.

      "But if all goes well, I'm looking forward to seeing what images are captured from the edge of the visible universe."
      Another thing is, our seeing is in all measurable ways... deplorable. We have lousy eyes, due to no longer important Evolutionary inheritances, so just sticking a large Aperture Mirror in the Sky for Human visible Astronomy is so last Century. We now look DC to Gamma Ray, in all sorts of places. Our Instruments help us.

      I'm really just bugged about the "Webb" thing. Naming something so important after a glorified... Accountant? (BTW, I'm fond of Webb; a Good Guy. But why name this after him? A Space Center that comes in on time and under budget seems more appropriate.)

    3. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "http://i.imgur.com/RrCGkyQ.jpg [imgur.com]"

      Oh, you Monoturtleists...
      It's Turtles all the way down.
      Polyturtlism is the only explanation.

    4. Re:So... by A+Friendly+Troll · · Score: 0

      I'm looking forward to seeing what images are captured from the edge of the visible universe.

      Just some tentacles... and darkness.

    5. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The testing is particularly high-stakes, because unlike Hubble, which was repaired and refocused in orbit by astronauts, this telescope is not intended to be repaired by humans.

      Yikes. Isn't that sort of like announcing that your vehicle doesn't have seatbelts, so instead you're going to drive very, very carefully? Well, I guess that's not unusual for rocket science.

      As mentioned in the summary, the JWT will go to the Lagrangian Point 2 (L2), for the Sun-Earth system. This point is substantially farther than the Moon, so there's no way (at least with current technology) that we're sending men that far. So, it's not that they're betting it all on having it done right this time so we don't need to check. It's just "we're saying goodbye to it, so it better be good."

    6. Re:So... by petes_PoV · · Score: 0

      Did they double-check the mirror this time? And compensate for zero-G?

      And remember there's a difference between inches and centimetres.
      Don't forget that on the rocket, the arrows should be pointing upwards.
      Have they tuned the radio link to the correct frequency?

      Luckily this telescope doesn't need parachutes. But they'd better put a screen-wipe in the package in case the mirror gets dusty between now and launch-day.

      --
      politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    7. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and also remember, you cannot cast a 32 bit value into a 16 bit wide variable.
        But I guess the remaining Ariane Vs have received a fix for that one...

    8. Re:So... by nojayuk · · Score: 1

      ESA have already put two space observatories, the Herschel infrared telescope and the Planck cosmic microwave background telescope into the L2 location. The JWT is being launched and deployed by ESA so it's not an absolute first for them.

      ESA is paying for the launch and that entitles European scientists access to the instrument and data collected by it.

    9. Re:So... by Zoxed · · Score: 1

      And most recently ESA put Gaia in L2.

    10. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Accountants are why computers were used so much in business in the 1950s and '60s. Without them, there would not have been enough computing power to make the space age happen.

    11. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Measure it twice *with independent instruments*. Measuring that 2x4 again with the same broken tape measure you marked it up with isn't gonna achieve anything.

    12. Re: So... by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      I just imagine the NASA technician who is perpetually late to work and has to use the broken tape measure every day because all the good ones are taken already...

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    13. Re:So... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Huh... so just how much stuff can be crammed into this Lagrange "point" anyway?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    14. Re:So... by Zoxed · · Score: 1

      They are not actually all sitting in L2: they 'orbit' around the L2 point (eg halo or Lissajous).

    15. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ESA have already put two space observatories, the Herschel infrared telescope and the Planck cosmic microwave background telescope into the L2 location. The JWT is being launched and deployed by ESA so it's not an absolute first for them.

      ESA is paying for the launch and that entitles European scientists access to the instrument and data collected by it.

      And, were they put there using manned missions? (It's a rhetorical question)

      I was replying to his concern that the telescope is not intended to be repaired by humans. The telescope goes too far to send men there. The fact that other people sent stuff there is irrelevant. People also sent missions to Saturn, Mercury, or Pluto. Still not relevant to the situation under discussion. My point was: what's the point of making a repairable telescope, if it goes too far to send anyone there?

    16. Re:So... by careysub · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Did they double-check the mirror this time?

      The thing with the Hubble telescope mirror is that engineers at Perkin-Elmer did double-check the mirror with accurate instruments and knew that it was flawed after the figuring was complete. But refiguring it would have cost a lot of money, and delayed delivery (already late), and the improperly assembled null corrector test instrument that was used to figure the mirror was also the contractual acceptance test. So managers and execs and Perkin-Elmer decided to deliver the mirror to NASA anyway, in conformance with contract, without conveying the internal information that the mirror didn't work.

      This echos the situation with the Challenger disaster when management at Thiokol decided (after hours of complaint from a very unhappy NASA) to authorize the cold weather launch despite knowing that disaster was almost certain.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    17. Re:So... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Accounting tasks and displacing accounting clerks was one of the first big set of computing tasks.

      It made 'chartered accounting' less drab and awful, less manually added up columns. Still not 'lion taming'.

      Giving credit to accountants for the computer revolution is a stretch though. Like crediting manual loom workers for the automated textile revolution.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    18. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, personally, would put much of the blame on the management at Marshall Space Flight Center. Note that things started to go right for the Hubble after control passed to Goddard SFC. For some unfathomable reason, after the Hubble fiasco, MSFC was put in charge of the Advanced X-Ray Astrophysical Facility (later renamed to Chandra). Having learned their lesson, NASA headquarters would not fund spacecraft construction on that until the mirrors had been signed off.

      Since the Webb telescope seems too big to give to JPL, if Goddard can't make a successful mission of this then I don't think anyone else in the US can.

    19. Re:So... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      James Webb is designed as a primarily IR telescope. You don't want to park it in low orbit because it would be subject to a lot of IR interference from the planet. So they're putting it at L2, which is a long way away from the planet. Unfortunately we can only really send astronauts to low orbit to fix things. So there's not really much choice about the repairability of the JW.

  3. Re:None of this matters by sheramil · · Score: 4, Funny

    AC, why are you posting on slashdot instead of solving the problems of world hunger or global warming? Hypocrite.

  4. Why so long? by Whiteox · · Score: 1, Interesting

    20 years? That's a long time for something that has been done before. Maybe they were extra careful as the website suggests but 20 years is a bit excessive.

    --
    Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    1. Re:Why so long? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      The funding was cancelled at one point. Lots of political starts and stops.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    2. Re:Why so long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      20 years? That's a long time for something that has been done before. Maybe they were extra careful as the website suggests but 20 years is a bit excessive.

      The only way you can think that is if you're so fucking stupid that you read "space telescope" and assume that means that they are the same thing.

      What part of:

      Bigger
      Better
      Operates at completely different sensitivity range
      Operates at a completely different position
      Operates at a completely different temperature

      Do you not understand?

      Or should we have been expecting the first Bugatti Veryon, a few years after we have combustion engines going around in the first cars?

      I know that it is not fashionable to RTFL but how the fuck does anyone on this site not understand that something new has better technology and might have taken considerable time and effort to conceive?

    3. Re:Why so long? by JWW · · Score: 1

      This thing is all new technology. That's like saying that building a skyscraper takes too long because you already knew how to build a house.

      This thing is an amazing piece of technology.

    4. Re:Why so long? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Please point to where "this has been done before" - show me a functioning piece of equipment at the L2 Lagrange point with the same capabilities as this hardware.

      Oh wait, you can't, because it *hasn't* been done before.

      Stop posting when you don't have a clue.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    5. Re:Why so long? by edxwelch · · Score: 1

      It's a good question, but more importantly, if it's ready now, why wait 2 years to launch it?

    6. Re:Why so long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The mirrors are extremely well-polished beryllium because its atomic mass is like 1/8th or so of silver. The dust is toxic as fuck so it was a bitch to do. And lots of other things like this kept popping up.

      Apparently though, the JWST is supposed to make the hubble look like a shitty pair of reading glasses so I'm excited as all hell to see what it produces... and that's not even counting the huuuge boon for infrared astronomy.

  5. Re:None of this matters by prefec2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    World hunger is a distribution problem. We have enough food for everyone. Unfortunately, our economic system is not able to solve this distribution problem. Maybe we should fix it. Unfortunately, we are not going to do so, as it is not in the interest of those who have.

  6. No do not launch it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    20 years to make means it is too precious- just like buying one of those super expensive sport cars; can't drive it because can't risk an accident .

    1. Re:No do not launch it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "20 years to make means it is too precious- just like buying one of those super expensive sport cars; can't drive it because can't risk an accident." ...What _if_ one can drive it, and can risk the accident?
      Some things exist simply because we make such things just possible.

    2. Re:No do not launch it! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Never own a car 'too nice to drive' those belong in museums. If you own a car museum, you are the exception.

      Fly this thing.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  7. Please, don't let SpaceX launch it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please, don't let SpaceX launch it.

    Or at least, don't let them fuel up the tanks. NASA had that down in the sixties, and SpaceX is still figuring that one out.

    1. Re:Please, don't let SpaceX launch it. by jfdavis668 · · Score: 0

      The French are going to launch it. Seriously.

    2. Re:Please, don't let SpaceX launch it. by nojayuk · · Score: 5, Informative

      ESA is going to launch it, seriously.

      It's going up on an Ariane V launcher using a French-derived LOX/LH2 engine and Italian solid-rocket boosters with a lot of German sparkly bits to do the control.

      Saying "the French" is like saying NASA = "Floridans".

    3. Re:Please, don't let SpaceX launch it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's "Floridiots".

    4. Re:Please, don't let SpaceX launch it. by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      ESA is going to pay for the launch, French company Arianespace will provide the rocket. Of course, Arianespace has lots of subcontractors all across Europe..
      And the launch complex is on French soil.

    5. Re:Please, don't let SpaceX launch it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for the info, I was about to ask the who was going to launch it (in a significantly less snarky way than the GP)

    6. Re:Please, don't let SpaceX launch it. by meglon · · Score: 1

      I don't mind ESA launching it..... just as long as it doesn't have to land on Mars.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    7. Re:Please, don't let SpaceX launch it. by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      ESA does an OK job launching stuff. It's the landing part they seem to have some trouble with, and that's not an issue in this case.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    8. Re:Please, don't let SpaceX launch it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  8. "World's largest" by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 1

    Is this the world's largest only because all the larger ones are already in orbit, and so technically outside of this world?

    --
    My first program:

    Hell Segmentation fault

    1. Re:"World's largest" by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      Number of optical telescopes currently in orbit that have a larger mirror than JWST: 0.

    2. Re:"World's largest" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Number of optical telescopes currently in orbit that have a larger mirror than JWST: 0.

      Not counting Misty?

    3. Re:"World's largest" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you know all the secret and black project telescopes in orbit?

    4. Re:"World's largest" by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      We have no information on how large Misty's mirror is, so I'm not inclined to count it as larger than JWST.

    5. Re:"World's largest" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there were secret telescopes as huge as JWST -- a 21 foot diameter mirror!-- they would be so easy to see from the ground that everybody would know where they were. (Earth observation telescopes are in low orbits, of course-- it's easiest to get high resolution by getting close.)

    6. Re:"World's largest" by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Secret telescopes tend to be military satellites in low earth orbit. To get militarily useful details, they have to be fairly large (Rayleigh Criterion). They are large enough that they can be (and are) tracked by amateur astronomers. Tracking launches is also a popular amateur activity.

      I suppose it's possible to use stealth technology on a satellite, and satellites do get lost occasionally. It just doesn't seen likely that they'd go to the trouble because everyone knows there are surveillance satellites.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  9. so point it at the moon landing sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The telescope would be able to see a bumblebee a moon's distance away..."
    So point it (or one of our much bigger ground based telescopes) at the moon.
    Show us the junk left at the moon landing sites as thats clearly much bigger than an insect.

    1. Re:so point it at the moon landing sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That'd probably burn out the image sensors.

    2. Re: so point it at the moon landing sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not suggesting the moon landings were faked are you, silly a/c?

    3. Re:so point it at the moon landing sites by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      We already have retroreflectors installed by the astronauts at their landing sites that you can bounce a laser of sufficient power off of.

      The only people that don't think Apollo landed on the moon, are idiots that refuse to look at the overwhelming evidence, combined with the fact that no government project to fake something like that could have ever existed in secret for the last 45 years; and the "other team" in the Space Race would have loved to discredit the moon landings with any tracking data they undoubtedly had.

      Honestly, it would be easier to just go to the moon than to fake it, even in 1969.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    4. Re:so point it at the moon landing sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We already have retroreflectors installed by the astronauts at their landing sites that you can bounce a laser of sufficient power off of.

      We also have retroreflectors that installed by unmanned landings.

    5. Re:so point it at the moon landing sites by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1
      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    6. Re:so point it at the moon landing sites by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because a Three Stooges film exactly replicates the necessary physics and detail of a moon landing hoax.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  10. 8 billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    would have paid for the development of SpaceX's heavy lift rocket and several (cheaper and far heavier) single-piece mirror telescopes.

    Suspect the JST will be obsolete within a decade.

    1. Re:8 billion by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 1

      That would be a good idea, given SpaceX still immature technology, if you could build the satellites for cheap and turn them out in a year or less, you can afford the higher failure rate of launches, since you could get another one up quickly should one fail.

    2. Re:8 billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Suspect the JST will be obsolete within a decade.

      And you're probably right; the various sensors used on the telescope are probably already obsolete by several years. It takes a long time to harden the electronics and prep these satellites and they strive for a 0% failure rate on a production run of 1, because it's slightly bothersome to send a technician up to R&R parts. ;)

    3. Re:8 billion by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Good luck launching a single piece mirror that big.

    4. Re: 8 billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is an 18 piece mirror. And it folds up. Did you read nothing before commenting?

  11. Re:None of this matters by peragrin · · Score: 0, Troll

    you seem to think you can negoatie with trump. once he undoes NATO, wipes out the debt by canceling Social security and medicare, you might want to think about just how he will deport 12 million immigrants quickly. to house them he will have to build camps. once in camps they will be there for a couple of years to fly them all home(70% of immigrants fly here as they live overseas)camps like that are expensive to run $hundreds of dollars per day per person. So he will be a businessman and force them to work for cheap. probably making his cheap suits.

    Hillary will be impeached in a year and kaine will be our president.

    That I can live with, Trump I can not.

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  12. Solar powered? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Im curious, how does the craft obtain power with its solar pannels? Being in the L2, it will be in earths shadow...

    1. Re:Solar powered? by careysub · · Score: 2

      Im curious, how does the craft obtain power with its solar pannels? Being in the L2, it will be in earths shadow...

      It is not in L2. It orbits it with a 250,000 mile radius orbit, and thus never gets close to the Earth's shadow.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    2. Re:Solar powered? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      It is not in L2. It orbits it with a 250,000 mile radius orbit, and thus never gets close to the Earth's shadow.

      So then the earth does not shield it from the sun's infrared emissions, contrary to what the summary says. Or am I missing something?

    3. Re: Solar powered? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're correct, the summary is wrong. The sunshield is what shades the telescope from the Sun. It orbits L2 to keep it out of the Earth's shadow to prevent eclipses.

  13. Hopefully will launch on Atlas or Delta by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Hopefully they will not launch on SpaceX, I'd hate to have to wait another 20 years for the replacement.

    The Atlas V and Delta IV are expensive but extremely reliable. Really they serve a different market from SpaceX, at least for now. SpaceX is good for easily replaceable mass produced commodity satellites where you can afford to lose a few and a backup can be available in months, while Delta/Atlas still best for extremely expensive one off satellites. The Delta IV was the only rocket we had that was tried and true and made of all american parts. While I want SpaceX to succeed, ULA eliminating the Delta IV seems to be a bit premature.

    1. Re:Hopefully will launch on Atlas or Delta by laughing_badger · · Score: 1

      A rebuild to the same design would be much, much quicker. There are likely 'flight-spare' versions of most of the instruments sitting in clean rooms right now actually.

      --
      Help children born unable to swallow - www.tofs.org.uk
    2. Re:Hopefully will launch on Atlas or Delta by necro81 · · Score: 5, Informative

      JWST will launch on an Arianne V rocket. That is one of ESA's contributions to the program.

      And even if it were to be launched on a "domestic" rocket, it is far, far too late in the program to launch on SpaceX. The choice of launcher gets decided very early on in a program, because the size of the rocket (payload capacity, payload fairing size, flight characteristics, etc.) has to be accounted for during the design of the telescope. By the time they are assembling the telescope, it would be very, very difficult and expensive to switch to a different launcher.

    3. Re:Hopefully will launch on Atlas or Delta by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      The very reason for the Ariane launch is probably the fact that the DH hasn't been sufficiently tested yet.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Hopefully will launch on Atlas or Delta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to be more specific:
      I know many programs that have requirements to be compatible with several launchers. The final launcher gets decided later, and then an adapter is created for this specific launcher. I don't expect adapters to be orders of magnitude more expensive for one launcher compared to another, but it certainly takes time to build and qualify, which is why the earlier the better.

    5. Re:Hopefully will launch on Atlas or Delta by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      Also, ESA has put a few things at L2 already. Experience counts.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    6. Re:Hopefully will launch on Atlas or Delta by CBM · · Score: 1

      I know many programs that have requirements to be compatible with several launchers.

      That may be true for programs that support many launches (like NavStar = GPS). But one-of-a-kind spacecraft are typically designed for a specific launch vehicle. It's not just the adapter ring, but the fairing envelope and launch vibration loads. Designing for the worst case of all launch vehicles to be compatible with all of them, means the program has to accept serious design compromises. It also means additional cost to verify the design is compatible with all interfaces and complies with the worst case loads. That makes sense if you're doing cookie-cutter spacecraft vehicles, but not one-offs.

  14. rip van winkle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we've got rovers taking selfies on the red planet and imaging from the crashed ESA Mars lander taken by NASA's orbiter, and you're still considering the comparatively primitive hop to Luna something implausible? those pics already exist numbnuts. try searching for them.

  15. Re:None of this matters by idji · · Score: 1

    Astronomers created wifi. Get off the internet please. And don't even think of using GPS or checking the weather report tomorrow. and do not watch that sports game on television. And don't get an xray, because astrotechnology might have been used to diagnose your xrays.

  16. Pointless by Muntzsky · · Score: 2

    "The telescope would be able to see a bumblebee a moon's distance away..."

    If only there were bumblebees in space.

    1. Re:Pointless by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      If only there were bumblebees in space.

      Well, this should FINALLY let us settle that contentious question!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Pointless by Black.Shuck · · Score: 1

      If only there were bumblebees in space.

      There are! Where do you think Earth is?

  17. Re: None of this matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    #DarkMatterMatters

  18. Don't waste more money launching this pork barrel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give it to the army to use for target practice instead....

  19. thank you by GeogPlac · · Score: 1

    wonderful

    --
    geography and places
  20. the James Woods telescope by dywolf · · Score: 1

    now there's an idea

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    1. Re:the James Woods telescope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given his role in Contact, the James Woods telescope should probably be a large radio telescope array.

  21. Re:None of this matters by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    You Greens are now faced with a dilemma. To stop a space telescope, you will have to put on space suits and get into orbit, rather than just showing up in Hawaii and piling rocks on a road. Your dilemma is that doing so will go against everything you people stand for. As an ultimate humiliation, the Russians will probably insist on vaccinations before you get to go to their spaceport and ride in their vehicle.

  22. Re:None of this matters by MightyYar · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Yeah, learning sucks! Fuck the elite learned fat-cats! When has science ever benefited society?

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  23. Re:None of this matters by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 0

    "Well yeah, if you consider Anthony Weiner's impending tragic suicide - where he ties himself to a chair, then jumps out the 20th floor window, twice! - as "help"."

    No, he will overdose on Viagra, causing his "brain" to explode on camera.

  24. What a waste of money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This seems like a lot money to spend to build a telescope to look for bumblebees on the moon. I'm pretty sure there are none.

    1. Re:What a waste of money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "pretty sure" just doesn't cut it in science.

  25. Robin Williams in "World's Greatest Dad" by Thud457 · · Score: 0

    Pretty sure Anthony Weiner is going to have an autoerotic asphyxiation session that goes tragically wrong.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:Robin Williams in "World's Greatest Dad" by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      We should start a betting pool on the variety of items that will be found up his butt.

      Anybody know Hillary's shoe size?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  26. Re: "She will not start a war" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "She will not start a war" - Well, she will almost certainly start a U.S. military campaign in Syria. I would also guess she starts at least as many wars, or military campaigns, as the Obama administration, so probably another couple or more, depends on how you count. I really hope one of those wars isn't against Russia, that could be quite unpleasant.

    As for Trump - who knows what he's going to do? His rhetoric is full of bombast, bu it's also fickle and inconsistent. And if he draws on his experience as a businessperson, he might well prove less bellicose than a Clinton administration. If he somehow pulls out of NATO, that will be a positive development in my opinion, certainly for Eastern Europe and the Middle East. And think what could happen if he halts the "pivot to Asia" and the confrontational attitude towards China? ... Ok, I know that all that put together is not very likely - I don't think the US ruling class will actually allow anybody to have that kind of poiicy and he would be impeached or something - but still. I'm liking the odds of a Trump upset of Clinton.

    PS - They're both horrible and the elections are a sham anyway.

  27. Fix your keyboard. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There appears To Be a shift Key that Randomly Capitalizes words As you Type.

  28. Re:Don't waste more money launching this pork barr by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    Yeah, because shooting it with rifles would definitely not be "wasting money" at all.

    It's already built. The launch costs are insignificant in comparison to what has already been spent. Shoot it up there, and let's learn something, rather than yelling YEEEEEE HAWWWWW and emptying a magazine from a rifle into what might be the world's most precision optical instrumentation.

    Just when I thought I've read the most moronic post possible, AC steps up again.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  29. Could see bumblebee on the moon by doug141 · · Score: 1

    According to the project member interviewed on the news.

  30. Re: None of this matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The James Webb hasn't been launched yet. The site is Guiana but I'm uncertain if it has been delivered yet.

  31. Re:None of this matters by ChrisMaple · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately, our economic system is not able to solve this distribution problem.

    Gee, our sanitation system can't solve the problem either. Nor the hospital system.. Let's blame them.
    It's a the political system within starving countries that is the problem, not the economic system here.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  32. Re:None of this matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't help. 5k+ year technology advantage. It was over before it started.

  33. The Very First Image from the Edge of the Universe by Laxator2 · · Score: 1

    ... will be that of a book floating in space.

    It has the title:

    "Postcards from the edge"

  34. 'tis a far far better use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A far far better use of technological talent than sending nut cases to Mars.

  35. If it took 20 years, I hope they built 2 or 3 by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    of them, to account for the rather high probability of launch failure.

    With an engineering project that long, 3 copies should have cost pretty close to the cost of one of them, since the whole project was probabl 90% labour costs.

    I for one would be right pissed if my 20 years of work went kaboom because of a helium fuelling mishap.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re: If it took 20 years, I hope they built 2 or 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm nobody uses helium for fuel

    2. Re: If it took 20 years, I hope they built 2 or 3 by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

      Ummm a helium "fuelling" leak in the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket most likely caused the latest launchpad "mishap".

      There's a compressed helium tank inside the LOX tank. Not sure but my guess is the helium is let out to maintain pressure in the LOX tank as the oxygen is used up in combustion.

      --

      Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    3. Re:If it took 20 years, I hope they built 2 or 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As that old guy from the movie "Contact" said: "Why build one when you can build two at twice the price"...

      I hope so too

  36. Measurements by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    "see a bumblebee a moon's distance away"

    I of course welcome our moon measuring bumblebee overlords...

    Seriously I guess we can get rid of LoC and other forms of measurement including football fields and metric in favor of measuring all lengths of things in terms of moon distances, and volume in terms of bumblebees.

    Seems legit.

  37. Re: None of this matters by sysrammer · · Score: 1

    ...Hunger is a Political Greed issue and Socialist use it to exploit the weak, elderly, and poor.

    As compared to TRAP (The Rich and Powerful), who would never do that. The poor are screwed: news at 11.

    --
    His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  38. Re:None of this matters by sysrammer · · Score: 1

    If the native population of North America had had a strict immigration policy, that would have saved them a lot of trouble...

    I'm not sure why you are modded troll. This should be modded insightful, if not informative.

    --
    His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  39. Re:None of this matters by prefec2 · · Score: 0

    Do you really not know what an economic system is? Here is a hint from wikipedia "An economy (From Greek – "household" and o – "manage") is an area of the production, distribution, or trade, and consumption of goods and services by different agents in a given geographical location." Agents are people and organizations. The sole purpose of it is to support people with the necessities of live. If everyone would have already everything they need, there would be no need for an economy. Therefore, if there are people lacking stuff they need, then it is the fault of the economy. By our economic system, I meant the economic system on this planet not just the USA (which is just one country. There are others, you know). Yes economics get influenced by politics. As politics are there to make the rules, this is not that strange isn't it. In some areas of the globe politics is not working in favor of the people there. True, not every bad thing on the world is the fault of the US or the EU, but they are both big in supporting not so democratic regimes and pressure other countries. For example, the EU makes Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) which ease access to the African market. Too bad EU agricultural commodities are highly subsidized (just like in the US) and therefore the Africans cannot compete. So yes we are responsible for there problems, at least in parts. In case you need an US example, have a look at the corn price, the effects it has on Mexican society and how making fuel from corn hurt Mexicans. Or google food trading in general.

  40. Maybe it can find... by judoguy · · Score: 1

    Hillary's emails. Or perhaps if used close up, her ethical sense.

    --
    Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
  41. Re:Don't waste more money launching this pork barr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of my Olympus Mons-sized mountain of criticism i have for Obama, I absolutely applauded him - and still do - for pushing to keep funding the JWST to its completion. He could have been a dick, but he didn't do it. Good stuff. And here's a non-sarcastic THANKS OBAMA!

  42. Earth men go home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Earth-Sun L2 is the most sacred land of my people. You must not build there unless you give us a big bribe first.

  43. Re:None of this matters by abmw · · Score: 1

    SAme old tired saw since the 1950'sand 60's space programs, except then....we didnt know if it was really worth it in the long run. But now we do know, we know that the advancements in basic and applied sciences have been more than worth times 25 or 100 or 1000 even 10,0000 the cost of the actual mission. And the advancements to industry, medicine, and knowledge in general plus the spark lit in the imaginations of many young people of all social strata, has been truly one of the few things we can point to and say "it was worth it then, and it is worth it NOW". And we can do both things.