James Webb Telescope sig

[jhatty8 663]

 

For those who don't know, NASA launched a powerful space telescope last year to try and discover more about our universe. The first pictures are coming back and they look pretty beautiful, so I decided to see how one would fare as a sig stock.

 

This is the picture I used (the first one released in fact) and this page has more of them if you want to try your hand or just see some cool space pics

Spoiler

 

Edited July 12, 2022 by jhatty8

[Lemorse7 965]

how are you so good 

[Gustav 6,322]

8 hours ago, jhatty8 said:

This is the picture I used (the first one released in fact) and this page has more of them if you want to try your hand or just see some cool space pics

 

Something that I thought was really cool from that page is that the telescope was first envisioned in the '80s and construction started in 2004. Goes to show just how much work is needed for that kind of thing!

[Berocka 2,256]

Hey that's me

[Daniel Janser 2,111]

5 hours ago, Gustav said:

 

Something that I thought was really cool from that page is that the telescope was first envisioned in the '80s and construction started in 2004. Goes to show just how much work is needed for that kind of thing!

or how efficient the goverment is in getting something launched, which does not necessarily push their agenda? Not saying that there is not a lot of engineering going in such a project but 20+ years to even start? 

[Gustav 6,322]

4 hours ago, Daniel Janser said:

or how efficient the goverment is in getting something launched, which does not necessarily push their agenda? Not saying that there is not a lot of engineering going in such a project but 20+ years to even start? 

20+ years between first idea and construction isn’t THAT far out imo. The design process for it must have taken forever (not to mention working out the logistics of launching it, calculating where exactly to put it, figuring out how to do that, and so on). Then you have to have every single part of it specifically designed and built for it. I know someone who works on valves for spacecraft—that’s it, just the valves—and those by themselves can cost millions and take years on end to get right. 
 

I’m not saying there wasn’t some level of “we have no funding”, but it also wouldn’t surprise me if the project actually took that long to complete. 

[Daniel Janser 2,111]

7 minutes ago, Gustav said:

20+ years between first idea and construction isn’t THAT far out imo. The design process for it must have taken forever (not to mention working out the logistics of launching it, calculating where exactly to put it, figuring out how to do that, and so on). Then you have to have every single part of it specifically designed and built for it. I know someone who works on valves for spacecraft—that’s it, just the valves—and those by themselves can cost millions and take years on end to get right. 
 

I’m not saying there wasn’t some level of “we have no funding”, but it also wouldn’t surprise me if the project actually took that long to complete. 

you know they built the Eiffel Tower in around two years after having spent 2.5 years to make the blue prints... 130+ years ago, and the bloody thing still stands and is 1100ft tall... I just expected to be faster with all the modern means we have compared to the people still deep in the steam age... but I am by no means an engineer so maybe I just have too high expectations...

[Gustav 6,322]

3 hours ago, Daniel Janser said:

you know they built the Eiffel Tower in around two years after having spent 2.5 years to make the blue prints... 130+ years ago, and the bloody thing still stands and is 1100ft tall... I just expected to be faster with all the modern means we have compared to the people still deep in the steam age... but I am by no means an engineer so maybe I just have too high expectations...

For sure—I absolutely don’t have enough experience to know whether that’s longer than expected either. What I do know is that the engineering process takes far longer than people think. I don’t even begin to understand what had to be done to make the telescope, but I also feel like it’s completely believable that it’s been (more or less) consistently worked on for 30+ years. 
 

Another number that was put out there was that it took over 40 million hours of work, which is independent of the length of time on the calendar. I don’t know how many people worked on it, and my brain is somewhat fried at work so I don’t want to do the math, but between everyone that’s over a million full-time work weeks in the USA. 

[Hybrid1486 577]

On 7/13/2022 at 7:44 AM, Daniel Janser said:

you know they built the Eiffel Tower in around two years after having spent 2.5 years to make the blue prints... 130+ years ago, and the bloody thing still stands and is 1100ft tall... I just expected to be faster with all the modern means we have compared to the people still deep in the steam age... but I am by no means an engineer so maybe I just have too high expectations...

You need to scale the function of the object along with the technology. The Eiffel Tower is a major engineering feat for sure, but it's a tower.

[Daniel Janser 2,111]

7 minutes ago, Hybrid1486 said:

You need to scale the function of the object along with the technology. The Eiffel Tower is a major engineering feat for sure, but it's a tower.

which means it is significantly bigger and needs to be well thought of in order to not kill someone... what is the worst that could happen if the telescope malfunctions? a lot of money wasted for sure, but it does not throw our knowledge back or is about to kill anyone... Gazillions of people have mounted the Eiffeltower and came back hale again (I am sure there was the occasional suicide or accident).

 

Btw a telescope is not so complicated either if you want to reduce objects to their purpose, you extend the, look through it, adjust the lense to get a focus and collapse it again, no big deal

[Hybrid1486 577]

58 minutes ago, Daniel Janser said:

which means it is significantly bigger and needs to be well thought of in order to not kill someone... what is the worst that could happen if the telescope malfunctions? a lot of money wasted for sure, but it does not throw our knowledge back or is about to kill anyone... Gazillions of people have mounted the Eiffeltower and came back hale again (I am sure there was the occasional suicide or accident).

 

Btw a telescope is not so complicated either if you want to reduce objects to their purpose, you extend the, look through it, adjust the lense to get a focus and collapse it again, no big deal

I was about to start typing up a whole response to the ways that the Eiffel Tower and JWST require different prep work and structural engineering and maintenance and the like, but I just don't feel like it. All I can say is that if you think a tower on Earth and a telescope (which is really like 1000x more complex than a normal telescope) getting shot into space are on the same level of engineering, then good luck to you in your future endeavors.

[Daniel Janser 2,111]

30 minutes ago, Hybrid1486 said:

I was about to start typing up a whole response to the ways that the Eiffel Tower and JWST require different prep work and structural engineering and maintenance and the like, but I just don't feel like it. All I can say is that if you think a tower on Earth and a telescope (which is really like 1000x more complex than a normal telescope) getting shot into space are on the same level of engineering, then good luck to you in your future endeavors.

I am not saying that. All I am saying is that I expected to not have to tinker for 20+ years on a telescope almost 140 years after the Eiffeltower has been built especially since science/engineering has developed exponentially. I mean we shot telescopes into space before (Hubble and Spitzer for example) so I take it we do not need to re-invent the wheel here.

[jhatty8 663]

29 minutes ago, Daniel Janser said:

I am not saying that. All I am saying is that I expected to not have to tinker for 20+ years on a telescope almost 140 years after the Eiffeltower has been built especially since science/engineering has developed exponentially. I mean we shot telescopes into space before (Hubble and Spitzer for example) so I take it we do not need to re-invent the wheel here.

 

You seem to be saying this based on your preconceived notions of how a normal telescope works and not the most powerful space telescope created in mankind. I don't know what goes into creating something like that as I'm not a NASA engineer, and (presumably) neither are you. So where exactly does this take come from? I don't get it.

[Hybrid1486 577]

1 hour ago, Daniel Janser said:

I am not saying that. All I am saying is that I expected to not have to tinker for 20+ years on a telescope almost 140 years after the Eiffeltower has been built especially since science/engineering has developed exponentially. I mean we shot telescopes into space before (Hubble and Spitzer for example) so I take it we do not need to re-invent the wheel here.

https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/compare-photos-nasas-james-webb-space-telescope-hubble-space-telescope-rcna37875

[Daniel Janser 2,111]

1 hour ago, jhatty8 said:

 

You seem to be saying this based on your preconceived notions of how a normal telescope works and not the most powerful space telescope created in mankind. I don't know what goes into creating something like that as I'm not a NASA engineer, and (presumably) neither are you. So where exactly does this take come from? I don't get it.

I think all this knowledge time, effort and money could be spent on more pressing issues. We have not even grasped how our planet to which we are tied for the moment works and yet we try to figure out what happens in a galaxy far, far away. Everything we can see on these pictures, beautiful as they are, has happened thousands and millions of years ago.

 

So even if the excessive amount of time spent of this project was in scale with its complexity (which I am not a hundred percent convinced as it was state run), I think it was spent on the wrong spot. All this know how, manpower and ressources could have been spent on solving acute problems we have now on this planet and which threatens our very existence.

[jhatty8 663]

9 hours ago, Daniel Janser said:

I think all this knowledge time, effort and money could be spent on more pressing issues. We have not even grasped how our planet to which we are tied for the moment works and yet we try to figure out what happens in a galaxy far, far away. Everything we can see on these pictures, beautiful as they are, has happened thousands and millions of years ago.

 

So even if the excessive amount of time spent of this project was in scale with its complexity (which I am not a hundred percent convinced as it was state run), I think it was spent on the wrong spot. All this know how, manpower and ressources could have been spent on solving acute problems we have now on this planet and which threatens our very existence.

 

See, that's a bit different from "telescope take too long". I can see what you're saying here, but at the same time, I'm not sure if it'd change things in the way you're imagining. The people who worked on the Webb are NASA engineers and wouldn't be very effective in terms of manpower. As for the money...well I don't think world leaders are capable of solving important issues with any sum of money.

Edited July 15, 2022 by jhatty8