The James Webb Space Telescope Arrives At Its Final Orbit (engadget.com) 98
NASA has confirmed that the James Webb Space Telescope has successfully entered its final orbit around the second Sun-Earth Lagrange point after one last course correction burn. Engadget reports: The telescope's primary mirror segments and secondary mirror have already been deployed, but you'll have to wait until the summer for the first imagery. NASA will spend the next several months readying the JWST for service, including a three-month optics alignment process. The L2 orbit is crucial to the telescope's mission. It provides a largely unobstructed view of space while giving the spacecraft a cold, interference-free position that helps its instruments live up to their full potential. The JWST is expected to study the early Universe using infrared light, providing data that wouldn't be available from an Earth orbit telescope like Hubble.
Re: James Webb Space Telescope (Score:5, Insightful)
I had no idea there was such a controversy about the name of the space telescope. I found some background information here: James Webb Space Telescope NASA controversy [theatlantic.com]
I look at this in the context of what was happening 60 years ago. Civil rights, the red scare, sexual orientation, war in SE Asia, Kennedy assassination, and the space race were all in the news at the time. Blaming James Webb for not actively acting against official government policy at the time seems to be assigning blame where he had no control of the policy. It would be like blaming Winston Churchill for Alan Turnings arrest.
Trying to assign blame for past events based on contemporary standards is tricky. For all me know, James Webb might have been a closet gay, bi-, or a cross dresser. He certainly wouldn't have let it be known in public. That was just the environment back then. For some historical context, here is some background on J. Edgar Hoover, the Lavender Scare, and Abraham Lincoln.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Do your own research and come to your own conclusions. Just remember to keep it all in historical context.
--
Re: (Score:3)
I had no idea there was such a controversy about the name of the space telescope
There was occasional mention of it in the months leading up to the launch, but not anywhere near as much outcry as we've been hearing over other things in recent years.
Trying to assign blame for past events based on contemporary standards is tricky.
Yes, very tricky. You can err in both directions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
--L.P. Hartley
Re: James Webb Space Telescope (Score:5, Informative)
Your link is paywalled. Use this one instead:
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/30... [npr.org]
And guess what? The name controversy is being fanned by one Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, who despite education as a cosmologist has wasted her whole career trying to ddestroy her own field in the name of peripheral issues of identity politics. You can safely take note of whatever this crazy chick recommends, and then do the opposite.
Re: James Webb Space Telescope (Score:5, Informative)
Your other claim isn't any better. The Undersecretary implements the directives the Secretary orders. On what basis are you attributing him as an initiator of the policy? Probably the same basis where you're attributing everything from the Lavender scare to Webb personally. Giving your intellectual dishonest on the other claim, I'll leave showing why your other claim is also dishonest as an exercise for others.
tl;dr You're full of shit and absolutely trying to pin government policy on Webb by lying about his words and actions. Trying to say Webb personally made every statement everyone in NASA made to Senate's gay persecution committee shows your complete lack of integrity, and how far people like you are willing to reach to distort history to declare every white male someone who should be canceled entirely and banished from public recognition. Between people like you on the left and the right, I fear for our continued ability to accurately discuss history.
Re: (Score:2)
My bad, the claim has been retracted and I apologize to Mr Webb.
No need to be a dick about it though. I know it's tempting to go in hard on Slashdot, but a bit of benefit of the doubt would go a long way around here.
Re: (Score:3)
He wasn't just implementing policy, he actually made the policy when he was Undersecretary of State during the McCarthy era. He also made statements like this:
"It is generally believed that those who engage in overt acts of perversion lack the emotional stability of normal persons."
Yes, and we've largely grown beyond that.
The demands to apply 21st century mores to the entirety of human history is a fine thing if one wants to have permanent victims, and to deconstruct history, especially applied to major figures.
As a person who supports LGBT rights - but don't think I won't call people out when I'm sure they are wrong - this pointless crapping over people in the past is not helping the cause. It's just compiling an enemies list to erase.
If they named the telescope the J. Edgar H
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
This is just an excuse, however. The real reason gays/lesbians were excluded from government service, especially in sensitive areas, was that being homosexual made you vulnerable to extortion. If the russians find out you're gay, (and they would have agents at all the gay bars), they would threaten to tell everyone your secret, ruining your life.
Pretty fucked up, but at leas
Re: (Score:2)
"It is generally believed that generalizations are softball positions that may perhaps possibly be hypothetical."
Re: James Webb Space Telescope (Score:5, Insightful)
I had no idea there was such a controversy about the name of the space telescope.
You should probably have expected it, however. You are correct that it was a different time, with different mores.
The woke of today have a serious flaw. They live in the past. Rather than seeing the strides that have been made, they claim permanent victimhood. That Thomas Jefferson had slaves is true. But we fought a war to end that shit.
They are also practicing the art of being offended for others.
It's the difference between using the horrible treatment of Alan Turing as a cautionary tale on several levels, and using it as a condemnation of all men today.
Blaming James Webb for not actively acting against official government policy at the time seems to be assigning blame where he had no control of the policy. It would be like blaming Winston Churchill for Alan Turnings arrest.
Yet that sort of thing is done every day.
Trying to assign blame for past events based on contemporary standards is tricky. For all me know, James Webb might have been a closet gay, bi-, or a cross dresser. He certainly wouldn't have let it be known in public.
He might have been. As a person who exists now, I don't care how he wanted to dress, or ho he wanted to stick his weiner into, as long as it wasn't kids or animals.
Do your own research and come to your own conclusions. Just remember to keep it all in historical context.
But the woke won't. They'll simply come across some random remark or event, then demand that the person be erased. It's filtering through their narrative.
Humans are flawed creatures, and crapping all over any and all people who don't blindly accept that narrative won't change them.
Since we're on the astronomy subject, A friend who's a bit of a male feminist posted on how Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin is somehow being ignored, and not getting the attention she justly deserves.
I just had to reply that if a person is at all interested in Astronomy, Ms Payne-Gaposchkin is not only well known, but a real luminary in the astronomy world. Hers was the seminal investigation showing that Hydrogen and Helium were the dominant elements in the Universe.
I then went down a listing of the women astronomers who they would know if they paid attention to the field. My friend thought it over, and thanked me. He was at least prepared to have his narrative changed a little.
Rather than celebrate the women who have contributed to the field, they try to make them victims. Sorry for the Ranker page cite, but there is a listing there https://www.ranker.com/list/fa... [ranker.com].
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Until or unless the 13th amendment is repealed and no similar abomination replaces it, "that shit" has not ended:
The problem, bad enough as it is, is exacerbated by a large number of cruel and unreasonable laws that provide
Re: James Webb Space Telescope (Score:4, Insightful)
Until or unless the 13th amendment is repealed and no similar abomination replaces it, "that shit" has not ended:
Is your metric that all cruelty must be eradicated, or else we'll just... Do what?
Yes. There are people out there who hate (fill in the blank) And not everything is fair. And we have to work to eliminate unfairness. Did you know that whoever you are, someone hates you based on your skin color or genitals?
What's your solution? I*s it to remove the founding fathers from the history books, then say "The people who founded America were all racist and sexist White men, so we must replace them". and crush racism, and sexism by crushing the enemy!"
The time honored mistake of making perfect the deadly enemy of good and progress.
That simply never works because humans are imperfect creatures, and we cannot control them. We strive to make things better We do not live in the past, dredging up old cruelties as a tool of outrage. We use them as teaching moments to show people that we have moved on from them, and continue to try to improve It is the only thing that actually works. The problem with victims is that too many of them cannot lose their attachment to the idea that they cannot ever be at fault.
My favorite part of all this is that while I believe that there should be no racial discrimination - as race is the ultimate social construct - and fully support LGBTQ rights, there are many out there who have already decided what I am by the color of my skin, the fact that I have a penis, and my being over 60. The perennial victims pre-judge me as a racist, sexist, homophobic, old "White Dude"
In fact, many have reached the point of becoming their own enemy, having a pre-judged notion of a person by skin color, sex, and age. Yeah - let us know how that works out for y'all
Re: (Score:2)
It's dead simple: slavery is unacceptable. Period. There's no excuse that doesn't absolutely reek of evil. None. Zero. Incarceration can be necessary at times; slavery, on the other hand, is never necessary or acceptable. None of what you went on about there has any weight whatsoever WRT making slavery acceptable. Nor does working to remediate these other social ills mean that we should not also abandon slavery.
Re: (Score:3)
It's dead simple: slavery is unacceptable. Period. There's no excuse that doesn't absolutely reek of evil. None. Zero.
Of course it isn't. Never was, never will be. Humans should not own other humans.
But that fact does not make me responsible for the American slavery times. Despite my white skin color, and my being male. The reason? My Grandparents arrived in the USA right after WW1, were displaced by the war, and were Hungarian and Italian.
You can decide if making me guilty of that based upon my skin color is inclusive or not. Seems a bit of a guilty by race verdict to me.
Incarceration can be necessary at times; slavery, on the other hand, is never necessary or acceptable.
You're preaching to the choir there homie.
None of what you went on about there has any weight whatsoever WRT making slavery acceptable. Nor does working to remediate these other social ills mean that we should not also abandon slavery.
Is
Re: (Score:2)
Nor did I say it did. Or imply it. The constitution's 13th amendment, however, is responsible for the fact that we still have government-sponsored slavery.
No. That's what I got from you trying to counter my post. My original response was intended to point out that we have not, in fact, ended slavery. Remember this?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, Winston Churchill could have stepped in and prevented Alan Turing from being arrested, charged, prosecuted, or punished. If James Webb had done anything less than subtle he would have just been replaced.
But really, if you want to take the puritanical path, anybody who worked for any organization, or voted for anyone who instituted or failed to remove such policies is complicit. Old people suck.*
* If you're not old yet, you will be soon, historically speaking.
Re: (Score:2)
Winston Churchill could have stepped in and prevented Alan Turing from being arrested, charged, prosecuted, or punished.
Most likely he could not.
Churchill was prime minister not High Judge of the High Court.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be surprised to learn that the UK government has no ability to protect certain people from arrest, particularly not a few years after a massive war. The time for intervention would have been before the case got to court.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not how a 3 ways divided system works:
Judicative
Jurisdictive
Executive
You might want to read that up.
In a modern state, and that time UK already was a modern state: the government has not to say much. And it most certainly has no control over judges and legal procedures.
Re: (Score:2)
You may wish to google "executive clemency" for just the most obvious counter example to your assertion. And perhaps not be such a dick.
Re: (Score:2)
And you might check again in which country Turing lived ... hint: it was not the USA.
Re: (Score:3)
I kind of agree. The attitudes back then were very different, and not just by being deliberately sexist or homophobic. Even in the 80s in college, when the cold war was very chill, you still wanted to be considered for defense or government jobs after graduation, or even some basic science work that might require a security clearance. However, that meant keeping a somewhat clean nose and not jeopardize your chances during a later background check. The prominent thing I remember was people staying away fro
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, yet useless for the purpose of JWTS. A rose by another name ...
The historicity of Edwin Hubble does not affect the efficacy of the scope.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Remove the fucking homoprobe before the mission proper begins.
No, No, put it back in, you tease!!!
Re: (Score:1)
Remove the fucking homoprobe before the mission proper begins.
No, No, put it back in, you tease!!!
That joke so gay, but funny.
I hope I offended someone.
Re: (Score:2)
omg - so many humor impaired people nowadays.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:space exploration (Score:4)
No, it's more like someone in 1450 saying it would be better to explore the world with unmanned ships.
But no one did, because Leonardo wasn't born until 1452.
I mean really (Score:4, Funny)
Slashdot was started not long after the JWST. Who here ever thought they'd actually see this day arrive???
How does the orbit work? (Score:1)
Re:How does the orbit work? (Score:5, Informative)
With the exception of L1, which most people could grasp pretty readily as being the balance point between two massive bodies, the other Lagrange points exist because the whole multi-body setup is rotating. That is: L2-L5 for the Sun-Earth system are stable points that are more-or-less fixed w.r.t. the Earth, but the Earth is itself orbiting the sun. That rotation introduces additional forces.
The other thing to note is that the stability of the Lagrange points depends on the whole three-body setup being fairly orderly. That is: you want the primary body to be overwhelmingly more massive than the second body, which is itself much more massive than the third body in the Lagrange point. The stability also depends on there not being many other perturbations, like from other gravitating bodies.
Re:How does the orbit work? (Score:5, Informative)
First, don't think of "orbit" in the usual sense. Normally, orbit is used to describe body 1 going in a circle(-ish) around body 2. That's not the case here.
JWST is at the L2 Lagrange point. Technically speaking, it is in an orbit around the Sun... but at a million miles further out than the Earth, it should have a different orbital period. However, the L2 point is a spot where the gravity of the Earth (trying to pull it in a long orbit around the Earth) and the gravity of the Sun line up, so the L2 point moves around the Sun at the same (angular) speed as the Earth. So JWST will always be (nearly) at the point opposite the Sun, getting a nice big amount of shade from the Earth.
But... it's then more complicated. The L2 point is not a stable point (because we're not talking about uniform spherical cows in a vacuum). You can't just park something at L2 and have it stay - it'll gradually drift off, so it takes constant energy (read: thrusters) to stay there. However, it turns out you can go to the area near L2 and effectively "orbit" around the L2 point for very little energy (read: much less thruster use).
It's not an orbit in the traditional sense of one body going around another, but it's kind of like an orbit in that JWST will be going around a particular point in space for as long as it has thruster fuel (which could be close to 20 years, since everything worked nearly perfect during launch and the trip).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The JWST is in an orbit such that the sun is NEVER eclipsed by the earth. This is required for thermal stability and power generation. See the post titled 'Webbs journey to L2 is nearly complete'. https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/ [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
It is to far away to be in "constant shadow" anyway.
Who ever saw a lunar eclipse knows that. The sun is just to big. It shines left and right around the earth into L2.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rephrase that slightly, and say that it takes "continual adjustment" (using thrusters) to stay there. "Constant" suggests that there's always a rocket firing, which is not the case. You'll do just fine with small corrections applied every couple of weeks. What you're doing is maintaining a balance by small nudges, rather than continually "pushing uphill"
Re: (Score:3)
You are correct that parking any satellite in the L2 would require almost continuous adjustment via power burns.
The JWST doesn't much care about tiny wobbles at L2. It's in orbit around L2 and fluctuations will be minimal.
NOTE: I find it ironic that we are reintroducing Ptolemy's epicycles.
Re: (Score:3)
Be careful about word usage: continuous is not quite the same as continual. The former means "happening all the time (without pause)", while the latter means "happening over and over (at intervals, with gaps between events". Both of these are slightly different than "constant", as the GP us
Re: (Score:2)
getting a nice big amount of shade from the Earth.
That part is not correct, the JWST orbits L2 outside the earths shadow so that it can get power from its solar panels.
Re: (Score:2)
So JWST will always be (nearly) at the point opposite the Sun, getting a nice big amount of shade from the Earth.
No.
If that were true, the solar panels would be useless. "The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is in a halo orbit around L2, at a sufficient radius around the Lagrange point that it is in perpetual sunlight."
If the Earth provided a "... nice big amount of shade ..." we wouldn't need such a complex heat shield.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't just park something at L2 and have it stay - it'll gradually drift off, so it takes constant energy (read: thrusters) to stay there.
That is not really true.
However, it turns out you can go to the area near L2 and effectively "orbit" around the L2 point for very little energy (read: much less thruster use).
Mostly true. It is called an "halo orbit", it is perpendicular to the plane of earth and sun. The axis of that orbit points to the sun.
Assume we had put it behind the moon. In the L2 of earth and
Re: (Score:2)
Anything placed at any of the Lagrange points does move away from them. Webb requires station keeping. That's what limits its life.
If you look at the orbit around the L1 point in the rotating frame it's just an orbit around the sun that bobs up and down above and below the Earth's orbit.
Re: (Score:3)
So basically, L2 is just a special, mathematically significant point in space that moves around the sun in conjunction with the Earth.
If you consider only the sun's gravitational pull, then to orbit the sun at a given distance, you have to be at a specific angular speed. At that speed, your inertia offsets the sun's gravitational pull on you. Closer to the sun = faster, further = slower. If you are too fast for the distance you're at, you head away from the sun. Too slow, you get pulled closer.
So L2 is
Next exploration? (Score:2)
As of now, most, if not all, space telescopes are within the orbital plane. At what point do we start sending probes/telescopes/whatever "above" and "below" the plane? We are limiting our exploration to certain segments of the universe. Looking up and down might reveal new discoveries.
Re: (Score:1)
Khan!
Re:Next exploration? (Score:5, Informative)
As of now, most, if not all, space telescopes are within the orbital plane.
Why do you think that matters?
Looking up and down might reveal new discoveries.
JWST can look straight up and straight down with reference to the orbital plane.
If zero degrees is directly away from the sun, JSWT can pivot up to 95 degrees in any direction.
It can observe 100% of the sky over the course of a year.
JWST field of view [stsci.edu]
Out of the plane? Why not? [Re:Next exploration?] (Score:5, Interesting)
As of now, most, if not all, space telescopes are within the orbital plane.
Up until now, all of the space telescopes except for a few observing the sun have been in Earth orbit.
Why do you think that matters?
A good question.
Looking up and down might reveal new discoveries.
JWST can look straight up and straight down with reference to the orbital plane. If zero degrees is directly away from the sun, JSWT can pivot up to 95 degrees in any direction. It can observe 100% of the sky over the course of a year. JWST field of view [stsci.edu]
Someone else has already moderated this "informative," so I don't have to.
Getting out of the ecliptic plane is tremendously difficult. You have to cancel out the Earth's orbital velocity. The easiest way to do this is with a Jupiter gravity assist, but that takes years of travel time, a lot of delta-V... and puts the telescope into an orbit hundreds of million miles away (which gives the communications links a much lower bit-rate).
However, it turns out that there is actually is one good reason to get out of the ecliptic plane: Zodiacal light. We don't usually notice it, but the Earth orbits inside a very diffuse dust cloud in the plane of the planets. This dust cloud produces a background glow that slightly obscures the faintest measurements (it's just barely visible to a dark-adapted eye at a very clear observing location), and so getting out of the ecliptic would in fact allow us to make better observations.
But... not enough better to make it worth the difficulty.
Re: (Score:1)
Up until now, all of the space telescopes except for a few observing the sun have been in Earth orbit.
If I understand the mechanics correctly, this space telescope is also in an earth orbit. One that requires exactly one year for each orbit of the earth.
Re: (Score:2)
JWST can look straight up and straight down with reference to the orbital plane.
Yes. But not into the solar system.
To have an early asteroid warning system you need probes in a polar orbit versus the sun, and hopefully in an orbit as big as the distance Sun - Mars.
Re: (Score:2)
To make the only observation we can't currently do, you'd need to launch a telescope thousands of lightyears out of the plane of the Milky Way, so we can see what's behind the galactic center.
Re: (Score:3)
As a practical matter, orbital inclination changes are really expensive in terms of delta-V. In vector space, you need to provide an acceleration to move a velocity vector from pointing in one direction to pointi
Re: (Score:2)
At what point do we start sending probes/telescopes/whatever "above" and "below" the plane?
To what end?
Looking up and down might reveal new discoveries.
Telescopes in the plane can point anywhere except right at the sun. That direction changes as they orbit.
And it takes a shitload of delta-v to change the plane of the orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
Telescopes in the plane can point anywhere except right at the sun.
Exactly. And if you had a telescope in a polar orbit you would see asteroids comming from "behind the sun".
And it takes a shitload of delta-v to change the plane of the orbit.
No it does not. It takes simply a single gravity assist.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. And if you had a telescope in a polar orbit you would see asteroids comming from "behind the sun".
This reminds me of maybe the best line from Blades of Glory: "They laughed at Louis Armstrong when he said he was gonna go to the moon Now he's up there, laughing at them." There is so much wrong that every time I start trying to compose a reply, I think I need to address a different point first.
In no particular order:
JWST and other deep field astronomical observatories aren't generally looking for ast
Re: (Score:2)
JWST and other deep field astronomical observatories aren't generally looking for asteroids.
Well known.
Polar orbits let you observe all of the earth: the object they are orbiting.
Parent and me where talking about a polar orbit over the sun, not earth.
The satellite is not fixed in the firmament. All this shit is moving all the time, so "behind" the sun changes constantly. The only way an asteroid would remain hidden is in if were in a perfectly matched orbit opposite the telescope.
And that is the case if you
Re: (Score:2)
> Parent and me where talking about a polar orbit over the sun, not earth.
Yes that's the point. Polar orbits are useful for earth observation because they let you observe all points on the earth. A polar sun orbit is useful for observing all points on the surface of the sun. But these telescopes aren't observing the sun.
> No, you don't.
Yes you do. You really really do. Changing orbital planes require huge changes in velocity.
> You only need a random planet or moon to gravity assist it into a differ
Re: (Score:2)
Yes that's the point. Polar orbits are useful for earth observation because they let you observe all points on the earth. A polar sun orbit is useful for observing all points on the surface of the sun. But these telescopes aren't observing the sun.
Yes. They are not observing the sun. And that is not the point. The point is to look from above onto the planetary plane. He jumped topic. And you did not grasp that. That is all. We did not talk about the James Webb telescope looking into the wrong direction. We
Re: (Score:2)
he didn't say anything about looking onto the planetary plane from above, he talked about looking up and down to see different bits of the universe.
But tell me what precisely do you expect to see on the plane that won't come into view sober or later?
As for Latin, tell you what you represent vectors as scalars in Latin, and me, the fine people at NASA and the rest of the engineering and science world will treat velocity as a vector.
Either way you don't seem to believe that changing inclinationinclination req
Re: (Score:2)
he didn't say anything about looking onto the planetary plane from above,
Correct. He did not.
And that is why I explained it to you.
And now you make a dozen posts with gibberish instead of saying: "Ah, ha! Good idea!"
You are deeply confused about physics. ...
Unlikely, as I have a degree in physics. But perhaps I'm senile and forgot everything
I can back up my claims with links to elementary sources.
No, you can't. Because your "thoughts" are wrong. good luck.
orbital velocity vector
The key word is 'vector' -
Re: (Score:2)
And that is why I explained it to you.
No this is you trying to turn it into a scenario where you think you're right.
Unlikely, as I have a degree in physics. But perhaps I'm senile and forgot everything ...
You do appear to have.
The key word is 'vector'
And velocity is taken to be a vector in physics and engineering.
Here's what wikipedia says:
"The velocity of an object is the rate of change of its position with respect to a frame of reference, and is a function of time. Velocity is equivalent to a specificati
Re: (Score:2)
The one who is nitpicking is you.
The parent was "what about a telescope in polar orbit"
He was not about: why is JWT not in a polar orbit.
So I explained it to you.
And velocity is taken to be a vector in physics and engineering.
That is wrong.
Velocity is just another fancy word for speed
the two vectors (delta-V) is zero.
Delta-v is: difference in speed - delta is the greek letter used to describe a difference. V is velocity, aka speed.
Have a good day with your non existing knowledge about physics.
Re: (Score:2)
You are so desperate to be right that you've invented a position for the original poster out of whole cloth.
The original poster talked about "looking up and down" and that we were missing whole areas of the universe. A polar orbit doesn't help that. Telescopes can already loo up and down.
It doesn't matter how many times you explain an alternative position that exists only in your head, the Ops question is there in black and white.
And as for velocity, no, you are wrong.
Or maybe me, Wikipedia, Purdue physics
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I told you how i interpreted the parents post.
That is all.
Your luck up down makes no sense ...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I told you how i interpreted the parents post.
That is all.
No that's not all. You told me how I should and had some choice words for me for disagreeing with you.
Your luck up down makes no sense ...
Yeah no shit, Sherlock. That's my whole point. This is literally what the original poster said, that I responded to:
"Looking up and down might reveal new discoveries." -- original poster
And he made that in response to an article about the JWST, which can, in fact, look up and down.
Re: (Score:2)
"Looking up and down might reveal new discoveries." -- original poster
Correct. But that is not your interpretation of looking up and down. Your interpretation is that an earth based telescope can "look up and down". Which it cant. It can only look "outside" from the plane of earth orbit.
Are you really that daft or do you try to see if you can make me angry?
A probe in a polar orbit can "look down" onto the solar system as soon as it is significantly "north".
A probe in a polar orbit can "look up" onto the sol
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. But that is not your interpretation of looking up and down. Your interpretation is that an earth based telescope can "look up and down". Which it cant. It can only look "outside" from the plane of earth orbit.
This is some stupid shit right there. Let's look at what the actual OP said, right?
"At what point do we start sending probes/telescopes/whatever "above" and "below" the plane? We are limiting our exploration to certain segments of the universe. Looking up and down might reveal new discoveries.
Re: (Score:2)
Well,
if we both argue about what the OP said, and he is not contributing. Then it probably makes no sense to discuss about what the OP said.
Have a nice week.
Re: (Score:2)
Ultimately it doesn't matter what the OP meant because a polar orbit isn't useful for looking outside the solar system, and it's not especially useful for looking inside either.
With even vaguely practical orbits you can only substantially "look down" on the ecliptic from about the distance of Mars inwards.
TL;DR regardless of the OP's reasoning, people don't use a lot of polar solar orbits because you get essentially no advantage and a lot of disadvantages.
Either that or me and most of the national space age
Re: (Score:2)
Ultimately it doesn't matter what the OP meant because a polar orbit isn't useful for looking outside
Exactly.
the solar system, and it's not especially useful for looking inside either.
Yes it is. And that is why we want/need one.
Or how do you detect an asteroid coming straight earth from behind the sun?
TL;DR regardless of the OP's reasoning, people don't use a lot of polar solar orbits because you get essentially no advantage and a lot of disadvantages.
Either that or me and most of the national space agenci
Re: (Score:2)
Or how do you detect an asteroid coming straight earth from behind the sun? :facepalm:
I love the idea that an asteroid is going to lurk behind the sun until the very last minute, then pop out and hurtle towards the Earth. For the asteroid to stay hidden from the Earth at all times, it pretty much has to be at L3, having the same orbital period, at which point, well, it's not heading for the Earth. To hit the Earth, it's going to have to be orbiting differently, so it is not always going to be behind the sun
Re: (Score:2)
For the asteroid to stay hidden from the Earth at all times, it pretty much has to be at L3,
And how do you come to that braindead idea?
having the same orbital period, at which point, well, it's not heading for the Earth.
Obviously. So what is your point?
Or you could spend a shitload of delta-v on getting a stable polar orbit fo
Sorry. You are bad in reading comprehension.
I explained it already to you.
I explain it again. You do not need any fucking delta-v to sent a probe into a polar orbit around the sun.
Yo
Re: (Score:2)
And how do you come to that braindead idea?
Well how the hell else does it stay hidden at all times?
I explained it already to you.
You can state your wrong opinions as often as you like, it doesn't make them right.
[blah de blah de blah]
So... you just point the satellite at the moon and it gets there all by itself? No dV involved? Jut like magic eh. And now you're in a very elliptical orbit around the sun that pretty much intersects the Earth, so it'll last for about 1 year before it's wildly destabilised. So
Re: (Score:2)
So... you just point the satellite at the moon and it gets there all by itself? No dV involved?
Exactly.
I suggest to get a class in physics, or stay out of discussions about physics.
Good luck in your "physic less" life :P I hope you get not electrocuted or something by your utterly lack of knowledge about physics.
NEO surveyor is not in a polar orbit, so no idea why you bring it up as argument ...
Re: (Score:2)
And you still haven't explained how the polar orbit is superior to a normal heliocentric one, or having several satellites.
Because a polar orbit, when high enough above or low enough below the orbital plane: sees everything? And everything else is blocked by the light of the sun.
Sorry, you should not only get a physics class but get out more.
Look at the sky, do you see the sun? Do you see what is behind it? Oh? You do? Then make yourself knowledgable and get a contract as "sun glarer - the guy who can look
Re: (Score:2)
NEO surveyor is not in a polar orbit, so no idea why you bring it up as argument ...
Gee... why would I bring up a counter example to your claim to show why your claim might be bogus?
You are claiming that it's free and also the best place for looking for potential earth impactors.
NASA have funding for such a satellite, yet they chose to put it at L1, not a polar orbit. I reckon it's because NASA is like all morons and you're super-duper smart. Did they turn you down after interview because your kung-fu was t
Re: (Score:2)
Damn. We might discover the little dipper. Or Draco even!
And in other news (Score:5, Funny)
In other news Elon Musk has launched the FlashlightX, which will orbit 30 yards off the JWT.
Re: (Score:2)
In other news Elon Musk has launched the FlashlightX, which will orbit 30 yards off the JWT.
Unfortunately, due to supply chain issues, the ‘a’ could not be sourced in time for launch. Instead an ‘e’ has been substituted, given the most general use case of these satellites.
Since no one else is saying it... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is awesome news, and congrats to everyone involved to make such a sophisticated spacecraft!
I'm extremely excited to see first light on JWST, other than whatever object they look at for mirror alignment. Has NASA said what star they're using for mirror alignment? I assume they have a list of first targets, maybe to benchmark against Hubble? Is that list public?
There was a time on /. when this comment section would be full of excitement and discussion of the science ahead and engineering behind JWST. Sorry to see that's not the case anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
0% for you would be 100% for me.
Re:Since no one else is saying it... (Score:4, Informative)
I'm extremely excited to see first light on JWST, other than whatever object they look at for mirror alignment. Has NASA said what star they're using for mirror alignment? I assume they have a list of first targets, maybe to benchmark against Hubble? Is that list public?
Lots of details at STSI's "Calibration Programs in Cycle 1 [stsci.edu]" document.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Your wish is somebody's command:
https://opensea.io/collection/... [opensea.io]
https://foundation.app/@james-... [foundation.app]
Re: (Score:2)
I guess good things going as expected just won't grab the headlines.
Congrats to everyone who worked so hard to get it there!
Re:Since no one else is saying it... (Score:5, Informative)
Star for the alignment observations: HD 84406 in Ursa Major, next to the "bowl" of the Big Dipper. G5 star, alike our Sun. Not really visible with the naked eye, but visible with binoculars.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. The thread starts with the fucking biography of someone named "Webb." A rose by another name ...
I don't give a shit if they name it Ishmael.
Every minute detail of this adventure is fascinating to me and I'm reminded of the charts I bought as a kid that listed every goddam satellite in the sky (circa 1960).
I can't find a reference to a particular focus star.
Re: (Score:3)
Found it:
To align the 21-foot-wide telescope’s 18 hexagonal mirror segments, JWST will focus on a bright star known as HD 84406 in the constellation Ursa Major, and compare the images to guide adjustments in each segment.
“You can’t quite see it with your naked eye, but I’m told you can see it with binoculars,” said Lee Feinberg, optical telescope element manager at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.
Reference [msn.com]