NASA's Webb Space Telescope Achieves Near-Perfect Focus (cbsnews.com) 46
BeerFartMoron shares a report from CBS News: After weeks of microscopic adjustments, NASA unveiled the first fully focused image from the James Webb Space Telescope Wednesday, a razor-sharp engineering photo of a nondescript star in a field of more distant galaxies that shows the observatory's optical system is working in near-flawless fashion. The goal was to demonstrate Webb can now bring starlight to a near-perfect focus, proving the $10 billion telescope doesn't suffer from any subtle optical defects like the aberration that initially hobbled the Hubble Space Telescope. The galaxies in the image were a bonus, whetting astronomers' appetites for discoveries to come. "This is one of the most magnificent days in my whole career at NASA, frankly, and for many of us astronomers, one of the most important days that we've had," said NASA science chief Thomas Zurbuchen. "Today we can announce that the optics will perform to specifications or even better. It's an amazing achievement."
Re: (Score:1)
nothing to do with the post.
were talking about Astronomy.
here, eat my dick
Re: astrology (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
no evolved society would want anything to do with a planet of stupid, selfish, irresponsible, greedy, abusive, violent people
Perhaps, but they would still send messages to earth to communicate with the whales.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there's a line of anthropologists lined up to live in and amongst the wealthy elite. You think that's a bush on the front lawn in Bel-aire? No, it's an observation blind!
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, the rich elitist scientists living in their mansions on the hill. I keep hearing about them, never met one. I only know the hard working and struggling scientists. Those who struggled on a grad student salary that barely afforded them pot noodles all so that they could get a job living on a ship in cabin for 6 months out of the year doing research. Of course, sometimes they give up and say "I can't deal with all this wealth!" and quit the science research job and instead join industry or set up
Why? (Score:4)
Why do you link to 2nd hand news outlets when jwst.nasa.gov is perfectly accessible and the original source of information?
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed. E.g. https://www.nasa.gov/press-rel... [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A witty observation so insightful that it clears the room as everyone rushes for the exits while holding their noses?
Re: (Score:2)
Come here to post the very same thing. To whit: NASA’s Webb Reaches Alignment Milestone, Optics Working Successfully [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OK, sometimes the original paper is paywalled. But circumventing that (or just ignoring the story - let it die for bad publishing choices) rarely takes more than a few seconds.
Link to the original full size, because... Editors (Score:1)
An editor would look for this for you and link it above. ... Slashdot Editors.
But
https://live.staticflickr.com/... [staticflickr.com]
Re: (Score:1)
And of course a *good editor* as opposed to a merely competent editor as opposed to a Slashdot editor would find the best existing image of this star field for comparison
But I haven't seen that done anywhere in the press.
Anyone got one ?
Re:Link to the original full size, because... Edit (Score:4, Informative)
Dr. Becky found one and showed it in her video yesterday [youtu.be] to compare with the JWST image. It doesn't look like she linked to it in the description, but she did say where and how she found it in the video. I can't remember if she says it's definitively the best image of that star, but given it's not a particularly interesting or special star, just a random one chosen for calibration purposes, choices are probably limited. The one Dr. Becky found was in an all-sky survey, I believe.
Re: (Score:2)
The star is named 2MASS J17554042+6551277 [unistra.fr] according to the NASA press release. [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:1)
I want to see the "Starfield", not just that "star".
Re: (Score:2)
And of course a *good editor* as opposed to a merely competent editor as opposed to a Slashdot editor would find the best existing image of this star field for comparison
No, that's a writer's job, not an editor's. Slashdot is a news aggregator. It posts summaries of other stories. An editor's job is to make sure the submissions make sense, nothing more... and they fail that quite miserably too.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Again, not an editor's job. That's the submitter's job. Editors don't submit stories here. *YOU* do. The button is at the top of the page and you could have made Slashdot a better place by using it.
No doubt the editors would still have found a way to fuck up your submission though. Hey it's not too late either. Submit the same story again, they don't check for dupes ;-)
Re: (Score:1)
A triumph of science and engineering (Score:2)
This machine will pull the veil of dust clouds away to discover our galaxies hidden secrets. It will look farther into the past than ever before so that we may better guide our future.
Amazing accomplishment (Score:2)
Pretty incredible.. "the highest resolution infrared imaging ever", "diffraction-limited". Just one more step to go apparently, prepare a full telescope solution for alignment against other sensors. I can't imagine how emotional it must be.. and the urge to try it out on somewhere besides a nondescript star!
All I can say (Score:2)
is neat [youtube.com]!
That's not how you find alien life. (Score:5, Funny)
One thing I've learned over many decades, is that if you wish to discover evidence of alien life, the blurrier the camera, the better.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you fool! That's for finding Big Foot!
Unless, as the late Mitch Hedberg said: “I think Bigfoot is blurry, that’s the problem. It’s not the photographer’s fault. Bigfoot is blurry, and that’s extra scary to me. There’s a large, out-of-focus monster roaming the countryside. Run, he’s fuzzy, get out of here.”
Re: (Score:2)
Digital cameras just can't truly capture the analog awesomeness of Bigfoot or extraterrestrials.
Re: (Score:2)
One thing I've learned over many decades, is that if you wish to discover evidence of alien life, the blurrier the camera, the better.
Just wait. There will be a Lightroom filter for that.
Did J.J. Abrams design this? (Score:2)
That is some impressive lens flare. Did J.J. Abrams have a hand in designing this telescope? 8^)
Re: (Score:2)
If you ignore the starburst the other stars and galaxies in the photo are clear and in focus.
Re: (Score:2)
Does this effect exist in all JWST images to some degree due to the optics, or is it just that the target star is bright compared to the rest of the image?
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the link! For those not wanting to follow it, it point to an ARS Technica comment on the story that points to Wikipedia.
crazycrack says, "Those are called diffraction spikes, caused by the structure that supports the secondary mirror above the primary mirror."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The Wiki page says,
"Diffraction spikes are lines radiating from bright light sources, causing what is known as the starburst effect or sunstars in photographs and in vision. They are artifacts caused by ligh
Re: (Score:2)
Not really lens flare, it's s star burst effect. But like lens flare, these sometimes get added artificially to some photos or videos for strange reasons. Movie directors like them. But this effect does show up on high quality optical equipment naturally without JJ Abrams being involved.
Mostly it's an effect of the imaging system, as the stars themselves are points of light. Different telescopes can look different, depending upon what structure holds up the secondary lens
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes I realize this isn't technically lens flare and that it is a natural part of image (unlike some JJ Abram's actual flare that is added in post). It's just that this was the first thing I thought when I saw the picture and was in a sarcastic mood. 8^)
Is that more than almost-pregnant? (Score:2)
Why don't they just say 'it's slightly off-focus'?
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't they just say 'it's slightly off-focus'?
Because it's not. This is what they actually said: "And we now have achieved what's called diffraction-limited alignment of the telescope, the images are focused together as finely as the laws of physics allow. This is as sharp an image as you can get from a telescope of this size."
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up.
Re: (Score:2)
"This is what they actually said:"
Thanks, but I hope you know, that we couldn't possibly RTFA. :-)