• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

News Event Science James Webb space telescope (JWST) launch scheduled for 24th of December.

Will JWST successfully deploy in space?

  • Yes. Good chance it goes well.

    Votes: 91 75.2%
  • No. I think something will fail. (no way to fix)

    Votes: 11 9.1%
  • Shepard.

    Votes: 19 15.7%

  • Total voters
    121

clem84

Gold Member
Dec 11, 2011
3,919
1,375
1,120
The detail they're going to pull out of this galaxy is going to be insane, the most distant ever seen. Personally can't wait to see the Webb ultra deep field.

What kind of thing could they see out there that would make them go "hmm... we better keep that to ourselves"? If they got back the picture of a planet that had many ships orbiting, would they tell us?
 

Coolwhhip

Member
Aug 26, 2019
4,777
14,859
670
What kind of thing could they see out there that would make them go "hmm... we better keep that to ourselves"? If they got back the picture of a planet that had many ships orbiting, would they tell us?

Ehh dont think it works like that. Even the Hubble sees the Webb telescope as 1 point of light and its damn close. So I doubt they can literally see planets with Webb.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MastaKiiLA

PuppetMaster

Member
Jun 12, 2007
6,506
1,536
1,510
Ehh dont think it works like that. Even the Hubble sees the Webb as 1 point of light and its damn close. So I doubt they can literally see planets with Webb.

Yes. We cannot see planets directly. We are not even close to that level of telescope.

But when a planet passes over a star, think of it as a tiny eclipse. Even if it is a tiny tiny reduction in the light from the star, it is detectable.

And not only is it detectable, the light will be slightly changed in its spectrum. Which lets us predict what type of chemicals the planet that eclipsed it is made of.

But basically what we will see is stars. Very very dim stars.

You will be disappointed if you were expecting to see aliens. To a normal person the pictures will just look like normal stars. You need to use spectroscopy to break down the light to infer plants. Or infer there are organics on the planet etc.
 
Last edited:
Dec 29, 2018
5,477
16,102
795
What kind of thing could they see out there that would make them go "hmm... we better keep that to ourselves"? If they got back the picture of a planet that had many ships orbiting, would they tell us?
Yeah you're not getting that kind of detail from Webb but it will be able to detect and measure the atmospheric conditions on exoplanets and that's the best we can hope for in terms of the search for life.

If it detects the same atmospheric conditions that occurs here on earth on a distant exoplanet then it is basically an indirect confirmation of alien life and would warrant a closer look.
For me this is what's most exciting regarding Webb. The ability to answer the question of all questions. Are we alone?

whats the cost?!?!? 10 billion? 20???

....anything less than finding aliens is a failure
Webb has the ability to, though indirectly but it will be able to detect biosignatures in exoplanets but most importantly we need to know where to look. You have to be realistic here. The universe is unimaginably huge.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: clem84

MastaKiiLA

Member
Jun 11, 2020
2,771
4,901
420
Ehh dont think it works like that. Even the Hubble sees the Webb telescope as 1 point of light and its damn close. So I doubt they can literally see planets with Webb.
Webb will be able to visualize the same exoplanets that Hubble can. There's not much detail, it's just a point of light orbiting a star, usually. And the systems where we can see the ecliptic plane top-down/bottom-up are not that common. It requires chance alignment really. But Hubble and others have directly-imaged exoplanets before. Just that they're all either hot Jupiters or borderline brown dwarfs.
 

G-Bus

Member
Aug 20, 2007
3,314
871
1,495
Canada
ya know im not even really that into this stuff, not like some of you, at least. but this was super interesting and educational and i have to recommend it to anyone else who is curious, even if youre a dodo like me lol. thanks for sharing!

No problem! Was quite happy to have stumbled upon it myself

Really puts things into perspective and they present it in a really easy to understand way.
What are the chances that the telescope gets hit by a meteoroid or something like that?

I think one thing a lot of people have a hard time wrapping there minds around is how absolutely big and empty space truly is.

I think they said they expect micro meteors in some capacity to hit the telescope, but nothing in the way I'm sure your thinking.

Not to say a tiny spec traveling at 10/km a second isn't something to worry about.

Google:

"The Risks of Orbital Debris Averaging speeds of 10 km/s (22,000 mph), a 1 centimeter paint fleck is capable of inflicting the same damage as a 550 pound object traveling 60 miles per hour on earth. A 10 centimeter projectile would be comparable to 7 kilograms of TNT."
 

greyshark

Member
Feb 15, 2011
2,280
1,435
1,030
St. Louis

Q: Once Webb is in orbit, how susceptible will it be to micrometeoroid strikes? For example, what would happen if one of Webb’s primary mirror segments or the sunshield got struck?



Paul: Although space is mostly empty, there is some debris. In the inner Solar System where Webb will orbit, we have a good understanding of what the population of meteoroids is like from years of observations and research. It’s mostly dust and very small particles, with the majority being sparsely distributed and tinier than grains of sand. There are some pebbles, rocks, and boulders, but they are very sparse and very rare. At Webb’s orbit at L2, the debris is all natural and the environment is not as hazardous as it is much closer to Earth, where there is a fair amount of human-generated “space junk.”



We know Webb will get struck by micrometeoroids during its lifetime, and we have taken that into account in its design and construction. We sized Webb’s main mirror so that even after years of little impacts it will still have the reflective surface area and quality necessary to do the science. We even did tests on the ground that emulated micrometeoroid impacts to demonstrate what will happen to the mirrors in space.



Similarly, part of the reason the sunshield has five layers is so it can tolerate more than the number of expected small holes, and even some tears, and still work as it should.

Also, almost all of Webb’s sensitive components (besides the mirrors and sunshield) are protected behind “micrometeoroid armor.” When micrometeoroids do strike, most are so small that they totally disintegrate upon impact, even when they hit something thin like thermal blankets or a sunshield membrane. Critical wires and electronics are shielded behind even more robust metal “armor” or inside metal boxes.

They expect Webb to get hit by micrometeorites and have designed it to take some damage and continue to function.
 
Dec 29, 2018
5,477
16,102
795

E-Cat

Member
Jan 14, 2013
4,177
747
815
No problem! Was quite happy to have stumbled upon it myself

Really puts things into perspective and they present it in a really easy to understand way.


I think one thing a lot of people have a hard time wrapping there minds around is how absolutely big and empty space truly is.

I think they said they expect micro meteors in some capacity to hit the telescope, but nothing in the way I'm sure your thinking.

Not to say a tiny spec traveling at 10/km a second isn't something to worry about.

Google:

"The Risks of Orbital Debris Averaging speeds of 10 km/s (22,000 mph), a 1 centimeter paint fleck is capable of inflicting the same damage as a 550 pound object traveling 60 miles per hour on earth. A 10 centimeter projectile would be comparable to 7 kilograms of TNT."
Actually, I *was* thinking about micrometeoroids since the mirror is such a delicate instrument and the debris travel at such high speeds.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: G-Bus

Buggy Loop

Member
Jun 9, 2004
6,718
4,021
1,735
Quebec, canada
whats the cost?!?!? 10 billion? 20???

....anything less than finding aliens is a failure

10 billion over 30 years. It’s nothing. It actually indicates how underfunded NASA is. This is the thing I don’t understand about Americans, with the snap of a finger you can give healthcare, pay off student debts and reinvest in your schools. You pay so many fucking taxes for military, you’re being milked for killing machines with spendings that are higher than the combined next 11 countries’ highest military budgets.

JWST is a drop in the ocean..
 
Last edited:

Sakura

Member
Feb 13, 2012
9,666
1,827
900
Fukuoka, Japan
Webb will be able to visualize the same exoplanets that Hubble can. There's not much detail, it's just a point of light orbiting a star, usually. And the systems where we can see the ecliptic plane top-down/bottom-up are not that common. It requires chance alignment really. But Hubble and others have directly-imaged exoplanets before. Just that they're all either hot Jupiters or borderline brown dwarfs.
I remember reading somewhere that if the telescope was somewhere else in the galaxy looking at our solar system, it wouldn't even be able to see the Earth because of the proximity to the sun and brightness.
Probably a ton of planets out there that we just can't see.
 

RJMacready73

Member
Jun 25, 2020
1,437
2,879
435
I remember reading somewhere that if the telescope was somewhere else in the galaxy looking at our solar system, it wouldn't even be able to see the Earth because of the proximity to the sun and brightness.
Probably a ton of planets out there that we just can't see.
A ton? There's estimates in the billions upon billions, hell the amount of planets within a stars habitual zone are probably in the billions based on what we've simply observed so far, the numbers are simply incomprehensible to us land monkeys, once we've confirmed bio signatures in exo planet atmospheres itll be game over, job done... Yup life is everywhere in the universe but the distance between stars means we'll never get to fuck with those Navi
 

RJMacready73

Member
Jun 25, 2020
1,437
2,879
435
10 billion over 30 years. It’s nothing. It actually indicates how underfunded NASA is. This is the thing I don’t understand about Americans, with the snap of a finger you can give healthcare, pay off student debts and reinvest in your schools. You pay so many fucking taxes for military, you’re being milked for killing machines with spendings that are higher than the combined next 11 countries’ highest military budgets.

JWST is a drop in the ocean..
It's utterly insane the amounts of money poured into the military industrial complex compared to the amount of money poured into science, health and education... Y'know all those things that could actually make a fucking difference, imagine what NASA could achieve if they had even a fraction of the budget given to one branch of their military...
 

haxan7

Volunteered as Tribute
May 9, 2016
9,926
23,697
990
h*ck
10 billion over 30 years. It’s nothing. It actually indicates how underfunded NASA is. This is the thing I don’t understand about Americans, with the snap of a finger you can give healthcare, pay off student debts and reinvest in your schools. You pay so many fucking taxes for military, you’re being milked for killing machines with spendings that are higher than the combined next 11 countries’ highest military budgets.

JWST is a drop in the ocean..
Unfortunately this is a fantasy. But I don't want to derail the thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IDKFA