Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 12:34:17 -0800 (PST), whit3rd
whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:41:17 AM UTC-8, John Larkin
wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 10:55:31 -0800 (PST), John Walliker
jrwal...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, 7 January 2022 at 18:25:48 UTC, John Larkin wrote:
https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html
10x over budget and 20 years late. Imagine how many
ground-based telescopes we could have built for that cost, or
how many lives we could have saved.
Ground-based telescopes would not be able to see the things
that Webb is looking for, so the answer is none.
Illogical. The answer is \"many.\"
Huh? The goal is to collect more information, and redundant
telescopes are just repeating the same info over and over. New
bits of spectrum, and novel capabilities, don\'t result from \'many
ground-based telescopes\'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Magellan_Telescope
Estimated to cost $1 billion.
John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 06:32:40 -0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
This is commendable work...
Many nations involved.
Many many tons of gear down here and techs and engineers to
make use
of it...
https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html
10x over budget and 20 years late. Imagine how many ground-based
telescopes we could have built for that cost, or how many lives
we could have saved.
Include how much is spent on the ISS, and what it has produced.
Very poor ROI.
On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 21:09:03 -0000 (UTC), \"Arnie Dwyer (ex Jan
Frank)\" <spamme@not.com> wrote:
John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 06:32:40 -0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
This is commendable work...
Many nations involved.
Many many tons of gear down here and techs and engineers to
make use
of it...
https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html
10x over budget and 20 years late. Imagine how many ground-based
telescopes we could have built for that cost, or how many lives
we could have saved.
Include how much is spent on the ISS, and what it has produced.
Very poor ROI.
Right. Growing beans in microgravity.
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 12:46:19 PM UTC-8, John Larkin
wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 12:34:17 -0800 (PST), whit3rd
whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
...The goal is to collect more information, and redundant
telescopes are just repeating the same info over and over. New
bits of spectrum, and novel capabilities, don\'t result from
\'many ground-based telescopes\'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Magellan_Telescope
Estimated to cost $1 billion.
Not a budget exactly comparable to the Webb, of course; it will
also be over a couple of decades of work, but that\'s the
CONSTRUCTION cost, doesn\'t include staffing and ongoing work after
first light, nor does it include the ongoing support work internal
to the dozen or so partners in the project planning. It won\'t do
much for 10-28.5 um infrared, unlike the Webb.
Visible light spans only 0.4 to 0.7 um, quite a small range by
comparison.
It really strips my gears when a childish arrogant idiot cannot
search for answers himself.
PLONK
Though you seem to always be trying and acting as if you areOn Sat, 8 Jan 2022 17:06:36 +0000, Martin Brown
\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 07/01/2022 18:25, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 06:32:40 -0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
This is commendable work...
Many nations involved.
Many many tons of gear down here and techs and engineers to
make use
of it...
https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html
10x over budget and 20 years late. Imagine how many ground-based
telescopes we could have built for that cost, or how many lives
we could have saved.
Not dissimilar to any large scale cutting edge science project
then.
It\'s hard to separate big science from big money.
On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 9:47:39 AM UTC-5, Beeper wrote:
On 1/7/22 11:12 PM, Arnie Dwyer (ex Jan Frank) wrote:
Beeper <bee...@acme.com> wrote:
On 1/7/22 10:25 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 06:32:40 -0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
This is commendable work...
Many nations involved.
Many many tons of gear down here and techs and engineers to
make use
of it...
https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html
10x over budget and 20 years late.
How so? Please provide citation to a credible source
supporting your
claims that documents the original projected budget and
expected delivery/launch date.
Don\'t be a jerk. You can find out yourself. Google \"jwst over
budget an
d
late\"
There\'s about 654,000 results. Pick any of the recent
(2021-2022) artic
les.
You will find John was accurate and being conservative.
It really strips my gears when a childish arrogant idiot cannot
search
for
answers himself.
PLONK
Wow. I know that it is over budget and launched later than
anticipated,
but I don\'t find support for \"10x over budget and 20 years late.\"
Don\'t be a jerk.
There are lies, damn lies and budget quotes!
From NPR web page, \"Originally, the cost of the telescope was
estimated to be only around $1 billion to $3.5 billion, and
expected launch dates ranged from 2007 to 2011.\" So if the end
cost is $10 billion, I suppose you could say it was 10x over
budget if you use the minimum starting number.
The difference between government overruns and commercial overruns
is that commercial overruns have the option of shutting down or
continuing. Oh, wait, the government does that as well.
\"I\'ve got one word for you Benjamin. Nuclear!\" Well, that wasn\'t
the word, but in this case nuclear plants are exactly the
commercial parallel to large military and space projects. The US
had two nuclear plant underway on the eastern seaboard until the
cost overruns on them caused one to be scrapped, the Virgil C.
Summer Nuclear Power Station and the other continues construction,
the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. The Vogtle plant is years
behind and many billions of dollars over budget. The problems
with nuclear power plant construction makes a space telescope look
like a cake walk.
Both the government and industry will cancel projects when they
are hopelessly out of control. Both the government and industry
will continue on projects they should have canceled in the early
stages in spite of the clear indications the projects are flawed.
The James Webb space telescope is not fundamentally flawed. It
was a research project as much as development. This device was
not possible to build at the time they started planning it. They
planned for technological advancement in the design and
construction and so had to be more fluid in the process. Yeah, it
was over budget and schedule, but in the end we got an amazing
piece of equipment. The only question is, is it what we need?
That is open to debate, but there was no other way to build it
other than to start working and only stopping when it was done,
much as they did with the SR-71 blackbird. No one complained
about the schedule delays and cost overruns on that because they
didn\'t tell anyone publicly they were building it.
Beeper <bee...@acme.com> wrote:
On 1/7/22 10:25 AM, John Larkin wrote:
10x over budget and 20 years late.
How so? Please provide citation to a credible source supporting your
claims that documents the original projected budget and expected
delivery/launch date.
Don\'t be a jerk. You can find out yourself. Google \"jwst over budget and
late\"
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:12:12 PM UTC-8, Arnie Dwyer (ex Jan Frank) wrote:
Beeper <bee...@acme.com> wrote:
On 1/7/22 10:25 AM, John Larkin wrote:
10x over budget and 20 years late.
How so? Please provide citation to a credible source supporting your
claims that documents the original projected budget and expected
delivery/launch date.
Don\'t be a jerk. You can find out yourself. Google \"jwst over budget and
late\"
Don\'t be a jerk. You can find that the total time for the project was circa 20 years,
but very little of that time is \'late\' duration. You can also find a projected budget
by each of several successive administrations, over a couple of decades, and
claim the total budget (going forward a few years) to be something that
does not match those estimates.
Or you can google a catchphrase that only pulls up critics, few of whom are
well-informed, but they\'re all mouthy.
You will find John was accurate and being conservative.
Nah; you can\'t find accuracy in such a search, you need to have an
accountant look over \'the books\'. And as for being \'conservative\'?
In what sense? Trying to evaluate cost-and-benefits is what a conservative assessment
would do; he never considered benefits, and has only a ballpark idea
on costs. Does he think all telescope instruments are alike? It seems so.
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:12:12 PM UTC-8, Arnie Dwyer (ex Jan
Frank) wrote:
Beeper <bee...@acme.com> wrote:
On 1/7/22 10:25 AM, John Larkin wrote:
10x over budget and 20 years late.
How so? Please provide citation to a credible source supporting your
claims that documents the original projected budget and expected
delivery/launch date.
Don\'t be a jerk. You can find out yourself. Google \"jwst over budget
and late\"
Don\'t be a jerk. You can find that the total time for the project was
circa 20 years, but very little of that time is \'late\' duration. You
can also find a projected budget by each of several successive
administrations, over a couple of decades, and claim the total budget
(going forward a few years) to be something that does not match those
estimates.
Or you can google a catchphrase that only pulls up critics, few of whom
are well-informed, but they\'re all mouthy.
You will find John was accurate and being conservative.
Nah; you can\'t find accuracy in such a search, you need to have an
accountant look over \'the books\'. And as for being \'conservative\'?
In what sense? Trying to evaluate cost-and-benefits is what a
conservative assessment would do; he never considered benefits, and has
only a ballpark idea on costs. Does he think all telescope instruments
are alike? It seems so.
On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 4:05:18 PM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:12:12 PM UTC-8, Arnie Dwyer (ex
Jan Fran
k) wrote:
Beeper <bee...@acme.com> wrote:
On 1/7/22 10:25 AM, John Larkin wrote:
10x over budget and 20 years late.
How so? Please provide citation to a credible source
supporting your
claims that documents the original projected budget and
expected delivery/launch date.
Don\'t be a jerk. You can find out yourself. Google \"jwst over
budget an
d
late\"
Don\'t be a jerk. You can find that the total time for the project
was cir
ca 20 years,
but very little of that time is \'late\' duration. You can also
find a proj
ected budget
by each of several successive administrations, over a couple of
decades,
and
claim the total budget (going forward a few years) to be
something that
does not match those estimates.
Or you can google a catchphrase that only pulls up critics, few
of whom a
re
well-informed, but they\'re all mouthy.
You will find John was accurate and being conservative.
Nah; you can\'t find accuracy in such a search, you need to have
an accountant look over \'the books\'. And as for being
\'conservative\'? In what sense? Trying to evaluate
cost-and-benefits is what a conservativ
e assessment
would do; he never considered benefits, and has only a ballpark
idea on costs. Does he think all telescope instruments are alike?
It seems so.
It\'s not like they were building a device that had never been
built before or was capable of looking backwards in time or
anything. Jeez, why didn\'t they just pick up one at Harbor
Freight? I think they are currently giving away Hubble
telescopes just for walking in the door.
whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:12:12 PM UTC-8, Arnie Dwyer (ex Jan
Frank) wrote:
Beeper <bee...@acme.com> wrote:
On 1/7/22 10:25 AM, John Larkin wrote:
10x over budget and 20 years late.
How so? Please provide citation to a credible source supporting your
claims that documents the original projected budget and expected
delivery/launch date.
Don\'t be a jerk. You can find out yourself. Google \"jwst over budget
and late\"
Don\'t be a jerk. You can find that the total time for the project was
circa 20 years, but very little of that time is \'late\' duration. You
can also find a projected budget by each of several successive
administrations, over a couple of decades, and claim the total budget
(going forward a few years) to be something that does not match those
estimates.
Or you can google a catchphrase that only pulls up critics, few of whom
are well-informed, but they\'re all mouthy.
You will find John was accurate and being conservative.
Nah; you can\'t find accuracy in such a search, you need to have an
accountant look over \'the books\'. And as for being \'conservative\'?
In what sense? Trying to evaluate cost-and-benefits is what a
conservative assessment would do; he never considered benefits, and has
only a ballpark idea on costs. Does he think all telescope instruments
are alike? It seems so.
Don\'t get in a jerk fight.
JWST is definitely late and over budget. The claims of utility are dubious.
Who cares if it can look back to the big bang. The CMB already does that.
Who cares if it can look to the edge of the Universe? The expansion of
space is moving objects faster than the speed of light. Nothing can see
beyond that.
whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:12:12 PM UTC-8, Arnie Dwyer (ex
Jan Frank) wrote:
Beeper <bee...@acme.com> wrote:
On 1/7/22 10:25 AM, John Larkin wrote:
10x over budget and 20 years late.
How so? Please provide citation to a credible source
supporting your claims that documents the original projected
budget and expected delivery/launch date.
Don\'t be a jerk. You can find out yourself. Google \"jwst over
budget and late\"
Don\'t be a jerk. You can find that the total time for the
project was circa 20 years, but very little of that time is
\'late\' duration. You can also find a projected budget by each
of several successive administrations, over a couple of decades,
and claim the total budget (going forward a few years) to be
something that does not match those estimates.
Or you can google a catchphrase that only pulls up critics, few
of whom are well-informed, but they\'re all mouthy.
You will find John was accurate and being conservative.
Nah; you can\'t find accuracy in such a search, you need to have
an accountant look over \'the books\'. And as for being
\'conservative\'? In what sense? Trying to evaluate
cost-and-benefits is what a conservative assessment would do; he
never considered benefits, and has only a ballpark idea on costs.
Does he think all telescope instruments are alike? It seems
so.
Don\'t get in a jerk fight.
The claims of utility are
dubious.
Who cares if it can look back to the big bang. The CMB already
does that.
The
expansion of space is moving objects faster than the speed of
light. Nothing can see beyond that.
There is more
than sufficient evidence from qualified observers to show the
trend. We are not astronomers. We do not need 6-digit accuracy.
Just get the trend and move on with our lives.
NASA was famous for satellites that explored the planets and some
comets.
However, it has lost much of its reputation on Artemis and has
become a laughing stock.
It is merely a jobs program for Aerojet
Rocketdyne, Boeing, Jacobs, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman.
It is far outclassed by SpaceX.
We lost a great deal when Arecibo went down. How about funneling a
small amount from Artemis to rebuilding Arecibo?
If JWST ever detects life on other planets, Aricebo will be needed
to communicate with them.
If, by chance, they use radio
technology.
On 2022-01-08 22:44, Arnie Dwyer (ex Jan Frank) wrote:
whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:12:12 PM UTC-8, Arnie Dwyer (ex Jan
Frank) wrote:
Beeper <bee...@acme.com> wrote:
On 1/7/22 10:25 AM, John Larkin wrote:
10x over budget and 20 years late.
How so? Please provide citation to a credible source supporting your
claims that documents the original projected budget and expected
delivery/launch date.
Don\'t be a jerk. You can find out yourself. Google \"jwst over budget
and late\"
Don\'t be a jerk. You can find that the total time for the project was
circa 20 years, but very little of that time is \'late\' duration. You
can also find a projected budget by each of several successive
administrations, over a couple of decades, and claim the total budget
(going forward a few years) to be something that does not match those
estimates.
Or you can google a catchphrase that only pulls up critics, few of whom
are well-informed, but they\'re all mouthy.
You will find John was accurate and being conservative.
Nah; you can\'t find accuracy in such a search, you need to have an
accountant look over \'the books\'. And as for being \'conservative\'?
In what sense? Trying to evaluate cost-and-benefits is what a
conservative assessment would do; he never considered benefits, and has
only a ballpark idea on costs. Does he think all telescope instruments
are alike? It seems so.
Don\'t get in a jerk fight.
JWST is definitely late and over budget. The claims of utility are dubious.
Who cares if it can look back to the big bang. The CMB already does that.
Who cares if it can look to the edge of the Universe? The expansion of
space is moving objects faster than the speed of light. Nothing can see
beyond that.
One might hope that the JWST brings some order to cosmology,
because in its current form, it\'s little better than Genesis.
On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 6:03:13 PM UTC-5, Jeroen Belleman
wrote:
On 2022-01-08 22:44, Arnie Dwyer (ex Jan Frank) wrote:
whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:12:12 PM UTC-8, Arnie Dwyer
(ex Jan Frank) wrote:
Beeper <bee...@acme.com> wrote:
On 1/7/22 10:25 AM, John Larkin wrote:
10x over budget and 20 years late.
How so? Please provide citation to a credible source
supporting your claims that documents the original projected
budget and expected delivery/launch date.
Don\'t be a jerk. You can find out yourself. Google \"jwst over
budget and late\"
Don\'t be a jerk. You can find that the total time for the
project was circa 20 years, but very little of that time is
\'late\' duration. You can also find a projected budget by each
of several successive administrations, over a couple of
decades, and claim the total budget (going forward a few
years) to be something that does not match those estimates.
Or you can google a catchphrase that only pulls up critics,
few of whom are well-informed, but they\'re all mouthy.
You will find John was accurate and being conservative.
Nah; you can\'t find accuracy in such a search, you need to
have an accountant look over \'the books\'. And as for being
\'conservative\'? In what sense? Trying to evaluate
cost-and-benefits is what a conservative assessment would do;
he never considered benefits, and has only a ballpark idea on
costs. Does he think all telescope instruments are alike? It
seems so.
Don\'t get in a jerk fight.
JWST is definitely late and over budget. The claims of utility
are dubious.
Who cares if it can look back to the big bang. The CMB already
does that.
Who cares if it can look to the edge of the Universe? The
expansion of space is moving objects faster than the speed of
light. Nothing can see beyond that.
One might hope that the JWST brings some order to cosmology,
because in its current form, it\'s little better than Genesis.
We are talking about the answer to the great question if life, the
universe and everything. Do you really expect science to be able
to answer that any better than the great works of fiction?
I bet if you look hard enough, you will fine the fundamental
message of the Bible is 42.
whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:12:12 PM UTC-8, Arnie Dwyer (ex Jan
Frank) wrote:
Beeper <bee...@acme.com> wrote:
On 1/7/22 10:25 AM, John Larkin wrote:
10x over budget and 20 years late.
How so? Please provide citation to a credible source supporting your
claims that documents the original projected budget and expected
delivery/launch date.
Don\'t be a jerk. You can find out yourself. Google \"jwst over budget
and late\"
Don\'t be a jerk. You can find that the total time for the project was
circa 20 years, but very little of that time is \'late\' duration. You
can also find a projected budget by each of several successive
administrations, over a couple of decades, and claim the total budget
(going forward a few years) to be something that does not match those
estimates.
Or you can google a catchphrase that only pulls up critics, few of whom
are well-informed, but they\'re all mouthy.
You will find John was accurate and being conservative.
Nah; you can\'t find accuracy in such a search, you need to have an
accountant look over \'the books\'. And as for being \'conservative\'?
In what sense? Trying to evaluate cost-and-benefits is what a
conservative assessment would do; he never considered benefits, and has
only a ballpark idea on costs. Does he think all telescope instruments
are alike? It seems so.
Don\'t get in a jerk fight.
JWST is definitely late and over budget. The claims of utility are dubious.
Who cares if it can look to the edge of the Universe? The expansion of
space is moving objects faster than the speed of light. Nothing can see
beyond that.
No need to have an accountant look at the books. There is more than
sufficient evidence from qualified observers to show the trend. We are not
astronomers. We do not need 6-digit accuracy. Just get the trend and move
on with our lives.
NASA was famous for satellites that explored the planets and some comets.
However, it has lost much of its reputation on Artemis and has become a
laughing stock. It is merely a jobs program for Aerojet Rocketdyne, Boeing,
Jacobs, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman. It is far outclassed by
SpaceX.
We lost a great deal when Arecibo went down. How about funneling a small
amount from Artemis to rebuilding Arecibo?
If JWST ever detects life on other planets, Aricebo will be needed to
communicate with them. If, by chance, they use radio technology.
It\'s hard to separate big science from big money.
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
It\'s hard to separate big science from big money.
Or big movies. It would make more sense to complain about how much goes
to Spiderman etc.
Of course there is the issue of public funding.
Eisenhower said, \"Beware the military-industrial complex\" and \"Beware
public funding of the academy.\"
Nobody remembers the latter, so we have corrupted science first in
climate and now in medicine.
At least astronomy won\'t be corrupted until either we find ET\'s or when we start mining planets.
But this would be no different with telescopes on the ground.
whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
...you can google a catchphrase that only pulls up critics, few of whom
are well-informed, but they\'re all mouthy.
JWST is definitely late and over budget. The claims of utility are dubious.
Who cares if it can look back to the big bang. The CMB already does that.
Who cares if it can look to the edge of the Universe?
space is moving objects faster than the speed of light. Nothing can see
beyond that.
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
It\'s hard to separate big science from big money.
Or big movies. It would make more sense to complain about how much goes
to Spiderman etc.
Of course there is the issue of public funding.
Eisenhower said, \"Beware the military-industrial complex\" and \"Beware
public funding of the academy.\"
Nobody remembers the latter, so we have corrupted science first in
climate and now in medicine.
At least astronomy won\'t be corrupted until either we find ET\'s or when
we start mining planets.
[...]