[HN Gopher] The $11B Webb telescope aims to probe the early univ... ___________________________________________________________________ The $11B Webb telescope aims to probe the early universe Author : infodocket Score : 205 points Date : 2021-12-08 18:31 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.nature.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.nature.com) | chasil wrote: | Quick! Take it back to the lab and put one of these on it! | | https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/colour-changing-magnifyi... | malfist wrote: | I now you're probably being factious, but the mirror on the | telescope is already specifically designed for seeing long | wavelength to near infrared spectrum. | cryptoz wrote: | I have started to wonder, will it ever be possible to 'see' the | big bang? How close can we get to measuring that far back? From | what I've seen JWST will be able to peer back to just a few | hundred million years after the big bang. What are the limit to | seeing even further back? Is it a matter of telescope size, will | an even larger telescope by definition be able to see even | further back? What is the limit? | gadnuk wrote: | Unfortunately, we cannot, or will not be able to see the Big | Bang. The simple reason is, it's just beyond our reach. | | For the first few hundred thousand years, the universe was | opaque. | | This link goes into a good amount of detail about the first | light in the universe: | | https://phys.org/news/2016-11-universe.html | | We might be able to see a bit closer to the events after the | Big Bang with a more powerful telescope in the future, but I | don't think we can ever be able to actually "see" the Big Bang. | cryptoz wrote: | Fantastic link, thanks for that. Got me even more excited for | JWST! | chana_masala wrote: | $11B is actually not very much for what this is. Good deal! | bumby wrote: | I think the JWST is managed as part of NASA's Space Science | Directorate. That directorate gets a little less than $8B of | the agency's roughly $23B budget. You'd have to look at the | breakdown by year, but 10-15% of the annual directorate budget | is substantial but not absurd given the project. | credit_guy wrote: | Why is that? If the pricetag was, for example $25 BN, would you | say that would have been too expensive? Where do you draw the | line? Or no price is too high for this telescope? | whatroot8 wrote: | Money is a completely abstract thing and at this point says | nothing about the material economics. It's used to manage | agency. | | Essentially we allowed people $11 billion in human agency to | occur for scientific reasons. | | Sorry we didn't put more of it into cars and video games, but | your economy surely benefited from people doing the real | economic exchange this required. | | Personally I'd love to put it into designer drugs we can use | to let me hallucinate a reality where miserly bean countering | control freaks don't exist, since we're all going to die | anyway and entropy will erode the universe. | | Excepting rules against violence and careless end of the | species, why all the rules? | pradn wrote: | When US gov expenditures are like $4 trillion yearly, $11 | billion for an era-defining, cutting-edge space telescope | built over 10-15 years does not seem much at all. | smachiz wrote: | 1996 cutting edge | guerrilla wrote: | Is there something better in production going into space | right now? No, because this is literally cutting the edge | right now. | podgaj wrote: | Yet we can't house the homeless. | [deleted] | spaetzleesser wrote: | But then people complain about ITER costing 25 billion | although its possible impact in the world is much bigger. | credit_guy wrote: | My question still stands: would $25 BN be too much? $100 | BN? Why is $11 BN a good deal? Would any price be a good | deal for an "era-defining" project? | | In the '90's there was this huge Manhattan-like project, | called "The Human Genome Project" [1]. The pricetag was | about $3 BN. It took more than a decade. Then out of | nowhere a startup appeared, and sequenced the human genome | ten times faster and ten times cheaper (and fully with | private funds). Nowadays, of course, we can sequence | someone's genome for literally cents. | | The JWT project started before SpaceX was a thing. Right | now it looks quite likely that in less than one year we'll | have a launch vehicle that will be able to put 100 tons in | orbit in one shot, and for cheap. All the complexity of the | folding involved with JWT would become unnecessary with | Starship. If someone were to start right now a JWT project, | there's a realistic chance they'll finish it in a tenth of | the time and a tenth of the cost, just like Celera did. We | would get the same scientific results, but maybe one or two | years later. | | So, now, am I allowed to ask again: why exactly was the $11 | BN a good deal? | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genome_Project | | [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celera_Corporation | jacoblambda wrote: | 20-30B would have been about what I had estimated given | the complexity involved for this project. I think 11B | spread over 2 decades and some change was a pretty good | deal comparatively. | | Now I think that hindsight being what it is, if we had | known that Starship was in the pipeline and this would be | launching right when Starship is getting into production | (considering JWST started development in the mid 90s), I | would have said that we should be designing a | cheaper/simpler telescope that uses this larger launch | package. | | But that's all hindsight. For what the JWST actually | accomplishes, it's an engineering marvel and given what | we knew when it was being designed, I think NASA and the | associated committees did an excellent job making it as | cheap and large as it is. | | Now if we were to take what was learned from the JWST (a | lot of innovative work on beryllium mirror design and | segmented telescope design was done on this project) and | were to design a new telescope today using modern | technology, modern materials knowledge, and a launch | vehicle like the Starship, I'd suppose we could make an | equivalent telescope for 25% or less of the JWST's cost. | Unfortunately however by the time this would be feasible, | the majority of that money had already long since been | spent using existing technology and techniques. This | hypothetical cheaper telescope would also likely not be | ready for launch if started in say 2015 until 2025 or so | when the Starship would be considered safe enough for | such a high value mission. | | TLDR: It was a good value for the era in which it was | designed and built. It is limited by what NASA knew when | they designed it. And if it was to be built today, it | wouldn't launch for at least a decade after the design | would start and you'd undoubtedly be able to make a | similar statement about said design from "now-era" vs a | hypothetical better value proposition from "future-era". | Knowing what we knew at the time it was worth it and to | wait indefinitely for the optimal time to start a design | will always be a race of better vs perfect. | credit_guy wrote: | > For what the JWST actually accomplishes, it's an | engineering marvel | | Sure, but so are the Event Horizon Telescope (which cost | less than $100 MM) and LIGO (cost about $1 BN). And those | were truly revolutionary, and they hold a lot of promise | for more scientific results down the road. At any given | moment the scientific world has lots of ideas, some are | truly ingenious, and some are just bigger-is-better | iterations of older ideas. The really ingenious ones tend | to be cheaper, if for no other reason than they can't get | huge amounts of funding given they are not proven yet. | The bigger-is-better ideas get eye popping dollars, and | the public opinion is always positive. Just like it | happens with Hollywood sequels. | adgjlsfhk1 wrote: | From link 2: "However, a significant portion of the human | genome had already been sequenced when Celera entered the | field, and thus Celera did not incur any costs with | obtaining the existing data, which was freely available | to the public from GenBank". The reason Celera was able | to finish the project cheap was because public funding | had already done the first 90%. | wolverine876 wrote: | > If someone were to start right now a JWT project, | there's a realistic chance they'll finish it in a tenth | of the time and a tenth of the cost | | What is your basis for saying that 90% of the cost and | time was due to folding mirrors? That sounds like the | easy part - it's mechanical, and satellites have been | unfolding in orbit for a long time. | trasz wrote: | Never mind government expenditures as a whole; $11 billion | is less than a single aircraft carrier. | gvv wrote: | For those complaining about the spending: some countries spent | TRILLIONS on war and and nation building. It's developments like | these we should be focusing our energy and intelect. | cogman10 wrote: | $11 billion for a 10 year mission is peanuts in modern | government operating expenses. It's not even $11 billion for 10 | years, but already spent money over something like 15 years. | | So, roughly $11 billion over 25 years. Something that many | nations could afford. | justajot wrote: | Just for reference, the total U.S. Department of Defense budget | for 2021 was $705 billion. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_... | deltree7 wrote: | or you can let a country have multiple billionaires so that | they can fund these projects with their own money and compete | within themselves, take more risks and compress the timelines | of frontier-conquering and innovation. | | But, we want a large bureaucratic organization (by design), | extremely risk-averse(by design), extremely slow(by design), | having only one shots (by design) to do this for us | systemvoltage wrote: | This is a poor argument and poor reasoning. This way, instead | of improving, we continue to regress ("Look there! They're | doing it too!" argument). We should be halving expense on all | fronts while demanding the same output - whether it's military | or space spending. Look at ISRO's budget, high efficiency is | key. | | Just because DoD budget is $750b, doesn't mean that we should | have a free pass to waste money. I'd like to see DoD spending | cut in half while holding vendors accountable. Same with space | industry. | | Another way to think about this if it helps is for $11b, we | should have gotten more done. Imagine James Webb Telescope + 5 | more projects for the same $11b. Wouldn't that be awesome? | gifnamething wrote: | That's barely enough for a negative revenue electric vehicle | startup these days | kdmccormick wrote: | I think GP's parent is a fair argument against criticisms | that start and end at "$11B is a lot of money!". It is valid | to point out that $11B pales in comparison to the US's | defense budget as a means of providing context for how big | these really big numbers are. | | If someone were to point to specific ways in which the | project wasted money, that'd be different. But I haven't seen | such detailed criticisms. | | Nobody is arguing that wasting money is a good thing. | panick21_ wrote: | While true, its also a huge problem when contractors promise | something for 2B$ and then it costs 10-15B$ without the | contractors suffering any consequences. What stops them from | doing that for every single contract? | | There is a reason recently NASA has started to focus on Fixed | Price contracts. | | We need a shift to more missions, building these things more | often and more on price. Putting absurd amount of money into 1 | mission compared to 20 missions for 500M$ likely doesn't make | sense. | | The Webb telescope has been so long in development that lots of | subsystems could have evolved considerably since then. | bregma wrote: | But I'm sure this project will have many technological spinoffs | that could, with only a little additional funding, be used | either to kill a lot of people or to generate personal wealth | for at least a few select individuals (and those are not | mutually exclusive). It's a bargain at twice the price. | yboris wrote: | With $11B why can't we funnel all that money into _fusion_ | research? Feels like a bigger payoff than anything this could | bring :/ | cogman10 wrote: | Good news, since the JWST started the US alone has pushed in | $7.087 billion dollars into fusion research [1] | | By the time it finishes it's mission we're likely to have | exceeded that $11 billion budget in fusion research. | | Unfortunately, I don't think fusion is something simply solved | by more money. | | [1] http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2021/ph241/margraf1/ | afroboy wrote: | Shouldn't you say that about the US military budget that goes | over 7OO billion dollar each year? | pixelpoet wrote: | Aside: those alphabetical O's you used instead of zeros are | super jarring! | m3kw9 wrote: | There will be annoying people saying - we have world hunger now, | and you are spending 11b to looking at the universe 10b years | ago??? | podgaj wrote: | That would be me. If it is annoying to care about the suffering | of those less fortunate so be it. | | https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homeless... | | In January 2020, there were 580,466 people experiencing | homelessness in America. Most were individuals (70 percent), | and the rest were people living in families with children. They | lived in every state and territory, and they reflected the | diversity of our country. | | That $11B would give about $18000 to all of those people. At | $1000 a monthly rent that would house them for nearly two years | and would most likely help them to stabilize their lives. Plus | it would pump more money into the economy. | | You will never find the end of the universe, or know why it | began. And if you do find out, what is the purpose? Will it | help you love another human being more? No, you will invent | something else you need to discover. | jcun4128 wrote: | I just hope these donations make it to the people, I donate | to things like this (now including this one) and hope it | makes a difference. | kortex wrote: | We're not yeeting $11B USD into a Lagrange halo orbit. It's | funding STEM jobs. | | Yes we should have UBI but like, that doesn't meant we can't | do science at the same time. Maybe look to the MIC to cut | first. | podgaj wrote: | Who gets STEM jobs? The already wealthy kids of wealthy | parents. | | Yes, cut the MIC budget, but this is part of that budget, | kind of, since "Northrop Grumman Fully Assembles NASA's | James Webb Space Telescope" | | https://militarycouncil.ca.gov/2019/09/19/northrop- | grumman-f... | jazzyjackson wrote: | it is hard for me to respond to this sentiment, it's so | dismissive of an entire industry | | even giving credence to this hypothesis that STEM is a | rich kids' sport, should we let the talent go to waste | and give rich kids nothing to work on? | | I suppose you would say we should apply everyone's | intelligence to solving the bureaucratic problem of how | california spends its welfare budget, but it may surprise | you that that does not inspire passion in many young | people. Space exploration does, and if we have an economy | where certain kids get private tutors their whole lives | so they someday build telescopes that literally take | photographs of the edge of the universe, I think that's | something we can celebrate even if it doesn't solve | literally every problem. | BitwiseFool wrote: | >"Who gets STEM jobs? The already wealthy kids of wealthy | parents." | | I believe this is cynically reductive. I worked with | plenty of first-generation college students when we | studied engineering. All were on scholarships. I think we | should be weary of associating STEM with privilege. | cogman10 wrote: | Is the US government known for being generous with STEM | pay? I was of the impression that most people take a pay | cut working for the gov. | | Now defense contractors, that's where the big bucks are. | SonicScrub wrote: | If you give one person $1000 per month, you can improve that | person's life with next to zero external consequences. If an | organization gives half a million people $1000 per month, the | external macro economic impacts must be considered. Societal | quality of life improvement is not as simple as in the | single-person example. You can't scale one up one to the | other and expect the individual result to similarly scale. | | If you doubt this true, consider the fact that the US | Government currently spends upwards of $1 Trillion /year on | welfare programs per year. That is money specifically | dedicated to poverty elimination and/or management. An amount | that makes the James Web 0.44 billion /year over 25 years | look like a rounding error. By your numbers, that $1 Trillion | could be used to give each of the ~0.5 million homeless | around $1.7 million per year. If it's this simple, why hasn't | it been done? Is your assumption about how poverty | elimination is as simple as throwing money perhaps incorrect? | What do you know that the US Federal government doesn't? | | FYI emotional appeals about how a telescope can't help us | love each other will do you no favours here. Likewise with | implications that you are the only one who cares about | homelessness, or that one cannot care about both homelessness | and space exploration at the same time. | kataklasm wrote: | > That $11B would give about $18000 to all of those people. | At $1000 a monthly rent that would house them for nearly two | years [...]. | | Let's not change algebra to fit our conclusions, shall we? | | I really don't understand how people are getting angry at | $11B in space exploration funding. Consider the following: | | a. Go through some of the cutting-edge technologies humankind | has at its disposal nowadays (yes, yes, the kids starving in | Africa do not, but that's an entire new tangent) and have a | look at how they were invented. Chances are a lot of them | originate in space exploration or space experiments. Modern | navigation systems that power basically any systems you can | think off that you use everyday. The high-tech tracking | systems making sure the laser scalpel during LASIK eye | surgery doesn't destroy your sight but rather restores it? | Yea that was developed from a program that developed | automated docking and rendezvous laser tracking systems for | space dockings. | | b. Can't you think of many more money sinks that would | deserve to get defunded before thinking of space exploration? | How about you start with the US Military? Last year the US | spent over $750B on defense costs, that's over 68x the $11B | figure quoted for James Webb. Surely we can deduct a billion | or two here and there? You know what? that'd be double | positive since you wouldn't create a whole portion of hungry | humans at the same time since you're not going to war with | half the world anymore. Stop the stupid fucking military | complex first, then you can talk about defunding space | exploration. | jallen_dot_dev wrote: | > That $11B would give about $18000 to all of those people. | | Unfortunately you can't just live inside a pile of cash. The | problems surrounding homelessness are slightly more | complicated than you are letting on, and "we spent the money | to buy a telescope instead" is not one of them. | dahfizz wrote: | We already spend over a trillion dollars a year on various | welfare programs[1]. Throwing more money at social issues | will not help. | | > Plus it would pump more money into the economy. | | It would "pump" money straight into the pockets of landlords. | Its not like the money spent on JWT was shredded... | | [1] https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS%20Report% | 20-... | [deleted] | imglorp wrote: | Explicitly ordering our priorities is probably a good | conversation to have; better to have it in the open than hidden | in a pork bill somewhere. | | We should also talk about fossil fuel subsidies ~5T/yr (!), | infra $1.2T (one time), defense at $768B/yr, etc etc. | | https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuels-received-5-9-trill... | trasz wrote: | 11 billion is less than a single aircraft carrier, of which US | has already built several. There are better things to cut | funding to than a one of a kind telescope. | FiberBundle wrote: | Given that this will be at a distance of more than a million | miles from earth, I would assume that missions to repair the | telescope are likely not an option. So how long is jwst expected | to live? Is it extremely unlikely to collide with any objects at | such a distance from earth? | josho wrote: | What exactly are we hoping to learn from the telescope? I | understand that it will allow us to see farther than ever before, | and that is exciting. But, there must be a list of hypotheses | that astronomers are planning to test. None of the | videos/articles I've found actually speak to the specific | discoveries we are hoping to make. Is it simply that the science | is so advanced that it's out of reach for a layman? | doctoboggan wrote: | What I am most excited for is the experiments using this scope | to analyse the atmospheres of exoplanets. The goal is to look | for signs of like like high quantities of methane. | digitcatphd wrote: | Splendid | | It is destined for a point in space 1.5 million kilometres from | Earth -- too far away for astronauts to visit and fix the | telescope if something goes wrong. Hubble required an after- | launch repair in 1993, when astronauts used the space shuttle to | get to the Earth-orbiting observatory and install corrective | optics for its primary mirror, which had been improperly ground. | gadnuk wrote: | The whole Hubble mirror fiasco was fascinating. The before and | after images of the galaxy M100 in the following link outlines | the extent of the error: | | https://www.nasa.gov/content/hubbles-mirror-flaw | | One may assume that maybe the error was simply too big and | that's why the aberration. Here's the root cause and the | magnitude of the error would be dismissed as nothing by most | people on this planet but ultimately turned out to be huge! | | "Ultimately the problem was traced to miscalibrated equipment | during the mirror's manufacture. The result was a mirror with | an aberration one-50th the thickness of a human hair, in the | grinding of the mirror." | a9h74j wrote: | That's huge. Everyday profile accuracy can be spoken of in | "quarter wavelength"-like terms. | gadnuk wrote: | The deployment sequence that takes approx 30 days is terrifying | but also probably one of the most complex things we would ever | achieve if successful. | | Have been waiting for this since I was a teenager. Can't believe | we are almost there (launch on Dec 22). | | Here's a short 2 min video of that deployment sequence if anyone | wants to be fascinated: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzGLKQ7_KZQ | | Also a short interview with Dr. John Mather (could listen to him | all day) if anyone wants to know how the telescope works: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P8fKd0IVOs | kortex wrote: | How does one even _begin_ to engineer tests for such a sequence | of events? Yeah you can test each step individually, but then | you have all the integration effects. How do you know you have | enough coverage? | | $10B buys a lot of QA and I'm sure they try to engineer | everything with the right margins, but it's still an | unfathomable amount of state space. | | Are there techniques to stay sane and manage risk without just | throwing money at it? I feel like that kind of knowledge could | be useful for software test development. | jdiez17 wrote: | There's no real silver bullet other than applying the systems | engineering process diligently. You start by writing down | your user requirements (what the system needs to _deliver_ ), | and you follow the thread of figuring out that "to do X, this | subsystem has to provide conditions A, B, C..." recursively, | in a breadth-first search. The level of detail codified in | these functional, performance and interface requirements | depends on the level of assurance you need. | | Then, you need to _validate_ that each requirement is met by | your system. This can be done by test, analysis | (mathematically proving some property), review of design, or | inspection. It 's true that you can't fully validate most | space systems on Earth, because we can't simulate all | environmental conditions simultaneously. That's why you | ideally you want each requirement to be validated by two | methods. | | When you find anomalies due to integration effects, it's | usually because your interface requirements are not specified | well enough ;) | ausbah wrote: | this level of rigor always makes me snicker at the | engineering in "software engineering" | jl6 wrote: | This is how you are supposed to build software too. | danielheath wrote: | Who supposed that? | | Broken software can be fixed cheaply after the fact. | Yeah, it's cheaper if you find the bugs earlier but it | shouldn't come as any surprise that pre-validation is | more extensive in systems that are expensive to change. | s1artibartfast wrote: | There are lots of different types of software. | | There are phone note apps and control systems for jets | and artificial hearts | russtrotter wrote: | Fair point, but the software that eventually ends up in | flying space hardware has usually been put to a similar | test. | markus_zhang wrote: | You can probably snicker at most engineering in "X | engineering". | thelittleone wrote: | Likewise... I was pretty impressed with myself in the 90s | as a young guy passing the Microsoft Certified Systems | Engineer exam. | | "According to Encyclopedia Britannica, the first recorded | 'engineer' was Imhotep. He happened to be the builder of | the Step Pyramid at Saqqarah, Egypt." [link] | | I look forward to drinking ale with Imhotep (and NASA JW | Space Telescope engineers) in the great heavenly hall of | engineers. | | https://interestingengineering.com/the-origin-of-the- | word-en... | wumpus wrote: | One of the best talks I've heard recently was by an | early-20s engineer talking about safety-critical software | for trains. | | Yes, it's very different from most software engineering. | No need to snicker, just do the appropriate thing for | your situation. | peterburkimsher wrote: | I agree, it's a recursive search! Translated into software | testing: | | _" level of detail codified in functional, performance and | interface requirements"_ | | functions, usage frequency, APIs. | | _" usually because your interface requirements are not | specified well enough"_ | | It's probably a bug in the API. | | https://martinfowler.com/bliki/TwoHardThings.html | | _" There are only two hard things in Computer Science: | cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors"_ | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ctags | | Suggestion: use ctags to list all functions, variable names | in your code. Look for ambiguity (e.g. variable name "i"). | Look at neighbouring code. Zoom in and out. A small bug in | the most-used code is actually more serious than a big bug | in code that rarely gets used. | | "How long can you work on making a routine task before | you're spending more time than you save?" | | https://xkcd.com/1205/ | zppln wrote: | Is any of the systems documentation for any NASA project | publicly available? As someone who spends a considerable | amount of time sifting through systems documentation where | the process hasn't been applied so diligently, I've always | wanted to read a NASA SSDD or similar. | wolverine876 wrote: | Simple: | | NASA Systems Engineering Handbook | https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20170001761 | | That's the 2017 version; maybe there's a later one. IIRC, | it's an abridged from _NASA Expanded Guidance for SE_ , but | my link to that is broken. | qwertyuiop_ wrote: | Wait no Agile ? | wolverine876 wrote: | Did you read it all? ;) | peterburkimsher wrote: | You gave the answer! Integration tests. And they work | recursively, with a Kalman filter to approximate even in | noisy conditions. | | _" USL was inspired by Hamilton's recognition of patterns or | categories of errors occurring during Apollo software | development. Errors at the interfaces between subsystem | boundaries accounted for the majority of errors and were | often the most subtle and most difficult to find. Each | interface error was placed into a category identifying the | means to prevent it by way of system definition. This process | led to a set of six axioms, forming the basis for a | mathematical constructive logical theory of control for | designing systems that would eliminate entire classes of | errors just by the way a system is defined.[3][4]"_ | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Systems_Language | | There's a diagram of rules on the USL Wikipedia page. The | rules show triangle feedback loops with a parent, left, right | child. Those are like generations of a Sierpinski triangle. | Every part is trying to serve the Good Cause that it's | working for, and love its neighbour. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_realization | | _" any state-space model that is both controllable and | observable and has the same input-output behaviour as the | transfer function is said to be a minimal realization of the | transfer function The realization is called "minimal" because | it describes the system with the minimum number of states."_ | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimal_control | | _" the problem of driving the output to a desired nonzero | level can be solved after the zero output one is."_ | | An electronic analogy: find GND, then solve for 1. | | _A common solution strategy in many optimal control problems | is to solve for the costate (sometimes called the shadow | price) A shadow price is a monetary value assigned to | currently unknowable or difficult-to-calculate costs in the | absence of correct market prices. It is based on the | willingness to pay principle - the most accurate measure of | the value of a good or service is what people are willing to | give up in order to get it. The costate summarizes in one | number the marginal value of expanding or contracting the | state variable next turn._ | | Each part looks ahead 1 generation, chooses left or right. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalman_decomposition | | _convert a representation of any linear time-invariant (LTI) | control system to a form in which the system can be | decomposed into a standard form which makes clear the | observable and controllable components of the system_ | | Take a big problem, break it down, look for I/O ports. Or in | software test development: layers of abstraction. A | suggestion: only add a layer of abstraction when it's too big | to fit on the screen at once. Use tools like code folding, | tree views. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimal_control | | Optimise for time? When we're in a hurry we break things. | Another suggestion: aim to minimise entropy, maximise | connectedness. | | Thank you for asking a good question, and thank you for | reading! Let's go and tidy up this world together, in | software and hardware. | smarx007 wrote: | I would start with https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-Model. | System designs of everything in automotive, aerospace etc are | based on a V model. | Nicksil wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-Model | double0jimb0 wrote: | Systems Engineering is the discipline that oversees this. | They define what tests will be required to validate the thing | will do what it is supposed to before any hardware is built. | I don't think there is a good analogy to typical software QA, | which is usually a "make sure it doesn't break anything that | already works" type of discipline. | inglor_cz wrote: | We _really_ need Starship in operation. It should be able to | carry much larger objects into space - no need for complicated | folding and unfolding mechanisms. | | Starship could possibly take normal sized heavy equipment to | other planets, such as heavy earth movers. (Not those with a | combustion engine, but still useful.) | jcims wrote: | The one thing that I think starship has proven is that for | any major mission that stretches our current launch | capanilities, it may be worth investigating developing a new | launch vehicle instead of accommodating the ones we have. | | Just think of all the engineering and risk that's going into | a process that will be used once. | grishka wrote: | Not even that -- seeing how cheap Starship launches would be | per kg of payload (I've seen a figure of $10), we could as | well build a huge orbital station and _just manufacture and | /or assemble arbitrarily sized stuff in there or even in | space_. No atmosphere, and especially pesky oxygen, to deal | with, no contaminants to keep out, no gravity to fight | against. I'd imagine that any scientific and fabrication | processes that need a deep vacuum would also greatly benefit | from being done on a space station. | inglor_cz wrote: | Zero gravity engineering is going to be an interesting | challenge, and a source of many funny videos. (Possibly | some less than funny, too.) | | I would definitely love to see something like the Space | Station V from Kubrick's 2001 - A Space Odyssey IRL. AFAIK | it was almost a quarter of a mile in diameter. This seems | to be suited for in-orbit fabrication and assembly. | chasd00 wrote: | the "fabric" tensioning looks really sketchy to me. i can | barely get a fitted sheet tensioned correctly on my bed.. | belter wrote: | Suddenly extremely worried about this: | | "James Webb Telescope will run a proprietary JS interpreter by | a bankrupt company " | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19737663 | | https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252882358_Event-dri... | | "The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) will use an event-driven | system architecture to provide efficient and flexible | operations as initiated by a simplified, high-level ground | command interface. Event-driven operations is provided through | the use of an on-board COTS JavaScript engine hosted within the | payload flight software..." | | Edit: Found something ....Is it too late to postpone the | launch? | | https://www.stsci.edu/~idash/pub/dashevsky0607rcsgso.pdf | | "...The JWST science operations will be driven by ASCII | (instead of binary command blocks) on-board scripts, written in | a customized version of JavaScript. The script interpreter is | run by the flight software, which is written in C++. The flight | software operates the spacecraft and the science instruments. | | The on-board scripts will autonomously construct and issue | commands, as well as telemetry requests, in real-time to the | flight software, to direct the Observatory Subsystems (e.g., | Science Instruments, Attitude Control, etc.)... | | The flight software will execute the command sent by the | calling on-board script and return telemetry, which will be | evaluated in real-time by that on-board script. The calling | script will then send status information to a higher-level on- | board script, which contains the logic to skip forward in the | observing plan in response to certain events (see Section | 4.1)... " | | Found it... | | "JWST uses an extended version of JavaScript, which was | developed as a COTS product called Nombas ScriptEase 5.00e. | ScriptEase provides functionality common to many modern | software languages and follows the ECMAScript standard." | | http://brent-noorda.com/nombas/us/toolkit/index.htm | | http://brent-noorda.com/nombas/us/toolkit/isdkdownload.htm | | Latest errata from 2004, moving from worried to full panic | mode... | | http://brent-noorda.com/nombas/us/devspace/errata/isdk/index... | xenadu02 wrote: | It is common in such commercial agreements to provide source | code or to escrow source code with a third party service with | conditions that trigger release of the sources (eg bankruptcy | or sale to another company that discontinues the product). So | it is possible they have the full source. | | It is also worth considering that the JS engine likely hasn't | changed much (if at all) in the past 15 years. Its bugs and | limits are well-known at this point. | | It is also an interpreter which makes it slower* but less | subject to vulnerabilities that impact the host. Honestly | that's probably the correct choice for a spacecraft where | reliability and safety is more important than performance. | | Don't get me wrong: JavaScript is a big ball of WAT and | nonsense we've spent way too much effort improving but I | don't blame them for making the choice so long ago and | sticking with a known quantity rather than risk introducing | new problems by changing things. | | * I once worked on a project that used IronJS to run JS in | the .Net runtime. It took advantage of the runtime's JIT but | was a lot of not terribly optimized F# code. I built a V8 | bridge and was very excited for the increase in perf... but | it got slower. It turned out most customer-written JS code | spent most of its time using the API which was backed by C# | code and that meant lots of bridging. At the time I left they | were still using IronJS because it was faster for their | workloads. It taught me the importance of testing your actual | workload and taking a whole-system approach to perf. | jazzyjackson wrote: | it's not running Node 0.10.0 for gods sake, it's an | interpreter to write jobs that scientists can use for their | studies - the flight critical stuff is a different stack | belter wrote: | You sure about that? From the linked paper ( unfortunately | behind all kinds of paywalls...) | | "The major characteristics of our process are | | - 1) coordinated development of the operational scripts and | the flight software, | | - 2) an incremental buildup of the operational | requirements, | | - 3) recurring integrated testing. Our iterative script | implementation process addresses how to gather requirements | from a geographically dispersed team, and then how to | design, build, and test the script software to accommodate | the changes that are inevitable as flight hardware is built | and tested. | | The concurrent development of the operational scripts and | the flight software enables early and frequent "test-as- | you-will-fly" verification, thus reducing the risk of on- | orbit software problems...." | jazzyjackson wrote: | " 3.1. Event-driven Operations | | The JWST science operations will be driven by ASCII | (instead of binary command blocks) on-board scripts, | written in a customized version of JavaScript. The script | interpreter is run by the flight software, which is | written in C++. The flight software operates the | spacecraft and the science instruments." | | and in section 3.5, sounds like javascript just has an | API to lower level system functions: | | " ScriptEase JavaScript allows for a modular design flow, | where on-board scripts call lower-level scripts that are | defined as functions." | | [0] | https://www.stsci.edu/~idash/pub/dashevsky0607rcsgso.pdf | nerdponx wrote: | I am mostly curious as to how they came to JS as the | embedded scripting language of choice, as opposed to Lua | or Scheme or anything else. | writeslowly wrote: | It would have had to be an interpreter that was available | off the shelf when this was being designed (so late 90s | or early 2000s?) that ran on vxWorks on an old PowerPC | processor. That could have limited the available choices. | bumby wrote: | "They" is likely the contractor. It may be simply a | choice that allowed them to be lowest bidder | grumpyprole wrote: | I'd like to understand how such a pinnacle of human design | and engineering came to depend on a technology that is, | putting it politely, certainly not. | beebmam wrote: | The fact that a project as profoundly important as the | James Webb telescope only has a $11 Billion budget is | staggering to me. | nickff wrote: | Well, it started off with a $0.5 BB budget, and was | supposed to be launched about 14 years ago... | BatFastard wrote: | It had a 1.5 billion budget, 9.5 billion in overruns. | bumby wrote: | Software assurance within NASA is often a low-priority if | not just an afterthought. Many project/program managers are | from the hardware side (e.g., mechanical, electrical, or | industrial engineers) and don't always give the appropriate | gravitas to software in terms of its ability to contribute | to failures. | wolverine876 wrote: | What is that based on? And has NASA had many software | failures? Their missions seem incredibly reliable, | especially considering how far beyond the bleeding edge | they operate. | belter wrote: | Sounds like somebody at NASA should contact Brent Noorda. | | "Nombas,Un-Incorporated" http://brent- | noorda.com/nombas/us/index.htm | | He is in the critical path... | robbiewxyz wrote: | From that video it appears the unfolding sequence is set to | occur prior to the insertion burn into L2. | | If the JWST will in fact spend almost a month in earth's orbit, | does someone have an educated estimate on the magnitude of risk | posed by space junk to nominal deployment? | | Looking at those solar shields I imagine that they could be | destroyed entirely by even the smallest of debris fragments. | Same with the mirrors. | | Edit: I'm wrong here (thanks @thethirdone). The burn set to | occur after deployment is the L2 insertion burn and not the | transfer insertion burn. Most of deployment will occur in the | transfer orbit en route to L2, far away from earth-orbiting | debris. | ProjectArcturis wrote: | It will orbit and deploy at the point where the Earth's and | sun's gravity cancel out, which is far beyond most anything | else, especially space junk. | thethirdone wrote: | I interpreted "orbital insertion burn" to mean the | stabilization into L2 burn. With that interpretation the | unfolding occurs during its travel to L2 where there is | little space debris. | 0x0nyandesu wrote: | Basically none cause it's outside the typical orbit | ashika wrote: | it's wild to me, given all the delays and complexity and risk, | that the mission length is only 5-10 years max. but even if it | blows up on the launchpad we've learned a ton, if only about | the difficulty of manufacturing such devices in the 21st | century. i am praying it does work, though, and that we get 10 | years of amazing data from it before eagerly deploying a | replacement. | cogman10 wrote: | Is 10 years a hard max (like does it crash into the moon or | something?) or is it just a projected max timeframe? | | I wonder that mostly because we've managed to use a lot of | our other space equipment well past their their mission | lengths. I'd be interested if JWST is possibly the same. | ditn wrote: | It's a hard limit due needing fuel to maintain its orbit. | It's in a lagrange point | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange_point) which | requires occasional orbital corrections. | edg-l wrote: | a good video about lagrange points | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu4vA2ztgGM | jacoblambda wrote: | Well it's not strictly a hard limit but it's currently | planned to be a hard limit. If SpaceX can pull off even a | fraction of what they claim with Starship, it's not | unrealistic to think that it'd be financially viable to | attempt a refuelling of the JWST. | ditn wrote: | That's an event I'd like to see! | ortusdux wrote: | IIRC, it was also not designed to be serviceable. | terramex wrote: | It has a docking ring for potential service mission. | Tuna-Fish wrote: | -ish. They have no firm plans for servicing it, but it | does have a docking adapter and the fuel/coolant | connections are designed to be usable in space. | | Basically, because there is no reasonable way to service | something in L2, they can't really plan for it, but it's | expensive enough that they made sure there is the | capability if someone in the future would, say, build a | spaceship that is orbitally refuelable and designed so it | can take crew that far out. | mcdonje wrote: | Yes and no. Fuel is the limiting factor, but it could go | beyond a decade. See here: | https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/55309/james- | webb-t... | [deleted] | captn3m0 wrote: | The limit is propellant in the tank, which needs to be used | for station-keeping. | | 5.5yr is the minimum, 10 sounds probable (stated goal), | while 20-40yrs is the best guess with expected fuel usage. | | https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/55309/james- | webb-t... | [deleted] | gadnuk wrote: | Unlike Hubble, since JWST will need to be stable and | orbiting around L2, this is cited as the reason for it | being a finite mission: | | Edit after someone corrected me. | | Please refer to this comment: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29490291 | jazzyjackson wrote: | I'm sure one of our manned moon missions can swing by and | top her off | | /kidding | | //a little | reportingsjr wrote: | The article you linked says absolutely nothing about the | helium cooling medium. | | Three of the four imagers on the telescope are passively | cooled and will work as long as they don't succumb to | radiation, diffusion, etc. The fourth one (MIRI) has a | cryocooler that uses liquid helium, but it will leak out | very slowly and mechanical wear and electronics lifespan | is expected to be the limiting factor there. [0, 1] | | As stated in other comments, the primary driver of | lifespan is a combination of how stable the telescope | orbit is, and the resulting amount of fuel needed to keep | the telescope in a stable orbit. Depending on how things | go it has enough fuel for somewhere between 5.5 and 40 | years of operation. Assuming nothing else goes wrong. :) | | "Webb is designed to have a mission lifetime of not less | than 5-1/2 years after launch, with the goal of having a | lifetime greater than 10 years." [2] | | 0: https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/about/innovations/cryoco | oler.h... 1: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/how-cold- | can-you-go-cooler-... 2: | https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/about/faqs/faq.html | gadnuk wrote: | You are right. The source for my statement above is this | link: https://www.americanscientist.org/article/jwsts- | limiting-fac... | | At the end of the link is the clarification: | | Drs. Heng and Winn respond: | | As pointed out to us by Drs. Jason Kalirai and Jason | Tumlinson at the Space Telescope Science Institute | (STScI), as well as Mr. Sykes, our article misstated the | reason for the finite lifetime of the upcoming James Webb | Space Telescope. The mission duration of 5.5 to 10 years | is not limited by the supply of liquid helium, as we | stated. Rather, it is limited by the supply of hydrazine | fuel needed to maintain the spacecraft's orbit. | | Thanks for the correction, will edit my parent reply. | ainar-g wrote: | The Opportunity rover had a planned mission duration of ~93 | Earth days. It went on to serve for ~5,500. | wolverine876 wrote: | I wonder how credulous I've been about those estimates. | Underpromise, overdeliver is an old tool for managing | expectations. I wonder what NASA really expects for these | projects. | | (The projects are still amazing; I'm not complaining about | the engineering or performance!) | sophacles wrote: | Cool videos thanks. Do you have any handy links to _why_ it | takes 30 days to unfold everything? I assume there are good | reasons, but I just can 't imagine what they are. | gadnuk wrote: | Here's another video expanding a bit more on that deployment | sequence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY9KckPI68Y | | The observatory has around 7000 moving parts with complex | structures for the primary and secondary mirrors and more | importantly, the sunshield that would be used to keep the | observatory instruments at a specific low temperature. It | will take roughly 30 days for Webb to reach the start of its | orbit at L2. | | At the end of 30 days, the telescope should have stabilized | itself in an orbit around L2. But I would assume it takes | that many days for deployment and unfolding everything | because of the sheer number of parts and motions involved | coupled with things like getting to L2, stabilizing orbit, | temperature stability and all the checks for the instruments | on board along with the mirror deployment (since it's not one | big sheet of mirror). | | Here's a link which gives an idea about the logistics | involved (along with a cool video series of the journey | embedded): https://hackaday.com/2021/11/02/30-days-of-terror- | the-logist... | | To fathom how complex the sunshield deployment is (and that's | just a part of the whole sequence), from the link above: | | "Full deployment of the sunshield is without a doubt the | sketchiest part of the whole process. The sunshield consists | of five separate metalized Kapton sheets, each the size of | three tennis courts. Each one must be unrolled, extended to | its full size, tightened, and spaced out vertically for the | sunshield to do its job. This takes the coordinated action of | 140 release mechanisms, 70 hinges, eight deployment motors, | about 400 pullies, and nearly 400 meters of cable to | accomplish, not to mention the sensors, wiring harnesses, and | computers to control everything. It'll take the better part | of two days to complete the sunshield deployment." | | The whole thing is just insane. | | From this talk by Dr. John Mather: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RLGx_wgyAw | | Around 1:47 you can see the number of people involved. 3 | space agencies (ESA, NASA, CSA), over 3000 engineers and | technicians and 100 scientists worldwide. | sophacles wrote: | Woah - this thing is really freaking cool. Thanks for all | this info - I feel equipped to go on a long "nerd out" | after work today. | spaetzleesser wrote: | I think there is a lot of testing done after each step. It | also may have to do with the cooling. | cogman10 wrote: | AFAIK, the equipment is super sensitive as well. They | likely don't want to proceed to the next stage until they | are absolutely sure the previous stage happened | successfully, otherwise they'll risk damaging things which | will hose the whole mission. | konschubert wrote: | I guess every time after you unfold a thing, you want to | check it behaves as expected and keeps behaving as expected | before you unfold the next thing. | smarx007 wrote: | I think most critical phases you'd want to happen when the | satellite is in direct contact with the ground stations (they | probably make extensive use of relay satellites to maximize | windows of telemetry/payload data transmission, but here we | are talking about issuing critical command sequences). Those | windows are not 8 hours long. Further, it apparently takes | almost 30 days to travel to the L2 Lagrange point and not all | systems deploy until then. | | Edit: nope, I was wrong, it's going to deploy a whole range | of systems while on the way to the L2. | https://youtu.be/RzGLKQ7_KZQ | whiteboardr wrote: | Here's hoping that "incident" a couple weeks ago will be the only | one and everything will work out just fine. | | This launch and perspective for science has me anxious and | excited since its inception - and it's been a while. | | I will open a bottle of champagne when the first data will be | sent from L2 with something along the "fully operational" lines. | | Godspeed. | AustinDev wrote: | I have an acquaintance that's been working on the team for this | telescope for as long as I've known him ~10 years. He's had so | many disappointments with the continued delays and issues. I | hope for his sanity and his research this launch goes | flawlessly. | cheschire wrote: | If someone ever wanted to understand what a space force might | provide, consider what happens when someone wants to use one of | the lagrange points for their own purpose, and it's currently | occupied by someone they don't like. | | There's more to what any military force brings, obviously, both | positive and negative. It's just sometimes when discussing the | purpose of a military with others, the concept seems a little too | fuzzy because most resources seem broadly available enough that | they could easily be shared from a laypersons perspective. | Lagrange points are very finite. | | edit: apparently the area contained within a lagrange point is | larger than I expected. Negates my point. | jakeinspace wrote: | You don't need to reach the exact Lagrange point and reduce | your velocity relative to it to 0. James Webb will be orbiting | the Sun-Earth L2 with an apogee of nearly a million miles. | There is a ridiculous amount of room for craft to orbit L2, | just like there is to orbit Earth (beyond LEO). | bdcp wrote: | Also there are other satellites at L2 already. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_objects_at_Lagrange_po. | .. | | It's really a none issue | pohl wrote: | How would a space force take possession of a lagrage point, | though, without creating a permanent field of dangerous debris? | [deleted] | simcop2387 wrote: | Only reasonable way at the moment would be some kind of | satellite capture system that nobody has publicly | demonstrated. | m4rtink wrote: | AFAIK Lagrange points are not fully stable, so any debris | cloud will likely disperse into the Solar orbit, which is | kinda big. | cgriswald wrote: | None of the ideas in the sibling comments (to my post) will | work, because they ignore the fact that enemies will employ | counter-measures which may cause debris to be formed. In the | extreme case, a nation's military may decide to deny the area | to anyone rather than lose their own access, intentionally | creating such a debris field. | xyzzyz wrote: | Rendezvous, attach booster, and deorbit, or just fly away? | ziotom78 wrote: | You make it look as if one should stay _exactly_ on the | Lagrangean point to appreciate its benefits. | | The reality is that spacecrafts fly on very large orbits around | these points: the Planck spacecraft followed a 400,000 km-wide | orbit [1] around the Sun-Earth L2 point, and this is the same | for many other spacecrafts that have flown around that place. | | 400,000 km is ~30 times larger than the Earth's diameter. | Unless somebody has nasty intentions like e.g. purposefully | crashing their own spacecraft against some other, there is no | reason to be worried. There is more space around these points | than here on Earth. | | [1] https://sci.esa.int/web/planck/-/34728-orbit-navigation | WaxProlix wrote: | I don't think there's much ambiguity around a military's | utility in forcefully enclosing the commons, or claiming | extranational resources at gunpoint. I suspect people who are | leery of a 'Space Force' have other reasons to feel that way. | And I'd hope there are other ways of managing the sharing of | things like Lagrange points than outright violence (though I | suppose some body must have the capability to employ force or | else any agreements made would be easily violated, yadda | yadda). | cgriswald wrote: | The United States Air Force started off as a division of the | United States Army Signal Corps. It didn't become its own | branch of the military until after 40 years and two world wars. | | Lack of a "space force" doesn't mean lack of military | capability in space. | samstave wrote: | Phil Mosby, the guy who did the Webb inspired piece that Nasa | bought and hung in their library is from Tahoe and good friends | with my brother... we have one of his pieces hanging in our | living room, but whats REALLY cool is his astro-calendar (a | calendar with a whole bunch of space facts and beautiful pics.. | Highly recommend... | | https://i.imgur.com/B7aA3Xw.jpg | sahil50 wrote: | I expect we'll see more mature galaxies in the distant universe. | | This is a glaring problem for the standard model (big bang LCDM) | right now. | | XMM-2599, SPT0418-47, MRG-M2129, all mature galaxies, far away | TrainedMonkey wrote: | I wonder how much of the vehicle's final cost is directly | attributable to the complexity of deployment. I.E. how much | easier would this be if we had a launch vehicle with a fairing | capable of fitting fully deployed configuration. | bregma wrote: | You would probably make up for the cost savings by building | something strong enough to withstand the forces of achieving | Earth escape velocity in a fully deployed configuration, not to | mention all the increased mass that would be required. | | Since it's impossible to do maintenance on this observatory | while it's in solar orbit, and since launches have strong | vibrations and forces, it's important that the delicate and | sensitive equipment be stowed in a way to minimize the effects | of launch forces and minimizate the requirements for after- | launch maintenance. | pirate787 wrote: | This is exactly the promise of SpaceX Starship. | jltsiren wrote: | The Starship is way too small to carry the fully deployed | James Webb telescope. The sunshield is roughly 20 m x 14 m, | while the diameter of the Starship is only 9 m. | m4rtink wrote: | Still the segments could be biggearand or heavier, possibly | reducing complexity. | qwertyuiop_ wrote: | Didn't they just drop it ? | dxxvi wrote: | Why does anybody want to spend $11B on a telescope while it can | solve world hunger for almost 2 years? | dang wrote: | " _Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic | tangents._ " | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | selectodude wrote: | The cost of food is a small fraction of the cost of | distribution of said food. If you think we can solve world | hunger for $11bn/yr I have a bridge to sell you. | TedDoesntTalk wrote: | They are not mutually exclusive. | pwned1 wrote: | I'm assuming this is snark. | sadfev wrote: | It's not going up. ESA's incompetence makes sure that this | telescope doesn't see the light of space. | [deleted] | podgaj wrote: | I wonder how many cheap studio apartments they could build for | $11B to house the homeless? | | People need to probe their hearts instead of probing the | universe. | | Sorry if I spoiled your fun. | jacoblambda wrote: | To be entirely honest the answer is probably 0. It is cheap to | build housing but there is absolutely no political interest in | it. No amount of money fixes this issue because NIMBYs will do | everything in their power to block any efforts to meaningfully | improve housing. | podgaj wrote: | No need to build cheap or new housing, plenty of places to | rent for $600 - $1000 a month. That $11B could house all the | homeless in the US for two years. | jacoblambda wrote: | That doesn't matter. Landlords would under no circumstances | accept those people as tenants for the same reasons that | the government renting hotels for the homeless has been so | unsuccessful in the past. Namely the perception that the | homeless will destroy their property. This isn't | necessarily true but all it takes is a handful of bad | examples and suddenly landlords are sceptical at best if | not outright refusing. | | Homelessness is a symptom of systemic issues, it's not the | cause. Fixing those systemic issues will cost significantly | more than 11B annually. | | Don't get me wrong, I think we should be making those a | first priority but scientific projects are not who we | should be targetting for poor spending. The research this | project will do and the research that most of these space | oriented science projects do have the potential to | significantly shape our understanding not just of space but | of how the world works which has direct quantifiable | benefits for industry. | | If you want to pick an expenditure to be upset about | instead, be upset about how much the US spends on the | military. Alternatively be upset about the inefficiencies | of the US medical system or the lack of taxes paid by large | corporations or any of the other inefficiencies and | failures of the US government and economic environment. Any | of those could have their efforts redirected towards | improving the issues that lead to homelessness and wealth | inequality. | | TLDR: Scientific research on average pays back many | multiples of the original investment and 11B isn't remotely | close to enough to even impact the root causes of | homelessness. Pick your battles and focus on actual | inefficiencies in the US that are worsening the | homelessness issue or actual opportunities to increase tax | revenue/reuse actually corrupt/wasteful spending. | jungturk wrote: | Without coming off as too obtuse, is your argument that the | best return we can expect is from investing in basic needs? | | Or that for any investment to be moral we must have | satisfied more primal basic needs? | | What if it were the case that investment in basic research | today alleviates a greater amount of suffering over a | longer time horizon? What would the moral investment be? | kortex wrote: | As dang would say, | | > "Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic | tangents." | SonicScrub wrote: | The US Federal Government spends ~1 Trillion dollars on various | welfare programs per year. The James Web Space telescope | program has costed $11B over 25 years. Or roughly ~0.04% of the | total amount spent on poverty elimination / management programs | in the same period. The argument that "space-exploration is too | expensive, we should eliminate poverty instead" is pure | nonsense when comparing the scales of the resources applied to | those two issues. I fail to see how increasing welfare spending | by 0.04% at the expense of the James Webb program would be in | any way beneficial. | | [1] | https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS%20Report%20-... | aaaaaaaaaaab wrote: | It will be the most expensive fireworks if it explodes on the | launchpad. | sadfev wrote: | This is a perpetually failed project waste tax payer money on | incompetent scientists and engineers. | | #NotAScienceEquipment #wontlaunch | marricks wrote: | I'd much rather my tax dollars be spent on 11B failed | telescopes than failed trillion dollar fighter jets. Or really | most other defense project to be honest. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-12-08 23:00 UTC)