Anonymous at Thu, 13 Mar 2025 06:38:37 UTC No. 16617588

And how many of the papers have you read OP? Surely you're not just a tourist?

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Mar 2025 07:26:39 UTC No. 16617610

The problem with JWST is the main follow up will take another 20 years. Like they got away with wasting so much money and immediately approved more money wasters for themselves.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Mar 2025 10:41:12 UTC No. 16617714

>>16617588
>but.....muh papers!
Its a telescope not a word processor, schizo.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Mar 2025 10:50:50 UTC No. 16617721

>>16617551
what's your complaint here? that not much data has been collected? or that the data is not being transformed into pretty pictures "i fucking love science" porn? asking unironically, i have no idea

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Mar 2025 11:11:44 UTC No. 16617736

>>16617714
It's not Photoshop either. It was built to take scientific data to be anaysed in papers, not pretty pictures. You cannot judge it's productivity without understanding the science.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Mar 2025 11:23:15 UTC No. 16617741

>>16617551
You realize that it’s in the infrared, right? Any soicence pictures you see with it are false color anyways.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Mar 2025 18:09:57 UTC No. 16617950

>>16617721
its not doing enough to justify the time or money investment

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Mar 2025 18:15:08 UTC No. 16617953

>>16617950
It's a telescope, it's doing exactly what it was built to do. Also that $10b was split over the lifetime (30 years) of the project. The cost is peanuts.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Mar 2025 18:18:28 UTC No. 16617955

>>16617953
give me ten billion dollars and I will give you two bags of peanuts.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Mar 2025 18:41:10 UTC No. 16617970

>>16617950
what has it been doing? and what kind of output would justify the time and money? it's just looking into the sky and reporting, what else can it do? are some of the specs not as good as expected?

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Mar 2025 18:50:33 UTC No. 16617979

>>16617970
>>16617950

what would you rather have the money spent on? aid for isreal? fuck off cretin

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Mar 2025 19:19:59 UTC No. 16618000

>>16617950
Well that goes back to the original question then:
>And how many of the papers have you read
Because if you haven't actually done any research then you're just talking out your ass.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Mar 2025 19:39:15 UTC No. 16618019

>>16617551
OP thinks the goal of science is to product pretty pictures. kek

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Mar 2025 20:13:38 UTC No. 16618065

>>16617970
how about publish more pictures? or maybe publish one each day? you used taxpayer money, fucking scientist parasite

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Mar 2025 20:55:28 UTC No. 16618101

>>16617979
>>16618065
it was just a question, it's not ironic or anything, i know nothing about the telescope or why you think it failed

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Mar 2025 22:36:53 UTC No. 16618184

>>16618065
https://jwstfeed.com/
There you go, all the pictures you could want.

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Mar 2025 05:16:20 UTC No. 16618443

>>16617551
You can download all the data yourself from MAST.
Then you can do whatever amazing analysis you want on it and post your results.

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Mar 2025 14:56:49 UTC No. 16618772

where the dyson spheres at?

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Mar 2025 16:42:36 UTC No. 16618843

>>16617551
Oh my god! They spent 500 million per year on science instead of giving it to Israel? Fucking disgusting.

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Mar 2025 23:43:48 UTC No. 16619322

>>16617950
>its not doing enough to justify the time or money investment
That's your subjective opinion. I think it has justified the time and money. What now?

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 00:05:02 UTC No. 16619363

nigga really thinks we took 20 billion dollars and launched them into space

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 18:59:06 UTC No. 16619970

>>16617953
Congress wanted a $1 billion space telescope, so they decided they would rather spend $10 billion over 30 years than $5 billion over ten years. Kek

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 21:00:46 UTC No. 16620072

>>16617953
but that $10B could have gone to our Greatest Ally and their efforts to eradicate the people known as "Palestinians"

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 21:11:57 UTC No. 16620078

>>16617551
Two or possibly 3 of its mirrors are smashed now as well.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 09:12:00 UTC No. 16620569

>>16617588
I've read one billion papers and I demand you sub to my onlyfans.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 14:49:47 UTC No. 16620760

>>16617551
Because the /x/ards were right. Name another telescope with "dark hours". The glowies use it to look for ayylmaos.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 21:04:46 UTC No. 16621916

literally just took the first pics of exo planets ever

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 03:05:36 UTC No. 16622166

>>16620760
It's for navigation maps for the (((secret space program))). They also use it to find places to go.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 03:09:49 UTC No. 16622169

>>16617979
the fact that actually is the alternative is so fucked up lmao

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 13:49:30 UTC No. 16622398

>>16621916
I've already looked at this image a third time and I can't stop imagining bands of clouds that aren't there.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 14:04:55 UTC No. 16622404

>>16617979
Israel needs it more liberalcvck

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 15:28:26 UTC No. 16622431

>>16621916
>planets have a ton of CO2
>stars have next to none, and are likely very dim at those wavelengths
Why didn't anyone think of this sooner...?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 16:00:45 UTC No. 16622440

>>16622431
it's not so hard of a concept. it was just extremely difficult to make a telescope that would be good at zooming in on and differentiating the absorption spectra in that range--orders of magnitude more difficult than dealing with visible light.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 17:04:55 UTC No. 16622479

>>16620760
"the glowies" have an entire agency for operating their own satellites, the fuck do they need this thing for?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 18:47:26 UTC No. 16622557

>>16622431
The star has been suppressed by a coronagraph and subtracted, it is still tens of thousands of times brighter than any of the planets
These planets have been imaged for nearly 20 years. They were discovered by Keck and Gemini on the ground, and have been widely studied because they are an easy target. They are not typical planets. Firstly they are between 5 and 10 times more massive than Jupiter. Secondly the system is only a few 10s of millions of years old. The planets are still hot from formation, making them much easier to detect. Larger surveys with the VLT and Gemini have shown these are quite rare.
It's not the first image of a planet, it's not even the first image of these planets.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 18:50:57 UTC No. 16622561

>>16620760
Nope, the schedules a public. Nothing is hidden. Go back to /x/.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 19:20:58 UTC No. 16622582

>>16617955
go float in space for a million years and send me back some really good pictures