The Official Space and Astronomy Thread v. Well, this is weird.

[El Barto]

At the same time, I was kind of expecting something new and revolutionary. I don't see that here. I see "much better," but nothing really game changing. The pictures we're seeing look great, but twenty five years ago we were all oohing and awing over the HST pictures. This seems rather underwhelming to me.

It terms of resolution and ability to pick out distant objects out of the background noise, it blows HST out of the water, but this is the least interesting part of JWST. Hubble was a visible light and near-infrared telescope and so could only really do science on objects and features emitted at those wavelengths. Older objects however, have been red shifted so much that most of their light is in the mid and far-infrared, and that is where JWST excels which means that it can look at objects much older and closer to the big bang than HST ever could. Additionally, IR spectroscopy is very useful in determining molecular composition, as molecules have a very distinct IR emission spectrum related to their structure and how the molecules bend and vibrate:

https://www.savemyexams.co.uk/dp/chemistry_sl/ib/16/revision-notes/11-measurements--data-processes/11-1-spectroscopic-identification/11-1-4-infrared-spectroscopy/

JWST has already managed to measure the molecular composition of the atmosphere of a planet 1000 light years away. That is remarkable.

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Webb/Webb_reveals_steamy_atmosphere_of_distant_planet_in_exquisite_detail

Also, HST was able to look back to about Boom+500 million years. JWST might be able to go back as far as Boom+100. Is that 400 million year difference likely to be all that meaningful?

Long story short: yes. The transition from the dark age to the first stars being born occurred somewhere in the period of 100-500 million years after the big bang. With JWST there is a good possibility of being able to observe the very first stars that ever existed, and how the large scale structure of the universe was created.

Lastly, I'd be interested in knowing how much of what we're seeing is data and how much is interpolation. The reason the current picture looks like a painting is because in some respects it is. If nothing else it was colorized. I'd be curious to know how close to the pretty pictures the raw data is. Or, more to the point, how much of that is human interpretation.

Vox did a pretty summary of how the photos are colourised.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSG0MnmUsEY&t=211s

To summarise: the telescope itself monochromatic, so the raw data is just going to be a black and white photo. To get any colour at all, you have to take several exposures with different filters that select specific wavelengths, and then combine them digitally (your digital camera is also monochromatic at the sensor level but uses an in built filter to create a colour image. If you can use broadband filters in the red, green and blue spectrum, you can can generate true to life pictures, and when Hubble or JWST takes pictures of things like Jupiter or planets in our solar system, this is what you see. For other objects, you instead use narrowband filters that select only a very specific wavelength that corresponds to a particular atomic feature (for example H-alpha) and then map that to either the red green or blue channels in the picture. That way the composite photo becomes a map describing the composition of the thing you are looking at. It's not interpolation, any more than representing population density using a graph like this is interpolation. It's just a method of data presentation. The data itself is real.

I just noticed there's a guy staring menacingly out of your avatar. Huh.

Spectroscopy is indeed a big deal. If that's something Webb can do and not HST, then that's a game changer. Far different from the pretty pictures we're seeing.

Nice summary of the color representation. However, I still think there's a fair amount of artistic license taking place in those. The space cliffs thing may well be a map, but it's a map that's been crafted to look interesting to human eyes.

[Lonk]

Nice summary of the color representation. However, I still think there's a fair amount of artistic license taking place in those. The space cliffs thing may well be a map, but it's a map that's been crafted to look interesting to human eyes.

But that's the case with most pictures we see of deep Space. The colors are enhanced to distinguish certain features but doesn't mean those aren't there. It's just our eyes/brain suck at interpreting wavelengths outside of the visible spectrum humans can see. There was a discussion some time ago on CloudyNights about this,

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/793016-isnt-astrophotography-fake/?hl=%20fake

I understand both sides of the argument but as someone who does Astrophotography every so often, I tend to lean on the "not fake" side of things. For what is worth, the cliff image is from the Carina Nebula, which looks something like this with just some color.



Here is a monochrome image of it:

[XJDenton]

Nice summary of the color representation. However, I still think there's a fair amount of artistic license taking place in those. The space cliffs thing may well be a map, but it's a map that's been crafted to look interesting to human eyes.

Sure thing. But that's just part of good data presentation. Which is especially important for data that is designed to be communicated to people who will vary wildly in scientific background.

[Chino]

Well...

https://old.reddit.com/r/space/comments/vy3a3h/james_webb_deep_field_image_scale/


I am impressed.

[faizoff]

I found this article very helpful in giving a brief and simple breakdown of the images revealed so far by the JWST.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-14/james-webb-telescope-first-images-details-breakdown/101231818

[Dublagent66]

Well...

https://old.reddit.com/r/space/comments/vy3a3h/james_webb_deep_field_image_scale/


I am impressed.

Damn!  Nothing short of mind boggling.

[XJDenton]

Now this is neat. This is a view of Messier 74, a spiral galaxy about 32 million light years from earth, viewed with JWST. You can see voids in the structure, which are hypothesised to be caused by supernovae, which in turn condenses material around the radius and causes new stars to ignite.

[lonestar]

Damn...the sheer violence and magnitude of energy that must've been involved in those. Breathtaking. Wonder how many fledgling civilizations were wiped out?

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

Humanity’s mission back to the Moon is about to see its first major test in just a few weeks. NASA has announced that Artemis I, the uncrewed test mission of its new rocket and capsule, will roll out to the launch pad on August 18 for the expected launch on August 29.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Di_SsQpLiv8&ab_channel=EuropeanSpaceAgency%2CESA

Can't wait for the day we finally have boots on the Moon again. No matter what it's a symbolic thing the fact that we can do it but of course also one step closer to the red planet.

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

Some stunning images on Jupiter by JWST:







https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/2022/08/22/webbs-jupiter-images-showcase-auroras-hazes/?utm_source=TWITTER&utm_medium=NASAWebb&utm_campaign=NASASocial&linkId=178177184

[Lonk]

damn that's awesome

[XJDenton]

IR imaging reveals real beauty.

[faizoff]

Amazing pictures for sure, I saw them on my twitter feed ( side annoyance: I hate how Twitter puts other topics I'm interested in more than the actual feed of those who I follow, so a bunch of time I don't even see the original source of pics, videos and articles unless I search for it)

I really like the visualization of Jupiter's ring.  I don't think I ever saw that before.

[Chino]

Hot damn.

[Azyiu]

Beautiful, just beautiful... that can easily be an album cover.

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

T-minus 13:32mins until lift-off. 

[Lonk]

Pull up the live stream to find out they are having issues and it may not happen? that's a bummer

[Chino]

I'll be very surprised if this launches today :/ With its current price tag, I can't see them chancing anything. Some NASA guy came on a the stream and mentioned a "bleed" in engine 3. I have no idea what that means.

Edit: As soon as I posted this the launch was scrubbed. That sucks. I'm still very much against this rocket, but I would have liked to have seen it launch.

[ReaperKK]

Genuinely curious, why are you against this rocket?

[Chino]

I just don't think NASA has any business being in the launch business anymore. We're what, like $23B into this rocket alone? And I believe each launch thereafter costs $1B+. I'm all for throwing money at NASA. I wish they got more. But at this stage, the private sector has proven that they are more than capable of routinely delivering payloads to space for a tenth of what NASA's launch systems can. NASA should be focused on space imaging, space settlements/habitats, and the exploration of other celestial bodies in our solar system - Basically all the stuff that doesn't provide a return on investment for private companies.

I'm all for the Artemis mission itself. I just think it's the SLS that's a complete waste. Our money could be much better utilized on other space endeavors.

[XJDenton]

The private sector (which in reality means SpaceX) have a demonstrated ability to get stuff into LEO. They have much less demonstrated ability beyond it, and essentially nothing when it comes to longer term crew life support. There is nothing in the private sector that comes close to getting people to the moon within a reasonable time frame.

[Chino]

The private sector (which in reality means SpaceX) have a demonstrated ability to get stuff into LEO. They have much less demonstrated ability beyond it, and essentially nothing when it comes to longer term crew life support. There is nothing in the private sector that comes close to getting people to the moon within a reasonable time frame.

True, but 10 years ago you'd have said the same thing about life support capsules to and from the ISS, yet here we are with Crew Dragon. Falcon Heavy in its current config is already capable to getting stuff into lunar orbit/to the moon, no? I believe they're scheduled to bring a lander there some time early next year.

When it comes to the private sector and you say "There is nothing in the private sector that comes close to getting people to the moon", it's because they haven't had a need. It's not that the private sector can't. It's that they don't have (haven't had) any reason for doing so. If NASA approached SpaceX and said "In 10 years time we need a rocket that can carry 8 people to the moon for $500M a trip or less", I'm thinking SpaceX would solve that one in no time. I'm talking a working prototype in 3 years or less. If NASA would pay for the seats, the private sector would make it a reality. 

Crew Dragon was developed with something like $2.3B in funding to SpaceX from NASA. They've spent $23B on this rocket so far and haven't even lit the candle yet. $23B would go way further in SpaceX's hands than in NASA's when it comes to rocket launches. NASA could have bought 237 Falcon Heavy launches for what they've spent so far just getting this SLS rocket to the pad. 

[hunnus2000]

I just don't think NASA has any business being in the launch business anymore. We're what, like $23B into this rocket alone? And I believe each launch thereafter costs $1B+. I'm all for throwing money at NASA. I wish they got more. But at this stage, the private sector has proven that they are more than capable of routinely delivering payloads to space for a tenth of what NASA's launch systems can. NASA should be focused on space imaging, space settlements/habitats, and the exploration of other celestial bodies in our solar system - Basically all the stuff that doesn't provide a return on investment for private companies.

I'm all for the Artemis mission itself. I just think it's the SLS that's a complete waste. Our money could be much better utilized on other space endeavors.

Isn't this a SpaceX rocket?

[El Barto]

I just don't think NASA has any business being in the launch business anymore. We're what, like $23B into this rocket alone? And I believe each launch thereafter costs $1B+. I'm all for throwing money at NASA. I wish they got more. But at this stage, the private sector has proven that they are more than capable of routinely delivering payloads to space for a tenth of what NASA's launch systems can. NASA should be focused on space imaging, space settlements/habitats, and the exploration of other celestial bodies in our solar system - Basically all the stuff that doesn't provide a return on investment for private companies.

I'm all for the Artemis mission itself. I just think it's the SLS that's a complete waste. Our money could be much better utilized on other space endeavors.

Isn't this a SpaceX rocket?

If you're asking about Artemis, it's NASA's in house rocket repurposing SSMEs. It's essentially the old orbiter stack without the orbiter and significantly bigger SRBs. THe problem with the price tag is that SSME's are terribly expensive, and while the shuttle reused them, these will burn up afterward.

That said, the SLS system has a massive payload, far greater than Falcon Heavy, and it's utilizing tried and true technology. While it's stupidly expensive, we did have the parts laying around, and it will fill a niche that isn't currently filled.

[Chino]

I just don't think NASA has any business being in the launch business anymore. We're what, like $23B into this rocket alone? And I believe each launch thereafter costs $1B+. I'm all for throwing money at NASA. I wish they got more. But at this stage, the private sector has proven that they are more than capable of routinely delivering payloads to space for a tenth of what NASA's launch systems can. NASA should be focused on space imaging, space settlements/habitats, and the exploration of other celestial bodies in our solar system - Basically all the stuff that doesn't provide a return on investment for private companies.

I'm all for the Artemis mission itself. I just think it's the SLS that's a complete waste. Our money could be much better utilized on other space endeavors.

Isn't this a SpaceX rocket?

If you're asking about Artemis, it's NASA's in house rocket repurposing SSMEs. It's essentially the old orbiter stack without the orbiter and significantly bigger SRBs. THe problem with the price tag is that SSME's are terribly expensive, and while the shuttle reused them, these will burn up afterward.

That said, the SLS system has a massive payload, far greater than Falcon Heavy, and it's utilizing tried and true technology. While it's stupidly expensive, we did have the parts laying around, and it will fill a niche that isn't currently filled.

I think the SLS can carry 30k lbs or so more to LEO, and 10K lbs or so more to the moon than Falcon Heavy. Unless the dimensions of the thing being launched exceed that of the size of Falcon Heavy's cargo hold, it still makes more financial sense to go that route. Send up two FHs for 1/5 the cost of an SLS, and get more weight into space in the process. SpaceX also has Starship in the works which is supposed to be able to lift 50% more than SLS.   

Granted, that craft is still in development, but still. If NASA cut SpaceX a check and said "have this rocket ready in three years", I'm sure SpaceX could step up to the challenge. Even with the off-the-shelf components, the cost of this launch system is staggering. The fact that it still costs $1B per launch with old hardware and no ability to recover the rocket without having to refurbish is nuts.

[cramx3]

I haven't been following this, but a local news station did a piece on this yesterday mentioned that China has a 2030 goal to have people on the moon.  Is our goal to get back there before the Chinese? 

It boggles my mind we did this so long ago and haven't gone back.  I understand it comes at an extreme cost, but it seems almost like this is a repeat of the space race but maybe there's some actual goal of securing land and resources on the moon instead of just going there? 

[XJDenton]

I think the SLS can carry 30k lbs or so more to LEO, and 10K lbs or so more to the moon than Falcon Heavy. Unless the dimensions of the thing being launched exceed that of the size of Falcon Heavy's cargo hold, it still makes more financial sense to go that route. Send up two FHs for 1/5 the cost of an SLS, and get more weight into space in the process.

And then you need to design a crew carrier that not only can be easily split into two separate payloads (and recombine), but is also capable of and performs a LEO rendezvous before you can even think about going to the moon.

[Chino]

I think the SLS can carry 30k lbs or so more to LEO, and 10K lbs or so more to the moon than Falcon Heavy. Unless the dimensions of the thing being launched exceed that of the size of Falcon Heavy's cargo hold, it still makes more financial sense to go that route. Send up two FHs for 1/5 the cost of an SLS, and get more weight into space in the process.

And then you need to design a crew carrier that not only can be easily split into two separate payloads (and recombine), but is also capable of and performs a LEO rendezvous before you can even think about going to the moon.

And again though, Starship is well into development and will be able to carry anything the SLS can and then some.

That's certainly doable. The Apollo capsules did that separation and flip maneuver. I'm not saying it'd have been ideal, but it could have been achieved for less than what the SLS is going to cost (I'm thinking).
 

[XJDenton]

Starship has barely demonstrated it can get off the ground and land without blowing up. It has a long ways to go to demonstrate it can actually perform a direct lunar desecent/ascent with a crew. Don't get me wrong, SpaceX has achieved some incredible things but their experience in a lot of matters that will be crucial for Artemis is still lacking.

[El Barto]

I could be way off base here, but a couple of things occur to me. For one, I couldn't find anything but theoretical ideas about Falcon Heavy's or Starship's TLI payload capabilities. Elon doesn't seem to be focusing on getting to the moon, but rather Mars. The block 1B SLS is sporting a fairly robust 47T TIL payload. I suspect that, given their reported LEO capabilities that Starship would be comparable, but slightly less, if they were even trying such a thing.

Also, and here's where I may be way off, it looks to me like SpaceX is using a Earth Orbit Rendezvous approach. What I'm seeing involves multiple launches to refuel and resupply the rockets after launch. Project Artemis looks to be using the more familiar LOR approach, while also constructing a lunar gateway.

I'm not defending the stupidly expensive SLS system, or suggesting that we shouldn't be employing outside contractors for this. It just seems like Elon is doing something quite different from what NASA is doing.

Something else to consider. One thing we can be sure of is that people are going to die. Space exploration is risky business. While the underlying cause will almost certainly be the same, lax safety culture due to bureaucratic nonsense or corporate greed, one will likely be more palatable than the other. When NASA kills people we shake our heads and say "that was ridiculous. Don't do it again!" When SpaceX kills people, which I think is inevitable, I'm not sure how well they'll be able to weather the fallout.

[XJDenton]

I'd also argue the massive strides SpaceX can do have relied on rapid prototyping and a willingness to do risky launches under the rationale that even a rocket that blows up can teach them something. Which is good, in a way, but its an approach that won't fly with publicly funded entities, and DEFINITELY doesn't work for crewed space flight.

[El Barto]

I'd also argue the massive strides SpaceX can do have relied on rapid prototyping and a willingness to do risky launches under the rationale that even a rocket that blows up can teach them something. Which is good, in a way, but its an approach that won't fly with publicly funded entities, and DEFINITELY doesn't work for crewed space flight.

There's certainly a place for that. The trick is to use that approach early on and only move to crewed launches when you've mastered what you're trying to do. This was Korelev's approach and they were very successful with it. And in the end they wound up killing fewer astronauts than we did. At the same time there are so few examples it's hard to tell which approach actually works better. It got them quite a few firsts, but it also cost them the moon race when they kept blowing up N1s. 

[cramx3]

I'm not entirely sure the public should be too mad about deaths regarding crewed launches to the moon or beyond.  I feel like it's expected and everyone involved knows the risks.  Not trying to say we shouldn't care or do what's necessary to protect people, but deaths from unexpected mistakes or unknowns seems like a given to me. I don't think I'd react differently to a spacex disaster compared to a nasa disaster. 

[El Barto]

I'm not entirely sure the public should be too mad about deaths regarding crewed launches to the moon or beyond.  I feel like it's expected and everyone involved knows the risks.  Not trying to say we shouldn't care or do what's necessary to protect people, but deaths from unexpected mistakes or unknowns seems like a given to me. I don't think I'd react differently to a spacex disaster compared to a nasa disaster.

Seldom are they unexpected mistakes or unknowns, though. There are almost always reasons to be pissed off about them because by and large they should have been prevented. The only one I can think of that really came out of the blue is going to be the crew of Soyuz 11, and while I'm not an expert, that would still most likely be a result of cutting corners somewhere. NASA doesn't screw things up by being cheap. It screws things up with arrogance and complacency. Space X stands a decent chance of screwing up by being careless. NASA can't fail. Space X can.

[cramx3]

I'm not entirely sure the public should be too mad about deaths regarding crewed launches to the moon or beyond.  I feel like it's expected and everyone involved knows the risks.  Not trying to say we shouldn't care or do what's necessary to protect people, but deaths from unexpected mistakes or unknowns seems like a given to me. I don't think I'd react differently to a spacex disaster compared to a nasa disaster.

Seldom are they unexpected mistakes or unknowns, though. There are almost always reasons to be pissed off about them because by and large they should have been prevented. The only one I can think of that really came out of the blue is going to be the crew of Soyuz 11, and while I'm not an expert, that would still most likely be a result of cutting corners somewhere. NASA doesn't screw things up by being cheap. It screws things up with arrogance and complacency. Space X stands a decent chance of screwing up by being careless. NASA can't fail. Space X can.

When doing something new, it's almost guaranteed there will be unseen mistakes and/or unknown.  These things may often be very easy to notice in review of what happened, but not always so obvious going in.  Going to the moon isn't really new though.  I'd imagine deaths from missions to the moon would be more maddening, but the more ambitious goals are almost certainly going to lead to deaths.  At the end of the day, it's people doing this and people make mistakes.  It's inevitable IMO.