News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:James Webb is fully deployed by Server6 on Saturday January 08, 2022 @03:34PM (#29855890)
Why would we need two? I would think the next one 20+ years from now would hopefully be exponentially better.
Re:James Webb is fully deployed by alimov on Saturday January 08, 2022 @03:37PM (#29855925)
So that more researchers have access. Afaik access is shared and researchers have to make a proposal and get it approved before use, which to me suggests some kind of queue
Re:James Webb is fully deployed by mrtnmcc on Saturday January 08, 2022 @04:03PM (#29856226)
Queueing researchers should be fine given the universe will be around for a while.
Re:James Webb is fully deployed by mendigou on Saturday January 08, 2022 @04:40PM (#29856600)
Next time you have to wait for your code to compile we'll say "should be fine, computers will be around for a while".
Re:James Webb is fully deployed by ajuc on Saturday January 08, 2022 @04:11PM (#29856329)
In 10 years we can send a bigger, simpler, cheaper, one-piece, non-foldable telescope in Starship for a fraction of the cost. The biggest saving wouldn't even be the launch costs - it would be the simple design allowed by relaxing the volume and mass constraints.
Re:James Webb is fully deployed by wolverine876 on Saturday January 08, 2022 @04:28PM (#29856483)
If only most of the cost was folding it (and if only Elon Musk's solutions somehow changed all the problems to fit them).
Re:James Webb is fully deployed by BurningFrog on Saturday January 08, 2022 @04:06PM (#29856260)
To get twice the science done, of course.
Re:James Webb is fully deployed by bokchoi on Saturday January 08, 2022 @03:40PM (#29855965)
Redundancy would be good reason.