Of course, it is not a perfect analogy, since the two experiments are not replicas. They try to address the same physics cases, but they were designed, built and are operated in a completely independent way.
It should, if working as intended, be able to observe anything in the sky, and get the most detailed pictures ever seen of them. In wavelengths not seen before.
Without doing the math, there are probably billions of interesting things to point it at, most of which it will never get around to.
That's just not true. JWST is primarily infrared, with some limited ability to observe in visible light (essentially half of the spectrum, no blue or green). It has no capability in ultraviolet, x-rays, gamma-rays, microwaves or radio.
You just can't build a single instrument to "observe anything".
JWST can't do what Hubble can for the most part, and Hubble can't do what JWST will do.
WMAP, Spektr (Russian), Chandra and many other missions all do different things and help us answer different questions with very little overlap.
I understand it observes a different frequency range than Hubble, but it can still "observe anything in the sky, and get the most detailed pictures ever seen of them".
That's my point: it cannot!
Not all objects are visible at all wavelengths. Some extremely old and far-away objects are not emitting anything in the shortest wavelengths because of red-shifting, and you need infrared capabilities to see them (hence JWST).
Dust clouds are also blocking certain frequencies of light from reaching us, so you need instrument detecting certain frequencies to see through them. But if you want to study dust clouds, well you obviously need a different instrument that will not see through them.
If you care about observing very energetic objects like neutron star, you need x-ray capabilities.
If you care about studying atmosphere of exoplanet your best bet is UV light, and this is why NASA is working on LUVOIR.
It's like saying you can observe anything with an iPhone camera. You can't, if you care about imaging a brain tumor or a broken bone, you need x-ray, your iPhone just won't see through the skin. And if you care about taking a picture of the skin, you can't do that in x-ray.
> That's my point: it cannot! > > Not all objects are visible at all wavelengths.
A JWST observation showing nothing is new science. Now we know that object emits no light at those wavelengths even when observed by the most sensitive instrument!
But of course those are exceptions. Most things we point JWST to will be seen in greater detail than ever before, and also in frequencies not seen before.
> If you care about observing very energetic objects like neutron star, you need x-ray capabilities. > > If you care about studying atmosphere of exoplanet your best bet is UV light, and this is why NASA is working on LUVOIR.
This feels like deliberate misunderstandings (conscious or not) of my points. I don't think we can get any further in this discussion.
I'm astonished. I don't think we remotely know enough about the universe to draw such conclusions.
I have never suggested that no. What I am suggesting, is that if you asked the astronomy community wether they want to spend 3-5B$ into getting an exact copy of the JWST, or spend those 3-5B$ into a different telescope, with capabilities complimentary with the JWST, you would get an absolute overwhelming majority voting for the latter.
We are still going to invest in future IR telescopes, but they won't be exact copy of JWST, they will either be complementary (see the future Roman space telescope) or will just be based on newer technologies and be more powerful.
There is simply little value in getting twice the same instrument for that price tag.
Why didn't we build another Hubble? The US build 18 of those for reconnaissance purpose but a single one for astronomy. Because the astronomy community never chose to spend their budget on that, instead they chose 4 new telescopes, with 4 different capabilities, all different from Hubble. That's where JWST comes from. They could have asked for 4 JWSTs instead, but they didn't because that would be terribly pointless.
You don't need two telescopes to do that, you just need one with a specific set of IR capabilities.
Sure, having twice the imaging power is better, but it's definitely far from doubling the benefits. The lifetime of the JWST is expected to be 10+ years, that's a lot of data that will come to us already, and everything the astronomer community deems important will have time on the telescope.
Just like we only needed 1 LHC to confirm the existence of the Higgs boson and the robustness of the standard model. Building two of those would have been a massive waste of money, it was much better to build one, run experiments, assess the results and then use the money that was saved by building a single one to build new tools with new capabilities to answer the new questions.
Of course the reality of government budgeting is a little bit more complicated than my rosy picture but the point stands.