Would it have made sense to deploy a "sacrificial lamb" (mocked up mirrors with damage measurement mechanism) to the chosen lagrange point, in order to ascertain the extent of actual damage likely to occur, prior to continuing to develop/deploy JWST as planned?

I am underwhelmed by the photos. Presumably there will be significant scientific benefit beyond galaxy porn?

> Would it have made sense to deploy a "sacrificial lamb" (mocked up mirrors with damage measurement mechanism) to the chosen lagrange point

Probably not. Getting there is _hard_ and expensive all on its own.

> I am underwhelmed by the photos.

That's unfortunate for you. I have a hard time imagining the frame of mind where that'd be possible.

> Presumably there will be significant scientific benefit beyond galaxy porn?

Yes, there is benefit beyond the pictures being pretty. The galaxies we're seeing are older and more detailed than ever before and contain a bunch of new data to work out models of the universe.

> That's unfortunate for you. I have a hard time imagining the frame of mind where that'd be possible.

Having experienced the novelty of life (including the awe of Hubble deeep field images as a younger adult), I can understand your frame of mind where it's difficult to imagine the frame of mind needed to be underwhelmed.

> benefit

Makes sense. The idea of working out models of the universe is exciting.

I also expected something like 480p -> 4k difference, but it is more like hd -> fullhd. Of course it has larger spectrum and people who fund the mission wouldn’t spend billions to make a little difference, but it isn’t overwhelming either at the first glance. Pretty sure many technically innocent people have the same thought in mind.

From what I've read, the improved resolution isn't what's important. It's the ability to use the deep infrared to see so much farther into the past.

Warning: This site [apparently] hijacks the browser back button (on chrome mobile if not all browsers).

Archive link: https://archive.ph/HfroG