James Webb Space Telescope: An Antiscience Tragedy Unfolding

"The James Webb Space Telescope is not needed (Despite the consensus of the scientific community.)"

Exactly right. The Keck II: "... first laser guide star adaptive optics system on a large telescope. The laser guide star AO now routinely produces images with greater crispness and detail than those resulting from the Hubble Space Telescope."

Nobody in the science community want to lose their jobs (just like everyone else), so their opinions are more than a little biased. I think even you can understand that.

"We gained nothing useful from Hubble."

I said nothing of the kind. You just proved my point of how screwed up your logic is. Scientific discovery is not going to stop just because of one less telescope. It's about making hard (and logical) choices. I suppose you would have us spend the 3 billion there and take it away from prison management. How many thousand murderers and rapists would they let go for that money? Which choice will give this nation the better future?

Nice!

Said much the same thing in my response before reading down farther and seeing yours. GA indeed.

Here's a new idea to the thread:

The JWST is not the best example of "antiscience" in our government. It is a good example of the problems our government agencies have with project management. (Remember the Bradley fighting vehicle? Movies were made about that one!) Problems, I believe come from learned behaviors. For decades projects have been sold to US gov't agencies (probably in other countries as well) at deflated prices to get funding started. Once government funding starts via some legislation and a constituency develops, it's nearly impossible to stop. Government contractors and agencies know this and behave accordingly. It did not start with this administration and is not a Dem or Rep trait.

That being said, there is a place for open ended scientific endeavors. Lots of useful technologies have come from NASA (or other gov't funded science), not as the intended goal of a specific project, but from meeting the requirements of the end goal. We don't know what useful things will come from seemingly wasteful spending on science, but we never will if we don't do the science because it does not immediately gratify the political needs of today.

I am not for unlimited, open ended funding for anything. We can't afford that. But we do need some source of funding for pure exploration of science that does not have perceived immediate commercial (read that as a reference to free market forces conservatives love to say will fix everything) rewards. An annual budget for science, without strings from congress, at some level is needed. Then let the agencies work within that budget. If they run out this year, tough. That's mismanagement. But stop letting people with a 6 month (election to next campaign) time frame control the science agenda.

The anti-science attitude I worry about is the belief that we as a country and a world don't need that non-commercial science. The belief that if it does not improve my existence right now (get me re-elected, makes it look like we doing something about the debt, make me more wealthy, improve my comfort, make my neighbor jealous...) it's not worth doing, that's anti science. That is the slippery slope the debate over NASA/JWST is pointing at.

When launching such telescopes one must be vigalant in design the optics are at klon rates of 184129.0 and osio at 4381.91497 who is going to inspect that however it can be at the traspond sequence of 18591.3.GOOD LUCK..

To whom it applies one can be. M.L.D..

Have a look at this opinion piece discussing the value of the space shuttle

"The selection in 1972 of an ambitious and technologically challenging shuttle design resulted in the most complex machine ever built. Rather than lowering the costs of access to space and making it routine, the space shuttle turned out to be an experimental vehicle with multiple inherent risks, requiring extreme care and high costs to operate safely. Other, simpler designs were considered in 1971 in the run-up to President Nixon's final decision; in retrospect, taking a more evolutionary approach by developing one of them instead would probably have been a better choice."

This would seem to support the view expressed by more than one poster that

many government science projects end up de/evolving into the newest technology, not most effective for whatever the task may be....

So the conclusion among the majority of the posters here seems to be that a cut that saves around 1-2 billion dollars but sets back Astrophysics a decade or two is a perfectly reasonable way to close a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit and pay off a 14 trillion dollar debt. Yet at the same time it is absolutely absurd of me to suggest that there is an undercurrent of Anti-science in this country.

Seems incongruent. But as the silent majority is sitting this one out I guess vocal majority rules. So "classy" that silent majority.

Geez you called me a drama queen

pointing out deficiencies in management is not anti-science

if you want us to critique other departments, why not start a thread or seven highlighting some of the more blatant examples that you find especially heinous...

Are you willfully ignoring responses #24 & #26?

Yes he is and 29 too. He ignores people that he can't outargue to make himself look like he is winning. That's what really matters to him the most.

Roger, your comments about the rich may be right, but we both know that they are not going to pay their fair share, and those posts are off topic. Call it anti-smartness or ant-logic or anti-american, but it's not anti-science. It time for you to admit it. Why not start a topic about taxation if that's what you think the problem is?

Do I think inequity of wealth is a problem? Yes. Do I believe there is an anti-science sentiment in this country? Yes. Are they in my mind separate issues? Yes. Seeing as Science is closer to my heart, and this is an Engineering Forum, I think I'll stick to pointing out the Anti-Science.

You Wrote:"Yes he is and 29 too. He ignores people that he can't outargue to make himself look like he is winning. That's what really matters to him the most."

By the way, exquisite Ad Hominem attack.

"By the way, exquisite Ad Hominem attack. "

That looked like a compliment (which was a surprise) until I looked up Ad Hominem. Anyway this has been the most civil of any 'debate' we have had, so I want to compliment you on your anger management.

For the record, I would like the very rich to pay more taxes, and would like the James Webb Space Telescope to be deployed. The Warren Buffet link was interesting. Now that I am in a time of my life to be selling some stocks, they will probably change it "to be fair" just like when I got married, they raised the tax rates for married people and gave a break to single people.

If I'm being 100% honest, I don't care if they run the economy into the ground and institute a flat tax, I just want that space telescope. It's just too damned important. Much much more important than the average non-scientists understand. Let me put it this way. I could care less that we just had our last space shuttle mission and I would agree to no probes to anywhere else in our solar system for 20 years, as long as they don't cut these space telescopes. These space telescopes are to astrophysics what the LHC will be to particle physics when it's fully running.

And if you guys don't think I'm mad as hell at my fellow scientists, who I too often find dithering apologetic cowards for not saving this no matter the cost, just as they failed to save the SSC, then you guys don't get me at all. Most scientists know how important this is, but god forbid we should actually fight for it (or anything). I'm sick of science's policy of appeasement and attrition on everything.

http://www.wimp.com/goingspace/

Carl Sagan will now remind you what we get by going to space....

Based on the video in last link in the OP:

If I had no real idea of 'science', but some idea of the costs fixing Hubble, I'd can the Webb project day-one.

The other 'giant blunder' is comparing the science/space/whatever budgets with "military budgets". This asks politicians and the general populace to "choose" between National Security and "Science" - not hard to guess which way that will go in the "Age of Terrorism".

'Military budgets' are massive funders of "useful science" and "useful space". Attacking/competing, with this, denies the lobby 'useful' spin-off arguments, of which there are zillions.

"Science" would be better off arguing 'jobs' come out of science and this project is a huge creator of jobs.

Right now - if these "awesome" folk can get the "snowballs-chance-in-hell" right, you don't even get see the Aliens/coming.

Add to that NASA seems to be selling "Romance", and again, asking people to "choose" - science budget cuts are hardly surprising. E.g. The instant defeat 'vote' on diverting NASA's ^{_{(military/intelligence)}} funding to Webb.

So hardly Anti-science, more like Shoot-themselves-in-the-foot-Scientists

why not some vague connection between JWST & national security

Keep space safe from terrorists!

worked for weapons of mass destruction

Why not a tweak here and there, so it can be used as a death-ray?

that's the ticket

tracking system for star wars stuff

I was thinking 'solar furnace', so 'direct intervention'.

But I guess I should have looked up if L2 is in Earths umbra, not just assumed it wouldn't because I'm assuming the thing is solar powered.

this all fits in with

roger's people are stupid line of thought

we need NASA guys on FOX news ranting about national security endlessly

making stuff up

the budget would be infinite