One of man's greatest achievements

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

I'd grow some castor beans in your back yard and then feed them to you after a bit of processing.

You two are f****ng idiots.

whit3rd snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

You just went miles over the Larkin idiot's head.

snipped-for-privacy@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Though you seem to always be trying and acting as if you are looking out for someone, when you have done nothing to feed 1.5 billion daily starving masses either, f*****ad.

Your grasp of why science even exists is out the window decades ago. Because you were counting beans instead.

You are no science and I would love to get the Gov boys to buy elsewehere and then your lame ass would also be no money.

Separate the retard from the money, in your case, putz.

Rick C snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

You forgot the huge acellerator in Texas that we were at 85% on the build of when we killed it. It would have been the biggest at that time, but CERN puts everything to shame now.

Where is Johnny Larkin at with his pissing and moaning about CERN and the LHC cost? Or making his lame standard claim that nothing is gained?

Whatsa matta, Johnny, did you not get a contract years ago and have a hatred for NASA now for decades? There has to be a reason, and none of the s*it you've spewed over the years lines up with reality.

I think you went senile two decades ago.

Don't be a jerk. You can find that the total time for the project was circa 20 years, but very little of that time is 'late' duration. You can also find a projected budget by each of several successive administrations, over a couple of decades, and claim the total budget (going forward a few years) to be something that does not match those estimates.

Or you can google a catchphrase that only pulls up critics, few of whom are well-informed, but they're all mouthy.

Nah; you can't find accuracy in such a search, you need to have an accountant look over 'the books'. And as for being 'conservative'? In what sense? Trying to evaluate cost-and-benefits is what a conservative assessment would do; he never considered benefits, and has only a ballpark idea on costs. Does he think all telescope instruments are alike? It seems so.

It's not like they were building a device that had never been built before or was capable of looking backwards in time or anything. Jeez, why didn't they just pick up one at Harbor Freight? I think they are currently giving away Hubble telescopes just for walking in the door.

Don't get in a jerk fight.

JWST is definitely late and over budget. The claims of utility are dubious.

Who cares if it can look back to the big bang. The CMB already does that.

Who cares if it can look to the edge of the Universe? The expansion of space is moving objects faster than the speed of light. Nothing can see beyond that.

No need to have an accountant look at the books. There is more than sufficient evidence from qualified observers to show the trend. We are not astronomers. We do not need 6-digit accuracy. Just get the trend and move on with our lives.

NASA was famous for satellites that explored the planets and some comets.

However, it has lost much of its reputation on Artemis and has become a laughing stock. It is merely a jobs program for Aerojet Rocketdyne, Boeing, Jacobs, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman. It is far outclassed by SpaceX.

We lost a great deal when Arecibo went down. How about funneling a small amount from Artemis to rebuilding Arecibo?

If JWST ever detects life on other planets, Aricebo will be needed to communicate with them. If, by chance, they use radio technology.

Rick C snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Yeah, but they are really just Harbor Freight in-house knock-offs.

One might hope that the JWST brings some order to cosmology, because in its current form, it's little better than Genesis.

Jeroen Belleman

We are talking about the answer to the great question if life, the universe and everything. Do you really expect science to be able to answer that any better than the great works of fiction?

I bet if you look hard enough, you will fine the fundamental message of the Bible is 42.

Rick C snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

"if life"? "You will fine"?

OK... Fine...

The answer to everything, not just the Bible... is 42.

Or is it 3 4 7 ?

Since it hasn't looked at anything yet, no such claim could be anything but dubious at the moment.

Not in the same way. Te Cosmic Microwave Bankground consists of rather lower frequency radiation that the James Webb telescope is designed to look at, and consequently offers rather less spatial resolution.

Getting close to it effectively means that we are looking at the very early universe. The big bang theory embodies the proposition that there wasn't anything to see before that.

You clearly don't know anything about astronomy. Getting on with your life involves staying just as ignorant as you are now, which isn't ambitious. Wanting the rest of the world to share your complacent ignorance, so that taxpayers money only gets spent on projects that you find interesting is an understandable desirem but a little parochial.

Artemis was endorsed by Donald Trump. Dumbing it down until he could like it can't have helped.

They probably won't, Higher frequencies allow more precisely aimed transmitters and receivers.

A big and rather imprecisely shaped antenna isn't going to be all that attractive.

Or big movies. It would make more sense to complain about how much goes to Spiderman etc.

Of course there is the issue of public funding.

Eisenhower said, "Beware the military-industrial complex" and "Beware public funding of the academy."

Nobody remembers the latter, so we have corrupted science first in climate and now in medicine.

At least astronomy won't be corrupted until either we find ET's or when we start mining planets.

But this would be no different with telescopes on the ground.

Or so every last QAnon fan thinks. There's nothing remotely corrupt about climate science, or the fossil carbon extraction industry would have bought them up years ago, rather than wasting their money on the kind of half-witted propaganda that's barely up to persuading dim-wits like John Larkin and Tom Del Rosso.

Corruption in medicine isn't new, but we are now doing rather better at rooting it out.

Particularly for a clown like Tom Del Rosso.

Not a problem for Tom Del Rosso - there's no thinking going on in that head, merely the dim-witted repetition of right-wing propaganda of the dumber kind.

Other than inhabitants of the Universe, I can't imagine.

The expansion of

So, of no interest to us, inhabitants of the Universe, I guess.

Those are infamous words! You should be writing scripts for the Donald; submit a resume NOW, before he's convicted.

Without public funding, Tetra-ethyl lead, and asbestos would still be safe and smoking, homeopathy, and radium water would be good for you. Life would be so much better - oh wait that's not how science works.

Ignorance is (also) no protection under the laws of nature.

Didn't I read somewhere that SpaceX is gearing up to take a close look at asteroid 16 Psyche? Now what could possibly be their motive?

Jeroen Belleman

The USA still allows the widespread use of leaded aviation gasoline which contains tetra-ethyl lead.

John

Heh, heh,... heh, heh, heh, heh, he said homeopathy!